Dean's World

We said we would never forget 9/11. We took a solemn vow over the bodies of our murdered countrymen. It’s been 5 years. Osama bin Laden is still around, still alive, still making videos. I want bin Laden dead. The Republican Party hasn’t delivered. Perhaps the Democrats will...

After 9/11 President Bush has led the charge to take the fight to the terrorists. While Iraq may have been a misstep (as seen by some) it has opened up a second front in the war. Rather than fighting terrorists on our East Coast we are engaging and killing them in the deserts of that country. The stock market is at all-time highs. National unemployment is at all-time lows. Home ownership is high. "No Child Left Behind" makes schools accountable for results. International phone tapping ensures (or, ensured) that enemies cannot coordinate plans with sympathizers on American soil. Working with international banks President Bush led the way to disrupt terrorists' money resources abroad. President Bush's tax cuts has kept money in the pocket of the American citizen which have allowed these economic tends to grow. The Republican Party, along with the President, has stood against embryonic stem cell research while encouraging adult and cord blood research. It's for these reasons and more I will be voting Republican in November.

I recognized that I was a conservative during high school, when in support of a paper I was writing on Solzhenitsyn in a senior-year comparative literature class my ethnic-Polish teacher gave me a stack of American Spectator magazines, one of which included an article on Solzhenitsyn by Malcolm Muggeridge.

The entire gestalt of it just spoke sense to me. Was it a reaction to the tepid, petrified left-wing Jewish labor socialism of my extended family? The anger of a first-generation American (on one side) at a society that seemed (remember, I grew up in the '60's) so inexcusably and utterly unwilling to defend itself against what anyone could see was subversion? "Common sense," as a Princeton friend, later dropout and current Washington operator would later describe it when recruiting me for some Reagan-era campus political / social suicide mission? Maybe it was just the natural inclination of one identified as depressingly adultoid from an absurdly young age and whose picture can be found at the Wikipedia entry for "stick in the mud." I don't really know, but I do remember that when I told my college roommate that I had, upon my return from an Israel program for Jewish searchers, become committed to religious observance, he said, "Well, now at least your religious ethic matches your political one" (or words to that effect).

Be that as it may, it is truth to me, even though politics, and most politicians, turn my stomach. I mean, there is some ethic in there, isn't there?

But at the end of the day, these Democrats are the ones who so undermined the world I remember growing up in, and they continue to do so today. They are not even in the league, for patriotism and love of country and decency, of the Democratic politicians of my early youth — Lyndon Johnson, Roberty Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey. With McGovern, that ended.

Jimmy Carter sealed the deal. He made being an American embarrassing, humiliating, depressing, hopeless. Wimpy. Apologetic. Cringing. Losing.

I don't believe any of today's Democratic leaders have improved on Jimmy Carter, except that he had the benefit of not having to kowtow, as today's Democrats do, so grossly to identity politics of every right- and- privilege- demanding ethnic and social subcultural group, no matter how subversive; to the hard-left on abortion rights; and he was allowed to be some kind of public Christian.

I wish there were Republicans today who had a quarter of the qualities of Ronald Reagan. Here was a great man, one who never claimed for himself the mantle of a perfect or even particularly virtuous personal life; but he loved his country, knew right from wrong, and — exercising a quality that I admire for the very scold it places on one such as myself — his ability, now proved doubly and triply, to make everyone around him think he was a dumbbell when in fact he was sly as a fox.

Frankly I think George W. Bush comes quite close to these qualities. But, sadly lacking the Gipper's ability to communicate and being the literal heir to a political tradition of some ideological infirmity to a conservative — think Jim Baker, the man who made me vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 — he is not Reagan.

Nor are the dizzy denizens of the Capitol statesmen, by and large. Were they ever? The past takes on an undeserved elegance in sepia. The crassness of living, live and unsilenceable color makes today's professional political class seemingly harder to swallow than its predecessors — red or blue.

But every time I step into the booth I ask myself, If this candidate could choose Ronald Reagan* or Jimmy Carter to make the keynote speech at his or her party's nominating convention, which one would he or she choose?

The choice is simple.

(appy-polly-logy to those with dialup)

I see posts about our democracy and voting by Aziz P, Dave Schuler, Scott Kirwin, and Ron Coleman and I'm filled with admiration and jealously. I admire there passion regarding our two party system and voting. I'm jealous because I lack that passion. To me, voting for Democrats and/or Republicans is a farce. All I see are folks throwing rhetorical "goodies" at me so I'll get my brown behind up and vote for them at the polls. Afterwards, it's back to the normality of nothing politics: backbiting, fussing, twisting, spinning, and blabbing. And I'm not proud of how I feel.

I used to have voting passion. When your a black child growing up, you are constantly hit with "black folks died for the right to vote so you owe them" from family. And it works, friends. I was a stone cold believer of the power of the vote. Even though I came from a family of hardcore, active Democrats, I was always encouraged to vote how I feel no matter what the party. I've voted Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Green. I believed! Now I don't and I know what caused it: 9/11.

9/11 made me more patriotic. 9/11 made me believe in Americans more. 9/11 made me realize how we are perceieved internationally. 9/11 made me hate American politics. I watched how Democratic and Republican politicians forgot about "we the people" and concentrate on partisan points. Soon after the supposed solidarity on the 9/11 response, the Hatfields and McCoys Part Infinite started again. It's like Democrats and Republicans have a lust to humiliate and crush each other. I just can't get on-board anymore. These local races in Michigan are such a turn-off for me that I have to turn the channel immediately during a campaign commercial or risk hurling venom at the television screen.

There's no place on the ballot for me. I can't vote "none of the above" and have it counted to express my displeasure. I either have to not vote or vote while hating it intensely. Both options upset me because I want to be counted. But I don't want to be counted while lying.

I support strong public schools, welfare, gay rights and the legalization of marijuana. I should be a Democrat. For most of my life, although I've always been registered as an Independent, I voted for Dems. I used Dave's method of reasonably evaluating candidates and picked Democrats every time. Voting was easy.

There was one catch - I also support military and self defense. Before 9/11, that wasn't much of an issue. Afterwards, it was. In 2002, I wrote this post, explaining to my daughter how I could have broken with family tradition and all that we held holy by voting for one Republican.

I continued to vote for Republicans because most didn't treat the other party as 'the enemy'. They appeared to be looking for the quickest path out of the mess we found ourselves in and they appeared to be as level-headed as Rudy was.

That was then, this is now. There is only one Rudy Giuliani, and I'll vote for him in 2008 whether he runs or not, but since we're talking about this election...

Iraq was not the quickest path out the mess we found ourselves in. The quickest path would have been to acknowledge that our wealthy and generous Gulf allies are supporting terrorism; as supporters of terrorism they are our enemies. But, since our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are addicted to their habit of feeding at the bountiful Gulf oil trough, most politicians will never acknowledge that.

Their fellow hogs in the media and academia won't either.

As things stand now, it's unlikely that we will find a political or miltary means for fighting the worldwide terrorist infrastructure because many of our "allies" are a part that infrastructure. You can't fight a war if you're allied with your enemy.

So, like other centrists, I'm returning to my old habit of voting on social issues, for Democrats*. This may, inadvertently, be a good thing. About 99% of Americans believe that our reliance on oil, especially foreign oil, is a major problem. The Dems have a reputation of wanting to do something about this. They certainly have no intention of drying up their supply of Saudi cash, or of defending innocent lives that are currently threatened by petrodollar-supported terrorism. Instead, Democrats want to cater to the environmentalists and PETA loons in their midst. Whatever. They are, unintentionally, doing the right thing.

In this election, that's as good as it gets.

[* but I'm not voting for the corrupt Robert Menendez (D-NJ)]

I have from the beginning consciously sought intellectual diversity among Dean's World contributors.

Yes, I know that word "diversity" annoys some of you on the right, but get over it. When "diversity" is a code word for quotas and artificial numbers-balancing, it's bad. But when it's about the liberal tradition of hearing multiple voices and perspectives stated intelligently it's a good thing.

I have never told a contributor what to write about or what position to take, and I never will. I've occasionally invited or encouraged a contributor to write about something, but even then I've always respected it when they've said "nah, I'll pass."

I honestly believe that this sort of editorial policy--which frees up talented writers to write about whatever they are passionate about, at whatever length they choose--produces great results. At least, it produces great results when you make sure to bring on board people who can write a coherent declarative sentence and who know how to properly use a spell checker.

Dean's World contributors consistently wow me. Just take the recent spate of essays people posted on how they'll vote in next week's election. Did I ask them to do that? No. Did I tell them who they should support? No. They were required to do nothing but live by the usually-unspoken but constant rule: whatever position you take, stand ready to defend it.

Even if it's me you disagree with.

There's only one thing that would make me shudder with horror. I have nightmares that start like this: one day I open up Dean's World and find an article that says something like, "Issue of the Day: On the left, Ali Eteraz! On the right, Kevin Dombrowski!" [shudder, shudder, shudder]

Not that I'm picking on those two in particular because I'm not. In fact name any two Dean's World contributors and force them into that same ridiculous "On the left/On the right" bulls**t and it will be a sure sign that it's time to put Dean's World out to pasture. I may fall short in my best ideals semi-regularly, but that would be a complete and total failure in my eyes.

All that said, however, I find it fascinating that in the recent spate of "Who I'm voting for and why" postings, it came down roughly evenly: people supporting Democrats, people supporting Republicans, people supporting split-ticket voting, and people expressing apathy and frustration at the whole process.

Man, that's a beautiful thing so far as I'm concerned. That's what REAL intellectual diversity looks like.

Except of course for Dave Schuler, whom everbody knows is always wrong about everything.

Well, since everyone else is spilling their story I thought I may as well too.

It begins with Ronald Reagan. Ron Coleman summed up what is great about the man and I think what was greatest about Reagan was that he made it good again to be proud to be an American.

In the interested of full disclosure I never voted for the man. I wasn’t yet 2 years old in November 1980. I actually don’t remember anything about the guy. The first election I recall was Bush/Dukakis. For some reason I favored Dukakis but if you do the math you’ll realize I was young and dumb and didn’t know what I was thinking. Clinton/Bush I favored Bush because of the war. I remember praying when I was younger than I was at the time that I’d never see an American war within my lifetime. I just hoped my generation wouldn’t see it. But, Bush the Elder handled it well (or so I thought at the time) and I wanted to see four more years of him. Clinton got elected and I didn’t really care. Politics wasn’t my thing just yet anyway. Everyone has a favorite in a Presidential election and I just told you mine.

By this time I was entering high school and I really began to question my faith. Not so much thinking it was wrong but wondering why it was right. I didn’t grow up in an especially religious household. We didn’t go to church as much as we did. God wasn’t ever really talked about. My mother was the strongest in the faith but she didn’t push it on us or anything. I guess you could almost call us “culturally Christian.” I’m sure that label would work for many.

So, I started reading a lot of apologetics material as well as stuff about the End Times and demonology. You know; the average stuff any high school freshman would dig. I wanted to know why I believed what I did and possess a deeper understanding of it all. This religious exploration expanded into politics. Why hold religious convictions if you weren’t expecting to see them lived up to in the real world? While I didn’t, and never have, feel X, Y, and Z politician needed to be on the same page as I theologically I did feel we needed to agree on certain moral issues. I didn’t care how we both got to the same place just as long as we did.

Come the Monica Lewinski scandal I figured out not so much where I stood on most issues but why. And I realized these ideals were best embodied in President Reagan. I love this country and I know it to be the greatest force for good in the history of our planet. That legacy, for better or for worse, begins and ends at the office of the President. History remembers national leaders in moments of crisis and triumph. We can recite the accomplishments and failures of men such as Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln but rarely can we recall the actions of the Congress or other people of interest. These people’s accomplishments often get rolled into the President even if he did nothing more than sign a piece of paper.

What Clinton did, in my mind, tarnished his office. He had failed the ideal I felt he’s been elected to uphold. Yes, I know now that other President’s had committed similar indiscretions and perhaps the media can be partially blamed for speaking of it when they once would have looked past it, but this time it was public. And to makes matters worse he lied about it. Presidents withhold information from the public all the time, I know this. I even agree with it! But this lie wasn’t to protect the American people. It was the basest kind of lie. He lied to protect himself. This servant of the people thought of himself first and not the image of the nation he had been elected to embody.

I don’t care what he did or did not do about Osama bin Laden. Most Americans didn’t perceive that man as a threat and I seriously cannot see a Republican President doing much different. Had, 9/11 not occurred would any of us be talking about Osama bin Laden today? Maybe. But probably not most of us. An embassy bombing or what have you is “over there.” Most Americans simply wouldn’t give it a second thought. I honestly believe that history will look at the Clinton Presidency and judge it simply average. He didn’t do anything spectacularly good but neither did he do anything spectacularly bad. The smartest thing he did was let good trends continue and reap in all the credit for it.

But lying to the American people for petty reasons is something I just could not, and cannot, let go of. I still look at that office with childlike wonderment and I hope it never fades. To be chosen to lead the greatest nation in the world is something you do not treat lightly. Clinton, on the other hand, seems to see the office and the means to an end. Perhaps the end itself. It was about taking power and when the power was threatened his concern was about keeping the power. Not maintaining the prestige of the office itself.

I never knew Ronald Reagan. I was a kid when he was President. But you know what? I cried at his funeral. He was a man I wish I could be like someday. He was a man that continues to inspire me to believe in the idea of America and her divine purpose in creation. We can be a great people and we can be a blessing to the world. Indeed we have an obligation to be that blessing.

We are the land people traverse thousands of miles to get to. They come here not to take advantage of our wealth but to add to it. You don’t have to live within our borders to be American. You simply have to be willing to work for what you want and practice charity toward those who cannot. People like that can’t help but want to come here. And for those that cannot America will do her best to give the world the freedoms she enjoys.

I call myself a Reagan Republican because of what a man I never knew means to me. He was a man who knew he was who he was not by his own hand but by one Greater. He never forgot that he served the people and I firmly believe that he left office sore he couldn’t do more but eternally grateful he was allowed to do what he could.