What is the election about?
National Politics Comments (2)
While poking around on the Internet tonight, I came across one of Ronald Reagan’s speeches from 1974 over at Townhall.com. One section in particular stuck out at me:
We are not a warlike people. Nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, which might come as a shock to some of the placard painters in our modern demonstrations. The lesson of Vietnam, I think, should be that never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we, as a nation, pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible.
I realize that such a pronouncement, of course, would possibly be laying one open to the charge of warmongering — but that would also be ridiculous. My generation has paid a higher price and has fought harder for freedom that any generation that had ever lived. We have known four wars in a single lifetime. All were horrible, all could have been avoided if at a particular moment in time we had made it plain that we subscribed to the words of John Stuart Mill when he said that “war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.”
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war is worse. The man who has nothing which he cares about more than his personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
We are now engaged in a war against terrorism. The questions which now lay before us as a people, as a nation, are these:
- Is living with the shadow of terrorism over our heads something uglier than war?
- Is it worth giving up our place in the world in order to avoid the threat of terrorism?
- Is the War on Terror a war that should be fought only with words and ideas, or must bullets and bombs be utilized as well?
- Are we, as a nation, willing to devote the fullness of our resources to winning this war, no matter the form it takes?
For me, living under the shadow of terrorism is uglier than war and surrendering America’s place in the world in exchange for safety from terrorism is tantamount to inviting further attacks. In order to eradicate terrorists, and yes, those who support them, words and ideas have their place, but when the Usama bin Ladens and Saddam Husseins of the world refuse to listen to words and ideas then bombs and bullets must be used as well. In furtherance thereof our nation should be willing to devote the fullness of its resources to winning the war in which we now find ourselves engaged.
There are those who feel differently. This election will be to determine the future course of the war. John Kerry would exchange our national peace and security for high sounding words and United Nations control; he demands international support for our national actions and seems to be willing to delay or deny necessary action if that support is missing. George W. Bush offers us both words and actions tied to our own national peace and security. While he seeks after international support for our national policies, he does not demand that other nations approve or agree with our policies, and is not paralyzed by their lack of approval.
Which is it? Will you trade the promotion of our own national policies for feeling good about the French, Spanish, and Germans approving our national policies? Or, are you willing to devote our national resources to winning this war against terrorism as quickly and as decisively as possible?
MickC @ April 20, 2004