As y'all know, John Savage from Brave New World Watch and I have been engaged in a cross-blog discussion over the merits of John's strategy to mobilize traditionalist voters to cast a vote in favor of Hillary come November, '08, given two established variables: 1. That Hillary is indeed the democrat nominee; and 2. that the eventual republican nominee is someone other than a traditionalist -Rudy, McRomney, Thompson, or the like. John says he'll vote for the traditionalist Republican should a traditionalist get the nomination. But he agrees with me that that's not a likely scenario.
Thus far the discussion has centered more on our clarifying our respective positions on the subject, or, to give one-another some bit of clarity on the other's written perspective. However, we seem to be past that stage of the discussion now, and hopefully we can move on to more of the meat of our arguments for and against the proposal.
Now, I should say that John seems to be committed to the strategy whether Hillary is the demo nominee or not. The reason I threw that variable in the mix though is because Hillary is probably the best example of the worst potential POTUS that most of us traditionalist voters can even imagine. So, though the Hillary factor (or variable) is not a determining factor for John, I assume that it would be for most traditionalist voters - in their case it might be the difference between their engaging the strategy or not.
What John is proposing may be summed up as follows (and if I get it wrong here, I trust he'll correct me): to basically violate all that you've ever thought right, proper, and sacred about your duty as an American citizen and a traditionalist, consciously choosing to cast your vote in favor of the candidate the farthest left of your own political philosophy. And if this strategy works in the way John speculates it will, you will have in actuality and by the very act itself, earned to yourself the laudable chacteristic of a true and a distinguished patriot.
My disagreement with the approach originally was based in part on the predisposition I had with regard to the strategy itself - that it was intended as a more election-wide strategy aimed at securing more defeats to republicans, which of course would be seats gained to the demos. And that is where I focused my attention in raising a contention with the approach. As John has patiently and politely explained to me, this was indeed an unwarranted assumption on my part. And I accept his explanation without further question.
Yet, I still find myself reeling at the thought of my casting a vote in favor of Hillary or any other democrat in the race right now, and against the republican challenger whomever that may be. And as I suggested originally, I still find it more palatable to simply recuse myself from that particular aspect of the upcoming election than to actively engage myself in the former.
But beyond the distastefulness of the thought of the whole thing, I do have actual concerns with the method and its most likely effects. John assumed that immigration was probably my chief concern with electing Hillary or one of her lesser-thans. But as I explained to him, that is not as much a concern to me as are other things connected with the office of the presidency.
For one, John tends to focus his attention on the internal aspects of the executive department, while I would place more emphasis than he does (or so far has) on the external aspects of that office. That is, where John devotes a lot of consideration to the workings of our federal executive with respect to ourselves, I would tend to consider the appointment of ambassadors to foreign nations as representatives of the United States as one example, as well as the executive's treaty responsibilities as yet another. And the reason I would put a lot of emphasis on those aspects of the presidency and the office-holder's duties therein is because foreign relations, even those between the U.S. and nations not particularly friendly to us, is one of those things that could be the difference between war and peace; that could be the difference between security and insecurity, not just between us and other nations, but between other nations friendly and unfriendly to the United States. And if there's anything I know to be an absolute truth, it is that this nation as such has an obligation among the nations to promote (not to establish it; not to entangle itself in foreign relations between differing foreign entities) peace between nations, as well as to guard against creating an instable situation between ourselves and other powers. It's in our interest as well as everyone else's to do so.
To put an analogy to it, and to bring it down to a more personal and individual level, it is my responsibility as a father to my children and a member of my community to establish and maintain order within and without my family as regards my family members' external relationships, not only for my family's sake, but for the greater good of the whole of my community, state, and nation. If I enter into a bit of strategery aimed at correcting a problem with my child's temper, yet putting the larger community at risk in the process, I've more or less made matters worse, not better; effectively endangering the very lives, liberties, and properties of my neighbors, not to mention giving them just cause for pitting themselves against me.
There is yet another concern I have about actively engaging the strategy. Whether I agree with them or not; whether I like them or not, Presidents of the United States now have the privelege of Executive Orders. And this is not a power that is likely to be removed from that branch anytime soon. One of the things with EOs that really bothers me is that many of them are enacted without the knowledge of the general public. It isn't bad enough that the president has this illegitimate power, but he/she generally utilizes it in a rather secretive fashion. I recognize that there are watchdogs out there keeping up with every move the president makes, but this seems to make little difference as to what the general public realizes about what their government and their executive is up to with regard to these particular orders.
Another concern is that of the President's appointment of executive officers to positions in the justice department and etc... I can't even fathom who Hillary's choice for the AG's position might be, or what her list of choices for the position might look like - remember Janet Reno, anyone? I for one remember very well the actions of a government gone completely and utterly berserk on the intoxicating influence of power during the former Clinton administration, and with the advantage of having a majority republican Congress, mind you. And if it's argued that we oughta be willing to sacrifice the few in the short term for the many over the long haul in a fashion remotely resembling that of the Clinton administration's murderous actions, I think I'm going to shoot myself. lol
But generally speaking I think a republican much easier controlled than a nutty democrat like Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or Gore, or whomever. Though they're savvy politicians, they're still nutty, and nutty people are just hard to contain within certain bounds. President Bush wasn't my first choice back in 2000 either. But I took him, and still would take him over Al Gore or John Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Personally I think more emphasis oughta be put on a strategy that, though it may seem an impossibility at this moment, would secure to us more long-term advantages than that offered by John. It also should take into consideration some of the ways in which a president of the United States is actually encouraged to, not discouraged from, act(ing) in defiance of the public's wishes and against their best interests. And what I'm getting at here is our limiting the president to two terms. Though we can't properly be credited with the creation of that amendment, we continue to sustain it to our own hurt in my opinion.
So, in essence I have a lot of concerns with engaging such an approach as John is suggesting. And there's more where those came from. When I was learning to fly airplanes one of the first things my instructor, as well as the training manuels I was reading, kept reiterating until he'd thoroughly driven it home was that of making coordinated turns particularly on approach to land. Pilots know that one of the most vulnerable times of their flights is during this transition from straight and level powered flight to entering the landing pattern/approach, and a whole heap of a pilot's required training is dedicated to properly piloting this transition. As the pilot begins to slow the airplane in this pattern through the use of flaps, and decreasing power, he is keeping a very watchful eye on his instruments which tell him such vital things as his relative airspeed, his heading, how many degrees of flaps he has engaged; and in his turns whether they are 'coordinated' or not. In other words, as every pilot knows full well, every time you adjust a single element of the airplane, to slow it, to turn, to gain or lose altitude, whatever, there is an effect on all the other aspects of your flight which you must account for if you care to live. And many a pilot has lost his life, and the lives of his passengers due to a neglect of some form to attend to this essential element of his flight.
Essentially I think John's proposal probably does not take into account enough of the necessary and related effects of engaging it. And that pretty well sums up my disagreement with the proposal. It's purpose is to create a manufactured crisis situation which might effectually spark a real crisis situation that we're not properly trained and equipped to handle when it comes down on us. And on that note, I disagree with John in his thought that a huge majority of Americans were against the amnesty bill. I rather think that a mobile and loud minority effected that outcome. I'm not sure it can with certain other things it's not so passionately opposed to, or not so keenly aware of. And though during my flight training we continually engaged in manufacturing crisis situations as an essential part of my training, we were always at a high enough altitude to allow for a safe recovery with plenty of altitude to spare, and I wasn't manufacturing them without a qualified pilot sitting next to me, ready to take the wheel and control of the airplane.
-DW
Read More
