Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Election was partisan interest vs. national interest
Democrats knew that a vote for Kerry was a vote against America’s interests in the world, but voted for him because the battle for Democrat interests in America was more important to them than the battle for America’s interests in the world. Indeed, Kerry epitomized this distinction between Democrat interests and national interests. This man was one of the original authors, during the Vietnam war, of the strategy now being used by the Islamo-fascist enemy to try to defeat America by breaking America's will to win at home. Kerry may not have been the first to take up that strategy during the Vietnam war, but he is the one who took it furthest, committing actual treason on the enemy's behalf, lying to Congress that his fellow soldiers were systematically committing war crimes.
Everything that Kerry has done since has been consistent with that past, voting against American power at every turn. During the campaign he even reprised his Vietnam war strategy in Iraq, trying to depict the war as a failure. To put forward a more overt enemy of America’s national interests the Democrats would have had to nominate Osama Bin Laden as their presidential candidate. Yet on domestic issues, Kerry was the perfect Democrat partisan. He has top ratings from all the Democrat-left interest groups: the anti-gun groups, the pro-choice on abortion groups, the unions, pro-entitlement groups. Thus the Democrats faced a clear decision: vote for the partisan dream candidate on domestic issues and against the national interest in international affairs, or vote for the national interest and lose the partisan battle. A remarkable number voted their partisan interests, but not enough to win.
Here is what is strange. If partisan domestic interests mean so much more to the Democrats than the national interest, why in the world didn’t they nominate a candidate that combined their domestic agenda with support for the national interest, so that voters would not have choose between the two? Why did they fail, in their choice of candidate, to sacrifice what was less important to them—their unpopular international stance—to what was more important to them, their domestic agenda? I think the answer is that they weren’t strategic. Instead of trying to pick the candidate with the best chance of winning, they went with the candidate that best represents what the party actually is. In foreign policy, the Democrats are anti-American. Like the Europeans who they so broadly admire, Democrats think that America is what is wrong with the world. Like Kerry, they have been enemies of American power since the 1960’s. Kerry’s candidacy just happened to lay this out in particularly stark fashion, so stark that the Democrat dominated mainstream media could not completely hide it, even though they refused to scrutinize Kerry’s traitorous past.
They won’t be able to protect him any longer. Over the next year, Kerry’s traitorous past will come into full view, as will the huge U.S. success in Iraq, as secular democracy succeeds and Iraq becomes the next Afghanistan. It will then be absolutely clear to everyone what a disaster a Kerry victory would have been, and the implications for Hillary in ‘08 will be devastating. With the Democrats exposed for what they are, sane people will continue departing in droves. The shrinking remnant will be ever more radicalized until the party becomes marginalized. Eventually a new two party system will emerge from Republican side, with social conservatives on one side and libertarian conservatives on the other, both competing to roll back government to its proper limited role, with the bone of contention being just how limited that limited role should be. All will be in agreement that the government should keep its hands off of the economy, stop forcing children into government schools, and stay away from people’s guns. Let’s keep it rolling y’all. Great days are coming.
Everything that Kerry has done since has been consistent with that past, voting against American power at every turn. During the campaign he even reprised his Vietnam war strategy in Iraq, trying to depict the war as a failure. To put forward a more overt enemy of America’s national interests the Democrats would have had to nominate Osama Bin Laden as their presidential candidate. Yet on domestic issues, Kerry was the perfect Democrat partisan. He has top ratings from all the Democrat-left interest groups: the anti-gun groups, the pro-choice on abortion groups, the unions, pro-entitlement groups. Thus the Democrats faced a clear decision: vote for the partisan dream candidate on domestic issues and against the national interest in international affairs, or vote for the national interest and lose the partisan battle. A remarkable number voted their partisan interests, but not enough to win.
Here is what is strange. If partisan domestic interests mean so much more to the Democrats than the national interest, why in the world didn’t they nominate a candidate that combined their domestic agenda with support for the national interest, so that voters would not have choose between the two? Why did they fail, in their choice of candidate, to sacrifice what was less important to them—their unpopular international stance—to what was more important to them, their domestic agenda? I think the answer is that they weren’t strategic. Instead of trying to pick the candidate with the best chance of winning, they went with the candidate that best represents what the party actually is. In foreign policy, the Democrats are anti-American. Like the Europeans who they so broadly admire, Democrats think that America is what is wrong with the world. Like Kerry, they have been enemies of American power since the 1960’s. Kerry’s candidacy just happened to lay this out in particularly stark fashion, so stark that the Democrat dominated mainstream media could not completely hide it, even though they refused to scrutinize Kerry’s traitorous past.
They won’t be able to protect him any longer. Over the next year, Kerry’s traitorous past will come into full view, as will the huge U.S. success in Iraq, as secular democracy succeeds and Iraq becomes the next Afghanistan. It will then be absolutely clear to everyone what a disaster a Kerry victory would have been, and the implications for Hillary in ‘08 will be devastating. With the Democrats exposed for what they are, sane people will continue departing in droves. The shrinking remnant will be ever more radicalized until the party becomes marginalized. Eventually a new two party system will emerge from Republican side, with social conservatives on one side and libertarian conservatives on the other, both competing to roll back government to its proper limited role, with the bone of contention being just how limited that limited role should be. All will be in agreement that the government should keep its hands off of the economy, stop forcing children into government schools, and stay away from people’s guns. Let’s keep it rolling y’all. Great days are coming.
