IT'S THE WAR, STUPID:

THE GOP HIJACKS 9/11: The Republicans have exploited 9/11 with the hope that voters will abandon rational thought and rally around a "war president." (The Editors, The Nation)

Actually, no hijacking was required. As the President's speech last night made crystal clear, the choice in this election is between those who would radically transform the Middle East--in the manner that we did first our own South, then the Axis powers and then the Iron Curtain nations--and those who are not willing--perhaps with ample reason--to impose the End of History and its Western values on the Middle East. The President's call to mission is based expressly in Judeo-Christian faith, the principles of the Founding, and American history. It logically then appeals most to those who believe that these are all good things. But the Left, which is and always has been quite alienated from them, if not outright hostile, must have little reason to follow a policy that derives from them.

Past conflicts suggest that there will be a fairly substantial pool of people for Mr. Kerry to draw upon if he takes his candidacy into open opposition to the project to liberate and liberalize the Middle East. He succeeded in the Vietnam War, just as Republicans succeeded in Korea, ending wars with foes still in the field and millions oppressed. The gauze of memory makes us forget that the Civil War, WWI, and WWII ended the same way, though with more general consent from the broad electorate and political class.

Were Senator Kerry to enunciate a clear policy of isolation from the pathologies of the Middle East but dress it up in the language of multicultural humility and focussing on domestic problems he could certainly rally the Democratic Party faithful and whatever remains of the paleocon/libertarian Right, guaranteeing that the election would at least not be a complete blowout. It would make for a classic showdown between the Left, which is driven by emotion and feelings, and the Right, which is driven by faith and ideas. But there are two risks for the Senator in this strategy--the first is that for all the talk of his intelligence and George Bush's stupidity, in an election that would be fought on such fundamental ideological plains Mr. Bush has a huge advantage in his capacity for oratorical inspiration, an ability Mr. Kerry has never demonstrated, the second is that if he loses the election and the liberalization project succeeds to any degree he will be despised in historical memory, the ultimate fate of those who opposed the Civil War, WWII and the Cold War. The test for the Senator then is whether he has the courage of his lifelong convictions and is willing to risk his reputation and the cohesion of our society in a fight to prevent our further intervention against Islamicism. He's never seemed a man of much moral courage but the increasing desperation of his candidacy might force him to such an extreme.

MORE:
Sometimes a strategist just has to sit back and gasp (Dick Morris, 9/03/04, Jewish World Review)

UNTIL President Bush began his speech on the final night of the Republican National Convention, the goal of the United States' anti-terror policy was perceived by a largely supportive public as a bid to assure safety. With a rhetorical flourish worthy of the great speeches of all time, George W. Bush has transformed the war into a battle for liberty.

In a speech that was at once eloquent and substantive, sensitive and dynamic, profound and familiar, Bush has risen to a level few presidents have ever reached.

Sometimes a strategist just has to sit back and gasp. Occasionally, a seasoned political observer needs to realize that he has seen something extraordinary. Tonight, Bush made me feel like that.

-It's still a stark choice for US voters (Ehsan Ahrari, 9/04/04, Asia Times)

The choices for the US electoral are confusing in the sense that both Bush and his main rival for the presidency, John Kerry, hold similar positions regarding America's handling of situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, at the same time, both candidates also present a clear choice. Bush is about unilateralism, and about highly divisive resolve to create an American emporium without calling it so. Kerry, on the contrary, wants to reinstate the multilateral frame of mind and modus operandi, which, during the Cold War years, enabled the US to create a world order that was definitely superior to that which the Soviet Union had to offer. The continued resilience of that politico-economic order continues to serve as the ultimate accolade to the US ingenuity of the post-World War II era. Even under Kerry, the US does not have to foreswear unilateralism. No US president ever did that - it was always an option under extreme circumstances. At the same time, no US president flaunted it in the face of the international community. Only under Bush has unilateralism become America's way of dealing with the world on a regular basis.

There are also stylistic differences between Bush and Kerry that were reflected during their respective political conventions. The Democratic convention, with a few exceptions, followed positive themes, and addressed major issues and Kerry's solutions for them. On the contrary, the third night of the Republican convention will go down in the history of such events as hitting a new low in terms of vituperative and malicious attacks on Kerry, his leadership, and his competence to be the commander-in-chief, and in terms of accentuating the politics of fear. Come to think of it, "politics of fear" has been a recurring theme of the Bush administration. Even in his acceptance speech of the last night of the convention, the reminder of the fear of that dark day of September 2001 was evident.

The moment is getting closer when the American people have to decide which style of dealing with global problems they prefer for the next four years: a US that would lead through multilateralism and persuasion, or one that would act as a bully and be perceived as such worldwide; a leader who will emphasize politics of inclusion of hope, or one who would not hesitate using fear to make a point.

That's quite right: the choice is between multilateralism and multiculturalism, which accepts the world as we find it; or unilateralism and uniculturalism, which requires that states be legitimate democracies before we accept them.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 3, 2004 10:18 AM