Dick Schmidt
10-06-2004, 02:49 AM
This look from outside our borders is from the Toronto Star.
As the 2004 U.S. presidential election nears, there is no doubt the result will be crucial for America and the rest of the world.
George Bush deserves his second term. John Kerry deserves to be beaten -- and the more resoundingly he is beaten, the better it will be for American democracy.
Kerry is the poster-face of those Americans who drew the lesson from Vietnam that misuse of U.S. power is endemic because it serves an inherently exploitative capitalist economy.
Vietnam made these Americans -- predominantly liberal and influenced by the radical left -- turn their backs on the foreign policy shaped by Democratic presidents from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
This was the policy of marshalling America's resources to contain and defeat enemies of freedom.
In Vietnam, this policy ran into trouble. As difficulties mounted there, an increasing number of Americans and leadership of the Democratic party came to view this policy as not only politically misguided, but also morally reprehensible.
Democrats became isolationists and defenders of accommodating the expanding Soviet communist empire by making a virtue of detente, conceived initially as an aspect of containment.
For the more chic lib-left intellectuals, American defeat (as in Vietnam) became a required cure for reforming American society.
In pushing the limits of critical dissent, post-Vietnam Democrats flirted with treason by consorting with freedom's enemy.
While historians debated whether America withdrew or was defeated, Democrats took the Vietnam experience to mean America must not get involved abroad -- whatever the cause.
The defeatist slogan of "bringing America home" formed the theme of George McGovern's Democratic bid for the presidency in 1972 against Richard Nixon. McGovern lost, but defeatism persisted in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
American isolationism and defeatism are two faces of the same coin.
In the aftermath of WW I, American isolationism was promoted by Republicans and the consequences were devastating. They learned, and then stood firm in containing Soviet communism.
Defeatism is purposefully stoking doubts about America's capacity and resolve to defeat the enemy when engaged in war. This is what Kerry has been doing -- demagogically magnifying difficulties in Iraq to undermine U.S. resolve to help secure Iraq's future and crush its enemies, who are also enemies of freedom, decency and civilization in the post-Cold War world.
The 2004 election is taking place in the midst of a global war against Islamist terrorism.
Sixty years ago, another presidential election took place with America at war. In 1944, the Republican candidate was Thomas Dewey, governor of New York, going against President Franklin Roosevelt seeking an historic fourth term.
It would have been a monstrosity for Dewey to imagine campaigning for the presidency by blaming Roosevelt for Allied losses.
But this is the shame of Kerry's campaign in 2004 -- his defeatism feeds the delusions of Muslim fascists.
Kerry scorns the courage of Iraqis and their interim leader Ayad Allawi as they fight the dregs of the Arab-Muslim world in their country. Displaying pettiness, he characterizes support for freedom's struggle as depriving Americans of resources domestically.
His thinking and political career remain inseparably connected with Vietnam.
Defeatism in Vietnam resulted in appalling tragedy for millions in the region. Defeatism now will mean Vietnam revisited on Iraq and the Middle East.
Hence Kerry's defeat has become, ironically, essential for America to decisively turn the page on its Vietnam experience, which has stained the nation's politics over the past three decades.
As the 2004 U.S. presidential election nears, there is no doubt the result will be crucial for America and the rest of the world.
George Bush deserves his second term. John Kerry deserves to be beaten -- and the more resoundingly he is beaten, the better it will be for American democracy.
Kerry is the poster-face of those Americans who drew the lesson from Vietnam that misuse of U.S. power is endemic because it serves an inherently exploitative capitalist economy.
Vietnam made these Americans -- predominantly liberal and influenced by the radical left -- turn their backs on the foreign policy shaped by Democratic presidents from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
This was the policy of marshalling America's resources to contain and defeat enemies of freedom.
In Vietnam, this policy ran into trouble. As difficulties mounted there, an increasing number of Americans and leadership of the Democratic party came to view this policy as not only politically misguided, but also morally reprehensible.
Democrats became isolationists and defenders of accommodating the expanding Soviet communist empire by making a virtue of detente, conceived initially as an aspect of containment.
For the more chic lib-left intellectuals, American defeat (as in Vietnam) became a required cure for reforming American society.
In pushing the limits of critical dissent, post-Vietnam Democrats flirted with treason by consorting with freedom's enemy.
While historians debated whether America withdrew or was defeated, Democrats took the Vietnam experience to mean America must not get involved abroad -- whatever the cause.
The defeatist slogan of "bringing America home" formed the theme of George McGovern's Democratic bid for the presidency in 1972 against Richard Nixon. McGovern lost, but defeatism persisted in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
American isolationism and defeatism are two faces of the same coin.
In the aftermath of WW I, American isolationism was promoted by Republicans and the consequences were devastating. They learned, and then stood firm in containing Soviet communism.
Defeatism is purposefully stoking doubts about America's capacity and resolve to defeat the enemy when engaged in war. This is what Kerry has been doing -- demagogically magnifying difficulties in Iraq to undermine U.S. resolve to help secure Iraq's future and crush its enemies, who are also enemies of freedom, decency and civilization in the post-Cold War world.
The 2004 election is taking place in the midst of a global war against Islamist terrorism.
Sixty years ago, another presidential election took place with America at war. In 1944, the Republican candidate was Thomas Dewey, governor of New York, going against President Franklin Roosevelt seeking an historic fourth term.
It would have been a monstrosity for Dewey to imagine campaigning for the presidency by blaming Roosevelt for Allied losses.
But this is the shame of Kerry's campaign in 2004 -- his defeatism feeds the delusions of Muslim fascists.
Kerry scorns the courage of Iraqis and their interim leader Ayad Allawi as they fight the dregs of the Arab-Muslim world in their country. Displaying pettiness, he characterizes support for freedom's struggle as depriving Americans of resources domestically.
His thinking and political career remain inseparably connected with Vietnam.
Defeatism in Vietnam resulted in appalling tragedy for millions in the region. Defeatism now will mean Vietnam revisited on Iraq and the Middle East.
Hence Kerry's defeat has become, ironically, essential for America to decisively turn the page on its Vietnam experience, which has stained the nation's politics over the past three decades.