|
Kerry's "conservative style"?
by Rod Van Mechelen
Conservative American Indian Republicans—ConservativeAIR.com™
Posted November 2, 2004 5:00AM PST
Indian Country Today's endorsement of John Kerry is an embarrassment
It was no surprise when Indian Country Today endorsed John Kerry. Despite a terrific year‑long Indian Country Today series, by Jerry Reynolds, assessing the presidents, from Nixon to Bush, in which they noted and praised the accomplishments of the current administration, it was very clear that the paper would come out in favor of Kerry:
Democrats have unified as rarely seen before and thrown their full support behind John Kerry. They should. They have a very decent, thoughtful and personally conservative man for a candidate: reasonable, patient, experienced man in the tempest of a chaotic, complex and unpredictable world. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
They're right. Despite that many Democrats see him as the lesser of two evils, I, along with many other conservatives, fully agree that John Kerry is a very decent and thoughtful man, and that he is reasonable, patient and experienced. Though not "personally conservative." But then, the editors at Indian Country Today probably have no more than a popular dictionary definition understanding of what "conservatism" actually is.
Liberalism defined
Almost two years ago, a close friend of mine—a dyed‑in‑the‑wool liberal Democrat who died only a few months ago—told me that most Americans have no real understanding of conservatism. He was irritated at me for calling myself a "libertarian conservative." Taking the hint, I went looking for a book to remedy my ignorance, and found The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. What an eye‑opener!
As I read Kirk's book, a large portion of my college education suddenly made sense, and not in an agreeable way. Jean Jacques Rousseau's nonsensical notions, which we had been taught—in the University of Washington School of Business, of all places!—as gospel, fell into context, where I clearly saw them for a fraud. No wonder they had never made any sense to me! Yet, his fantasies are key principles of liberalism, as a political philosophy.
A time was, that Democrat politics diverged as much from liberal principles as Republican politics does from conservative principles. But these days, with most of every flavor of conservatism loosely entrenched in the Republican party, there's little of conservatism left in the Democrat party: It has given over, almost entirely, to the same utopian ideas that motivated Marx and, worse, Hitler. Fortunately, most Democrats don't subscribe to those principles, which is why the Democrat party, as it exists today, is doomed. That's also why good people, like those at Indian Country Today, have, in good conscience, endorsed John Kerry.
What surprises me, however, is the mean‑spirited way they did it, dredging up standard liberal muck and slinging it at Bush without proof or apology, calling the eye‑witnesses to John Kerry's acts in Vietnam "brutal and deceptive," accusing them of slander and describing them as "disgruntled Republican operatives from the Nixon era."
They also attacked Bush on several levels, accusing him of being "instinctual," rather than intuitive, lacking integrity and competence, and, clearly pandering to the religious intolerance of the left, they attack his faith.
Proudly based on blind faith and a willingness to dismiss reasonable discourse, the GOP leadership even dangerously shuns scientific findings in support of a religious fervor that tolerates little or no variance of viewpoints on social, medical, or increasingly, political issues. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
Obviously, they are referring, by implication rather than honest statement, to his policy on stem cell research and position on gay marriage. These are both areas where the left has consistently lied, saying that Bush has banned stem cell research, and that Bush is attacking gays. But the truth is that he only limited federal funding of stem cell research, and that he sided with President Clinton, who signed the defense of marriage act in 1996:
Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it. — Anti gay marriage act clears Congress, CNN, September 10, 1996
Voter fraud on Indian reservations
This is not to say that all their accusations are without merit. Just misdirected:
Pushing Republican John Thune against incumbent Tom Daschle (D) in the South Dakota Senate race, (Pat Robertson) said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "massive fraud" in the voting on Indian reservations will affect the closely watched Senate race. "The thing that I think is concerning many is the fraud on the Indian reservations. People go in there, and they … take advantage of people that are not totally literate or, I don't know what they do, but there has been massive fraud," he said. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
If Robertson said those things, then he's an old man out of touch with the times. They also lambasted Rush Limbaugh, who pounced on the story with "there those Injuns go again" kinds of statements that are typical of him. However, while their knee‑jerk prejudice against Indians is inexcusable, there really is voter fraud on Indian Reservations in South Dakota:
More importantly and recently, Democratic‑paid bounty hunters entice Indian voters to absentee ballot (early vote) at remote polls called "county satellites." Those bounty hunters enjoy pointing at a candidate's name on the ballot to ensure their candidate is selected while saying, "Kerry, Daschle, Herseth," etc. Bounty Hunters coach voters and essentially repeatedly become voters-by-proxy. … I am deeply saddened that Indians allow Daschle to hold "secret" meetings, vote to create corpses in a mother's womb, create communism across Indian reservations and exploit Indians during election years. — Exploits Indians, by Bruce Whalen, Rapid City Journal, October 18, 2004
Whalen, an Oglala Lakota of the Pine Ridge reservation, wrote in an email that he "witnessed testimony by voters and bounty hunters" concerning this, and that Democrat operatives will do their best to deny it, "but my own eyes do not deceive me."
Should Indian Country Today really be lambasting President Bush over this? Obviously, not. Not anymore than they should have trotted out the tired old liberal lament about the dead in Iraq:
Now with over 1,000 dead American soldiers and over 20,000 dead Iraqis (who among them al Qaeda?), and a chaotic spiral of violence passing for "liberation," we have much difficulty with this war, its now discredited justifications, its epic mismanagement and its current results that include hundreds if not thousands of dead innocents, including women and children. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
All these deaths are tragic, they are sad, but let's put the numbers in perspective. During his reign of terror, Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Fewer Iraqi people have died during this engagement as a direct result of this engagement.
Second, if 20,000 dead Iraqis and more than 1,000 dead American soldiers is reason for us to disengage, then what should we do in response to 43,220 Americans who were killed during 2003? That's how many Americans died from traffic "accidents," last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The killing of good people, of innocents, is always a sad thing. Sad, whether at the hands of terrorists, sad, whether as "collateral damage," and equally sad when killed on our highways. Qualitatively, there is no difference. Conservatives "get it." Democrats, or at least the liberal ones, don't.
Tired old muck
For Indian Country Today to have a bad opinion of Bush is one thing. For them to prefer Kerry is fine. If they want to endorse Kerry, more power to them. But to attack Bush on the basis of tired old muck that didn't stick to the wall the first several thousand times it was slung, impugns not Bush and the Republican party, but Indian Country Today and, by extension, all of Indian country.
Sad as all that is, however, the worst is that, in a stilly stunt intended to try to preempt the fact that we, correctly, identified Indian country as being fundamentally, in principle and in tradition, conservative, they are calling Kerry a conservative. And to support this, they rely on several false or insupportable statements. Beginning with attributing more intelligence to Kerry:
He has communicated clearly his commitment to lead the American people from a position of studied and well-informed planning, under strategies that include a higher intellectual rigor. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
What they rely on, is his well‑known proclivity for taking every position on every issue: e.g., "I voted for…before I voted against." Kerry is indecisive. Carter was, too, and look at all the trouble that caused us.
Bob Dole for President?
Next, they parrot Kerry's original campaign theme:
Kerry, the only actual war hero in the race, a decorated officer who faced deadly combat in his time and then came back to a courageous and risky role of war critic, in short, appears ready for a major role in international affairs. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
This is really embarrassing. First, was Bush Sr.'s heroic military service relevant when he ran against Clinton? No, although the fact that Clinton is a draft‑dodger ought to have been relevant. Was Bob Dole's heroic military service relevant when he ran against Clinton? Again, no. So why is the questionable military service of John Kerry relevant? It's not.
But it is relevant to point out that Kerry's assertion that he will rebuild American credibility and support abroad is predicated upon ignoring that France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq, and oppose us today, because they corrupted the "oil for food" program, they were set to make tankers full of money off Saddam, and then Bush blew the deal for them. The only way Kerry can win back their good will, is with bribes. And, as others have pointed out, the only way he can win support from everybody else, is to sacrifice Israel.
Style, not substance?
So, just why do the editors at Indian Country Today say that Kerry is conservative? Because of his style:
But the pulse of Indian country clearly beats more in time with John Kerry's. He projects and has the grasp of a more conservative style—a statesmanlike approach commensurate with managing a world crisis such as we are now facing. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004
This demonstrates, better than anything else, that they don't understand what "conservatism" is, or that they base their understanding on the single‑sentence definition found in most popular dictionaries. "Style" has nothing to do with it; substance, has everything to do with it. Kerry may be a man of means, but he is, by no means, a man of conservative substance.
I like Indian Country Today, I really do. A great deal of what they have published is of tremendous value, very insightful, historically significant, and just plain newsy. But, while I would have preferred them to endorse Bush, I wasn't troubled by their endorsement of Kerry. What does trouble me, is how they did it.
It would have been better, had they simply followed the lead of others in Indian country, who made it clear that their vote is bought by Kerry's promises that he would give us more money. That, at least, would have been honest.
|