October 2004 Issue
Election 2004: High Stakes in American Politics
Torivio Fodder '05The upcoming Presidential Election confronts Americans with some of the highest stakes since the Cold War. The days of soaring technological optimism characteristic of the 1990s are gone, as is the stock market bubble that buttressed our Information technology industry. The reality of terrorism encountered on a clear autumn morning has awoken the world, and engaged our sons and daughters in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. In the mornings since September 11, 2001, Americans have become starkly aware that extremists, who detest freedom and the choices it affords, seek to harm our citizens and neighbors. The murderous actions of these groups underscore the point that in order for America to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, and insure domestic tranquility, we must first provide for the common defense. Indeed it is this issue of fighting the war on terror that is at stake in this election...
As I prepared this article from my home in Oklahoma, images of funerals flooded my monitor. A nation, thousands of miles away, mourned terrorists’ attacks against hundreds of innocent Russian school children. Photographs of Russians gathered near the Kremlin protesting terrorism testified to the changed world in which we now live—The US and the Soviet Union, once sworn enemies, now face the same threat domestically.
While any quick perusal of the candidates’ websites will establish a very clear delineation on campaign issues, I would submit that no issue is as clearly defined as the choices involved in facing that reality of terrorism which indiscriminately affects people’s lives everywhere. From Russians in Beslan, to Americans in New York, terrorism has become the issue that unifies the civilized world and thereby enhances the effects of this election across the globe. True to form, each candidate has a plan rooted in an ideology wholly different than the other. Contrary to what political scientists have anticipated, politics in the United States has not converged toward the center, but has turned toward a partisan divide reflected throughout the Nation. Now, the two candidates have drawn the proverbial line in the sand with the war on terror hanging in the balance. Perhaps, in this sense, terrorism has already affected the American political process.
Consistent with this sharpened divide, Senator Kerry has unveiled a method of fighting the war on terror, which emphasizes sensitivity. Senator Kerry professes, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.” In contrast, President Bush has committed America to a course of pre-emptive attack in the war on terror. The rationale is that it is better to fight terrorists abroad than at home. Put differently, it’s better to confront terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora than an outdoor square in Boston.
On some level, this seems to be an intuitive methodology to fighting the war. After all, no one desires to fight terrorists amid the crowded streets of an American city when the fight can be taken to the remote corners of the earth on the terrorists’ own homelands. Yet, the debate on the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attack is one central to the alternative put forward by Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry’s approach depends on American alliances, particularly with traditional, Western European allies, such as France. It was even leaked by the Kerry campaign earlier this year that “many” world leaders supported Senator Kerry in the election over President Bush. Presumably in seeking these alliances Senator Kerry hopes to gather a broader based consensus—one that is sensitive to the desires of the ‘global community.’
When I consider the idealistic notion of Senator Kerry’s solution to the war on terror, it almost pains me to present a sword of truth to its fiction. Almost. The fact is that Senator Kerry’s misguided views in fighting the war on terror are exactly what raise the stakes of this race. The point remains that there is no fighting a sensitive war, nor is there a more nuanced understanding of terrorism except to say that it is wrong. Vice President Cheney explained this position when he remarked, “a sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity.” Clearly, terrorists have no respect for human life and despise the choices afforded us by our freedom. As a result, there can be no negotiations or sensitivity because our freedoms of speech and expression are simply not on the bargaining table.
Apparently this point has been lost on Senator Kerry. As noted in his speech to the Republican National Convention, Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) noted the bewildering contrast between the Democratic Party of yesterday and the party of Kerry today. Senator Miller said, “I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny,” adding that “never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.” Lest I seem too right-winged, this point is confirmed by the Democrat Party’s own platform. Democrats have consistently criticized President Bush for bringing the scorn of the World upon the United States for its misguided foreign policy. Yet it was Senator Kerry who opposed the measures necessary to defend the United States from terrorist attacks—after he had supported them. It was Senator Kerry who opposed the measures necessary to arm our troops and win the war on terror; and it was Senator Kerry who if elected President vowed to gather permission from the United Nations before exercising his Constitutional authority to use American military force. Okay – perhaps this still seems like right-wing rhetoric. If this is the case, then consider that it was a young John Kerry who blamed the American solider for being tyrants in Vietnam and it was John Kerry years later who would vote to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq and then proudly vote against arming those same troops.
The difference in this election is that President George W. Bush realizes that it makes sense to use force when America is threatened. It is common sense to strike against terrorist before they strike against us. It makes sense to arm American troops before and after sending them into battle. Finally, President Bush understands that it is right to liberate an oppressed people from the hands of a tyrant. In the case of Iraq, Democrats have argued that it was the wrong war in the wrong place. This statement seems to be a simple-minded judgment bereft of moral clarity. In our history, American soldiers have long been the liberators of oppressed people. In fact, it was America who liberated those same Europeans who criticized us before for liberating Iraq. Yet, even when the costs seem high, we have been a resilient nation in our efforts to unleash God’s gift of freedom to all those who yearn for its blessing.
This election is absolutely pivotal – the issues are not simply divided along partisan bread-and-butter issues. This election rests on the premise that to provide for domestic issues we need a strong foreign policy that protects America and her friends and allies. The consensus of both party conventions was that this election would change the course of history. Its truth will not be contested, but the question of how it will change the course of history remains unanswered. As our generation looms on the horizon of providing leadership to our nation, it is clear that in such a time as this America needs a leader who will act decisively against terrorists without wavering. That man is not John “Flip-Flop” Kerry. America needs a leader who understands that some actions should be taken simply because they are the right thing to do. Certainly, liberating the people of Iraq from tyranny is one such venture. While men of character have always been questioned by the naysayer who would doubt their leadership, America must move beyond the partisan vitriol and unite behind a proven leader who has taken brave measures to ensure the liberty of a nation. Sadly, given Senator Kerry’s flip-flops, it is clear that character is a quality he clearly lacks. And given President Bush’s proven leadership, character is not a quality on which he is lacking.