The Edge with Sean Engmann

The Cult of Obama

This past weekend, Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic Nomination for President to Barack Obama setting up a critical election between Obama and John McCain.  We as Americans face one of the most critical choices in history in November, a choice that could define our country for generations.  It is a choice between a seasoned leader who is defined by his past actions, sacrifices and decisions and an unknown, extremely charismatic individual who has burst onto the scene and appears poised to become the first black president in history.  Since he is such an unknown, it is important to examine how Obama has risen so meteorically to his position.

The Obama campaign, under its slogan "Change We Can Believe In" has adopted the air of an inevitable movement, resulting from brilliant branding and political propaganda the scale of which we haven't seen in the United States.  Increasingly, Obama's supporters have taken on the fervor of a cult, with websites claiming that Obama is the messiah or maybe just an enlightened being.  Others claim that Obama communicates God-like energy and that he must be some sort of advanced soul.  Most of this fervor has to do with Obama's extremely charismatic personality rather than his message.  Obama has developed a cult of personality the likes of which are rarely seen in politics which is well described by Joel Stein.  Obama's aura has created a fanatic following.

Perhaps, though, the more amazing thing about Obama's campaign is the air of inevitability that surrounds it.  The Obama campaign has declared itself and taken on all the elements of a societal movement with the rather vague message of "change."  The reason this is so astounding is that the media has bought into the Obama fervor is that the statistics don't justify this type of reaction.  Obama is the first major party nominee under the current system to be nominated by his party without even winning the popular vote in the primaries.  Additionally, Obama limped to the finish line, getting pounded by Hillary Clinton in all of the large, critical states and even losing in an upset on the night he declared victory.  This poor showing hardly justifies the mandate that Obama claims heading into the general election.

Given the facts, it is critical to examine why Obama's campaign takes on the dimension that it does, and the answer combines Obama's cult of personality with the cutting edge propaganda of the Obama campaign.  Obama's speeches are central to the propaganda of the campaign, as he speaks in front of tens of thousands of rabid followers in major arenas.  These speeches, accompanies by clever viral videos have put Obama on the pedestal needed to achieve "messiah" status.  This technique has been used before to great effectiveness, the best example of which can be seen in Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will."  The critical question, though, will be whether or not the American people as a whole will be mesmerized by the propaganda of Obama's campaign or if they can see through the branding and make the best decision for our country's future.

A Case for the Iraq War

Throughout the media, the Iraq War has been much maligned and there is a significant misunderstanding of the reasons for the war, Bush's Mideast policy shift, the connection to the War on Terror and the absolute need for success in Iraq.  Detractors of the war claim that Bush brought America to war under false pretenses and falsely point to international opposition to the war to justify their claim.  Additionally, opponents of the war do not see any connection to the War on Terror and they wrongly point to sectarian violence in Iraq as symptoms of growing support for terrorism and anti-Americanism.  These anti-war activists point to the sectarian violence as the primary reason we should abandon our mission in Iraq, when in fact, it represents the need to step up our efforts in that country.  President Bush's war in Iraq represents a significant and dynamic change in American foreign policy, resulting directly from the 9/11 attacks in which the U.S changes its policy from supporting repressive regimes and being reactionary to being proactive, and using the ideals of freedom and security to combat the root causes of terrorism.  Further, much of the international resentment of America's policy stems not from principled opposition, but rather from a calculated attack on American hegemony in an attempt to re-establish a bi-polar world.

American Mideast policy over the last half century has been shaped by the Cold War and by prior British policy.  Around the world, America was forced to choose the lesser of two evils to stop the spread of communism, and that policy was vital to preventing strategic regions from falling under the Iron Curtain.  In Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, a battle of influence ensued between the USSR and the US and it led to repressive regimes being installed and supported by the US.  In Afghanistan, the US supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets and in Iran, America held up the Shah.  While that policy was effective in containing communism, the brutal regimes took their toll on the people of those countries, who largely felt, and still feel powerless.  The powerless turned to radical Islam as a beacon of hope and these terrorist organizations lashed out and gained a significant amount of power.  Radical Islam's first success was toppling the US supported Shah in Iran and led to the installation of the radical, anti-American, anti-Western theocracy that exists now in Iran.  The increasing support and power of the radical Islamic movement is what led to the attacks on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks among others.

The toppling of the Shah in Iran is the perfect example of what can happen if strong dictatorships are overthrown.  It was a very negative result for America.  With the end of the Cold War, it became possible for America to change our policy with regard to the Middle East.  Since repression and despair are the root causes of the turn to radical Islam and terrorism, Bush's policy became one of addressing the root causes of terror rather than supporting dictatorships.  The clear theory is that if the people of the Middle East have hope, security and live in freedom, they will turn away from radical Islam, as radical Islam will lose its popular appeal.

Iraq represented a good starting point for the new policy of addressing potential threats and attacking the root causes of terrorism.  Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, his people were repressed, living in poverty and fear, and he had defied the United States.  The confluence of these factors represented a potential threat to the United States, as well as an opportunity.  Our policy was to remove Saddam Hussein and replace his repressive regime with a democratic regime, a new government that would embrace the free market, provide security to the Iraqi people, freedom and opportunity.  The theory is that freedom and opportunity for the Iraqi people would represent a more attractive alternative to radical Islam, and that Iraq would become a model for reform throughout the Middle East and serve notice to repressive regimes elsewhere that they would need to reform.  As a result, radical Islam would lose its base of support.

The idea of attacking the root causes of terror, unfortunately, is not recognized by the political left within its myopic vision that attacking a nation that hasn't directly threatened you is illegal.  The big picture suggests that Iraq is a front in the larger War on Terror which is a battle between the Western virtues of freedom and tolerance and radical Islam which seeks rigid conformity and dominance of the world.  The Iraq War represents a deviation from the Cold War American policy of supporting brutal dictators and returns America to the role of expanding freedom worldwide.  It is a role we have the luxury of assuming as the world's lone superpower.

Opposition to the Iraq War began early, with France as the international leader.  Then French President Jacques Chirac opposed the idea of America being the world's lone superpower and sought for the EU to replace the USSR as the world's second superpower.  He used the Iraq War as a means for doing so, using resentment of America to oppose the American invasion of Iraq, and thus dramatically increase the difficulty of the occupation.  Additionally, the opposition put the spotlight on the occupation, and led the U.S to conform to politically acceptable "peacekeeping" tactics rather than utilize the force needed for an effective occupation.  As a result, America failed to effectively secure Iraq, leading to citizens to turn to warlords and terrorist groups to provide them with security, which is the cause of the current sectarian violence.

The sectarian violence that exists within Iraq is essentially a microcosm of the general state and causes of the rise of militant Islam in the Mideast.  The vast majority of the deaths in Iraq are Iraqi on Iraqi resulting from a power vaccum.  Essentially, with the regime toppled, and no infrastructure or protection in place, Iraqis reverted to a state of nature, and pledged alliegance to the most powerful warlords for protection.  With nothing in place to protect them, and with the Americans unable to do so, Iraqis had to turn to warlords.  Similarly, living under a brutal regime, many Arabs turn to militant Islam for their protection and change.  The troop surge has reestablished more security, and consequently, these bands of warlords are disbanding and there are fewer deaths in Iraq.

The Iraq War is an example of a bold policy by President Bush to stop supporting repressive regimes, to topple tyrants and to spread freedom.  Freedom is the alternative to radical Islam and the more it is allowed to flourish the more pressure it puts on repressive regimes in the Middle East to reform.  Reform will undermine the support for radical Islam and win the War on Terror.

The Immigration Paradox

One of the major issues facing this country going into next year's Presidential Election is that of immigration, specifically illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration, without a doubt is a blight and a huge problem, especially from the perspective of the everyday American.  The Congressional Democrats and President Bush actually formulated a plan to address the issue of illegal immigration, but the opposition to the plan, which included amnesty to illegal aliens in the country and a fast-track to citizenship, was so fierce that the plan was killed, and one of its chief supporters, John McCain, saw his campaign for the Presidency hit a major snag.  The issue of illegal immigration is particularly intractable when considering its reach, impacting our economy both positively and negatively, our culture and our collective security as a nation.  Many saw that there is a culture war going on in America and the issue of immigration is one of the front line battles.  While allowing migrant workers makes some degree of sense economically, it is imperative that we document who comes and goes and we must also fight to preserve our identity as a country.

The economics of illegal immigration, particularly in California, are at the heart of the debate in the center over immigration.  In the West, illegal immigrants are often a source of cheap labor, working primarily in agriculture in jobs that don't pay well enough and are undesirable for Americans.  Additionally, illegal immigrants will work as cheap construction workers or builders.  Labor of illegal immigrants has been a boon for the state's economy, and has kept the agriculture industry in the country.  Recently, the Bush Administration announced a plan to impose severe fines on companies that employ undocumented workers, and several companies said that the regulation would be back-breaking.  Minimum wage laws and the general standard of living enjoyed by Americans makes American replacements in the agriculture industry too expensive.  In terms of construction, non-union labor remains an alternative, but not necessarily an attractive one, as many people would pay higher wages for much higher quality work by union labor.

In spite of the benefits to illegal immigrant labor, there are numerous costs associated with it as well.  Undocumented immigrants account for millions of dollars in costs to the American taxpayer in terms of social programs.  Americans pay for the free education through state college of the children of illegal immigrants, contribute an exceedingly high amount in health care costs to the point where the social services are breaking the back of the budget.  These entitlement programs serve as inducements to come to the United States and accept a lower wage (by American standards) to work.  Essentially, the agriculture companies are having their cheap labor subsidized by the American taxpayer through entitlement programs.  Furthermore, often illegal immigrants who come to the United States as migrant workers discover the wealth of opportunities that the United States has to offer, and stop working in agriculture, leaving a gap for another batch of illegal immigrants to enter the U.S.  Of the estimated 18 million undocumented individuals living in the United States less than 800,000 work in the agriculture industry.

Just as pressing as the economic concerns are the security concerns of being lax on illegal immigration.  Our prisons, particularly.  According to the US Justice Department 108,000 illegal immigrants were in California jails in 2003, and some estimates say that roughly half of California's prison population is made up of illegal aliens creating a massive strain on the budget.  The largest concern, however, is the concern of terrorism, with several Islamic cells based in Mexico.  The inability to document those who come and go and to control entry into this country puts us all at risk.

Beyond economics, however, is the social impact that immigration has had on our culture is significant.  America comes from a rich tradition of immigrants, coming to this country seeking a better life for themselves and their families.  We, as Americans, have celebrated the melting pot that makes up our culture and makes our country unique.  Unfortunately, the grand American melting pot has been replaced by the cult of multiculturalism.  When the Italians, Poles, Irish, Germans and Jews came to the United States they brought with them their culture and they added the best parts of their traditions to our culture.  However, all of these groups faced prejudice and had to adapt to the American way of life, leaving behind certain aspects of their tradition that didn't fit in with life here.  The transition was not easy, nor should it be, and eventually all of these groups integrated into society and made significant contributions.  More importantly, all the past immigrants came seeking change and a better life and fought hard to be accepted as Americans and were fiercely proud to called an American.

Multiculturalism represents the destruction of the melting pot as its creed is that all immigrants should strive to preserve all aspects of their cultural heritage while living here in the United States.  Further, proponents of multiculturalism believe that America should adapt its laws, customs and traditions to fit the cultural leanings of each minority group.  In essence, the American tradition should disintegrate into the isolated individual cultures of individual groups.  The effects of multiculturalism are staggering as they serve to drive people apart, to stay amongst their own, rather than to integrate into a common culture.  Being offensive in a purely multicultural society is the utmost faux-pas and the resulting derision results in stifling freedom of speech.  In Europe, multiculturalism has led to the establishment of Islamic courts, as well as the enactment of laws forbidding coed use of a swimming pool, in accordance with Muslim traditions.  In the US, we see the impact on the English language with the introduction of bilingual education and the reality that many second and third generation immigrants still struggle with English.  The more the politically correct notion of multiculturalism is embraced in this country, the more the individual American suffers with a loss of freedom, because the only tolerated viewpoint in a "progressive" society is the progressive viewpoint, and the more this toxic ideology is embraced, the more viewpoints get crowded out of the marketplace of ideas.

The United States is at a crossroads on the issue of immigration.  We need to allow immigrants to legally, and with documentation, enter the country, but we need to stop subsidizing their entry with government handouts.  The idea of "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco, LA and New York, where illegal immigrants can reside freely because the cities will not cooperate with the federal government on immigration control, needs to be crushed through punitive action by the federal government.  In order to deter crime by undocumented immigrants, a penalty clause needs to be added to any conviction imposing much more strict sentences for crimes committed by illegal immigrants.  Most importantly, though, we must re-embrace the notion that although we are a nation of immigrants, we are, more importantly, a nation of Americans, a nation that can be made better by immigrants.  Equally important, we need to embrace the idea of a melting pot and reject multiculturalism, immigrants need to conform to our language and our culture while retaining and adding the best elements of their culture.  Immigrants have made this country great, and they need to reject those who tell them not to change and embrace the change and opportunity that they came here for.

Reagan's Message Still Resonates

One of the most important speeches of the 20th century was Ronald Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg gate in Berlin.  The speech is well known for Reagan's famous, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" challenge, but it is also extremely significant and relevant to our current global crisis in the war against radical Islam.  In the speech, Reagan articulated a belief that seems to have been lost, that freedom and security go together.  Equally important was that Reagan's speech reminded me of how he stood with resolve and principle in the face of protest and opposition.  Finally, Reagan clearly defined the enemy, put the enemy on notice, spoke with strength and even gave the enemy a chance to improve relations and bring peace on our terms.  Few would have predicted that the Soviet Union would have fallen so shortly after this speech, however it is a lesson from which we should learn.

As they were during Reagan's presidency, his beliefs are being challenged now in our new war, against a new enemy.  In America, as well as in Iraq, we have ignored the tenet that freedom and security go together.  In the United States, many have adopted the political philosophy that freedom is taken away in a direct proportion to security gained.  This is a flawed political philosophy that describes the state of nature as absolute freedom and totalitarianism as absolute security.  Humans are neither free without security, nor secure without freedom.  In order to protect our freedom, we must be willing to give up some liberties in exchange for a much greater amount of security.  The Patriot Act achieves that end and has protected us, yet civil libertarians ignore the enhanced security that protects our freedom and dwell on a few inconveniences that have no impact on their daily lives.  The argument is that "If we give up anything then the terrorists win."  My response is that it is better to grant our enemies a small victory in exchange for preventing a colossal defeat.

In Iraq, the question of freedom and security is in play as well.  President Bush attempted to establish a democracy without the infrastructure in place to provide citizens with the security to have freedom.  The fallacy that we had in our thinking on Iraq is that democracy is synonomous with freedom, when in fact economic freedom and capitalism are needed to bring about democratization, and economic freedom cannot exist without security.  Without infrastructure and a strong occupation force in place to quell resistance, Iraqi citizens sought out security in the form of the local clans and strongmen, and insurgency followed.  Recently we have changed policies to quell the rebellion, but the lesson is that freedom and security go together.

Perhaps the most relevant comparison from Reagan's speech to the current situation comes in the form of the domestic resistance, or the "peace" movement.  Reagan stood firm in the face of protests throughout his administration and he directly addressed the protesters from a position of strength at Brandenberg, saying that American resolve and firmness forced the Soviets back to the negotiating table.  Currently there is an increasing movement, particularly by Democrats for the US to pull out of Iraq.  George W. Bush is being villified, yet he is standing firm, with resolve to stay in Iraq, as he understands that the enemy thinks that they can outlast American resolve.  Reagan stood up to political pressure to force the Soviets back to the bargaining table by not backing down from his plan to install more missile sites, and by not succumbing to protesters and the Soviets belief that a weak democracy would back down.  In Iraq, we can either learn from Reagan, or we can take the other route and leave with our tail between our legs because it is politically expedient to do so.  In 2008 we will elect a new president, will it be a president who stands toe to toe with our enemies, or will it be one who governs not by principles, but by polls and political expediency?  It is clear where I stand.

Political Expediency and War

In the United States, the idea of public opinion, focus groups and governance based on polls has firmly taken shape.  Gone are the days of principled leadership, and doing what's right in the face of opposition, and that's rather unfortunate for a multitude of reasons.  Democracy is based on, and cannot work without proper accountability of our political figures.  Unfortunately, the political system in this country has dissolved into manipulation of public opinion, followed by response to it.  Additionally, there are so many elections of so many people in this country that the average citizen cannot and do not hold the proper people to account.  In a time of war especially, this process makes a nation very weak and very vulnerable.

The case in point du jour of the lack of resolve and leadership simply requires a look at the Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates as they seek to distance themselves from President Bush, particularly in the Iraq policy.  Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Senator is the latest Republican to jump ship and demand a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  Why?  Perhaps because he is up for re-election next year and does not want to be on the wrong side of public opinion.  Did he just suddenly wake up and see the light?  Absolutely not, this was a calculated move to distance himself from the war that he staunchly supported.

What's the problem with these constant changes of opinion?  Our enemies are embolded and continue to correctly assume that if they continue to pick off some of our people that we will lose our resolve and leave.  This is a strategy that the Palestinians have attempted to employ for years and it is a strategy successfully employed by the Viet Cong and by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets.  Further, it masks accountability, that's why flip-flopping on any issue is so popular.

The American political system is not effectively designed to fight the type of war that we are currently fighting.  We currently have a media that has a largely negative effect on public support for the action and a Congress that is actively rooting for us to fail in Iraq so that they can increase their power.

The primary reason why we are currently in the position that we are in with regard to Iraq is because of poor leadership on the part of President Bush on a number of fronts: he did not pressure other countries hard enough to participate in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and he was more concerned with public opinion and reaction to the war than in taking the necessary steps for quelling the insurgency, which would have been a full military occupation.  His concern with PR has cost us dearly and has allowed a strong insurgency, aided by al Qaeda to develop.  Winning wars, particularly wars against ideologically based opponents requires strong leadership and resolve, not people changing positions with the political winds. 

The State of the War on Terror

The past week has been a critical week in defining what the War on Terror is all about, specifically delineating the difference between the West and the Muslim extremists that seek to destroy it.  In the UK, a group of highly educated Muslims attempted to wreak havoc on England by trying to use car bombs to kill hundreds of innocent civilians.  What they tried to do is not as important, however, as who the suspects are.  The terrorists, in this case, were not downtrodden Muslims who lived in squalor or oppression, rather, they were highly educated doctors working in the UK.  These doctors, who had sworn an oath not to harm, attempted to kill hundreds of innocent people in cold blood in what seems to be an al Qaeda operation.

Almost equally galling is the response to this incident by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  Brown has issued an official directive banning from governmental use the expression "War on Terror" as well as the use of the word "Muslim" when describing acts of terrorism.  His justification is to avoid offending the Muslim community.  It is precisely such politically correct posturing that endangers Western Civilization.  The majority of the Muslim community, as illustrated by this foiled attack, regardless of status or achievement, identifies themselves as Muslims first, ahead of their nationality.  The Muslim community has done precisely nothing in the way of cooperating with governments by helping to identify potential terror suspects, and has even failed to credibly condemn acts of terrorism.  As a result, the Muslim community deserves no appeasement, but rather more intense scrutiny.  Until the Muslim community gets on board with the rest of the civilized world in condemning these butchers, every Muslim should be looked at with increased suspicion.

Prime Minister Brown's approach has proven to be a time honored failure and a show of extreme weakness.  History has shown that appeasement does not work on any scale, nor does "understanding" or sympathizing buy goodwill.  The more we in the West bury our heads in the sand and try to pretend that international terrorism isn't almost exclusively Muslim, the weaker we appear.  Al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahri said in an internet posting, "I would like to talk to my brothers about the huge blessings which we witnessed after every step toward unity in the combat against Jews and Christians."  He clearly is not concerned with political correctness and identifies all Jews and Christians as the enemy, and when we, in the West respond by pussy-footing around trying to avoid offending people, we weaken ourselves.

The ongoing insurgency in Iraq is a good example of how our lack of resolve has emboldened the enemy, as did the aftermath of the Madrid car bombing.  In Spain, the country waived the white flag in the face of terrorism, electing a new government and changing policy in Iraq in response to the vicious attack.  In the United States, we have hamstrung ourselves in Iraq by refusing to commit the necessary force and tactics to initially pacify the country and crush the insurgency and have concerned ourselves far too much with the conduct of our soldiers and too little with eliminating the enemy.  Now, we have put ourselves in a position where a Congress wants us to set a timetable for defeat and withdrawal.

Freedom and security go together, that is the case in the West, in Iraq and throughout the rest of the world.  The insurgents in Iraq cheer when they kill other Iraqis because they destroy their security and thus their freedom.  Fear is the weapon of the terrorist, and the insurgent.  The Bush Administration attempted to give the Iraqi people freedom without security, and that's essentially why Iraq is as it is at the moment.  Meanwhile, the terrorists, many of whom expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan think of the West as a giant without resolve and that they can destroy us through fear and that we don't have what it takes to crush them.  The West needs to wake up, call a spade a spade, and do what it takes to crush the Muslim extremists on both the international stage and in the domestic arena.

Muslim Portrayal in America

We are clearly living in a very politically correct era in this country, and the political correctness serves to blunt our collective consciousness as Americans and undermine our national security.  Nowhere is this fact more undeniable than in our relations with Muslims, particularly through the media and pop culture.  Muslim groups consider themselves victims of anti-Muslim discrimination, saying that they are portrayed largely in a negative fashion, as terrorists and as being largely evil.  In some cases, this is how Muslims are portrayed, but Hollywood has bent over backward, as have the press and politicians, to avoid the stereotype of the Islamo-fascist terrorist, going as far as even airing clips of Keifer Sutherland talking about how the Islamic terrorists depicted in 24 are not representative of the whole Muslim population.

The problem with this attitude of sensitivity, inclusion and the absence of a judgemental society is that we are bending over backward so far in the name of tolerance that we lose sight of the true picture.  The fact of the matter is that we are currently in not just a culture war, but a battle for humanity against Islamic terrorists who hate everything about us and seek nothing less than to destroy Western Civilization.  It's time we call an apple an apple, Muslims, and no other group of people, are engaged in a global terror campaign.  Muslims are blowing themselves up with suicide bombs, Muslims are hijacking planes, and Muslims are flying them into buildings.  Of the 19 9/11 terrorists, 19 were Muslim, and of the financiers, all were Muslim.  Now, Muslims are the victims, because our popular culture depicts them as terrorists.  That makes no sense.

The one thing that is glaringly absent from these Muslim groups which portray themselves as the oppressed victim, is a complete condemnation of jihadist terrorism, as well as full cooperation of Imams in Western mosques with our governments in identifying and rooting out terrorists within their ranks.  Where are the Muslim leaders in cooperating with us?  The answer is nowhere, and many of these Mosques throughout the West are being used as breeding grounds for developing homegrown terrorists.  John Walker Lindh is an American example, as was the sleeper cell uncovered in Lodi a couple years ago.  Additionally, the reason we can no no longer bring a bottled water on a plane is because homegrown terrorists from a British mosque thought that would be a neat way to blow up a plane, and the reason we need to remove our shoes everytime we go on a plane is because another Western Muslim tried to bring down a plane with a shoe bomb.  Sure the vast majority of Muslims may be peaceful, but being peaceful is not good enough, they need to be cooperative, or the level of scrutiny for Muslims everywhere should continue to increase.  More than 2/3 of all Muslims identify with their religion before their country, and that is a fact that needs to be considered.  Profiling is simply common sense, and because the vast majority of our terrorist enemies are Muslims, it only makes sense that the Muslim community should be placed under a higher degree of scrutiny.  Common sense dictates that the American Muslim community try to distance themselves from the terrorists, and the proper way of doing so is through full, transparent cooperation with authorities, and condemnation Islamic terrorists, instead, they have, as is so common these days, adopted the oppressed victim stance.

The bottom line here is that Muslims are getting a pass from the media and Hollywood to avoid creating a stereotype, yet they portray themselves as victims anyhow.  Rather than whining about their portrayal, Muslims should be proactive, cooperating with authorities and making it impossible for terrorists to hide within the larger Muslim community, and adopting a zero tolerance attitude to Islamo-fascist teachings.  If we continue to allow political correctness to force us to avoid profiling and to blind us from the facts, we will put ourselves into a very vulnerable and precarious position in the war to preserve our values.

The Politics of Association

The political era that we are living in right now is one of style and rhetoric over substance, and it is very sad.  That will be the unfortunate legacy of the presidency of Bill Clinton.  While I can take a lot, I find the latest political ad in the California gubernatorial race to be particularly nauseating.  In the ad, the California Democratic Party uses the tactic of guilt by association by linking Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to President Bush.  The ad does not address any of the issues and challenges faced here in California, nor does it present any sort of an alternative plan, it is merely a blunt attack ad directed at President Bush and indirectly at Arnold.

The problem that I have with this ad is similar to the problem that I have with the tactics of San Francisco Democrats who use local government to pass meaningless resolutions, which, among other things direct City workers from cooperating with federal law that they disagree with and call for the impeachment of Bush.  We get it, Bush is not popular here, but the goal of the left is simply to foment hatred for our president, and then try to tap into that hatred to get their candidates elected.  Although I did not vote for him in the recall election, I think Arnold has done an outstanding job as our governor, staring down special interest groups, such as the teachers unions in order to create real reform and fiscal responsibility.

The Democrats, locally, in California and nationally have no plan.  The closest thing Arnold's opponent Phil Angelides has to a plan is to raise several taxes across the board to broaden entitlement programs, which harkens back to the 1970s, a policy that has been soundly rejected.  Nationally, the Democrats are outraged by every move that the Bush Administration makes in the War on Terror, yet they fail to come up with an alternative plan.  The Democratic agenda is not based on ideas, rather, it is based on focus groups and opinion dynamics to tell them what needs to be done to get elected, and the playbook now is to promote as much hate and spew as much venom toward George W. Bush as possible.  Bill Clinton was a brilliant politician in that he was able to reinvent himself on a daily basis, and in doing so, he actually helped the country by signing most of the Contract With America into law.  However, he destroyed his own party, which used to at least stand for something, and now only knows how to try to get elected.

Bumper Sticker Politics and General Idiocy

I'm sure you've all seen it, the guy in the car in front of you, who incidentally has trouble driving, feels that he can craft a witty political or personal statement and conveniently place it on the back of his car in the form of a bumper sticker.  These statements come in all forms, but most come in the form of haughty, contemptuous "humor" in the Jon Stewart vein, which I hate.  My hatred of that form of expression reaches new heights when the yahoo driving that car decides to do something stupid like cut me off in traffic, get in front of me in traffic or just drive slow (which is the worst of the aforementioned offenses).  Sitting behind the car, I am often a captive audience, with nothing to do but look at the poorly thought out views of the person in front of me with more contempt than is shown on the bumper sticker.  Simply put, bumper sticker humor or politicking is its lowest form no matter how you slice it and no matter what side of the aisle you operate.

San Francisco, an otherwise beautiful city, is chock full of superior arrogance when it comes to politics.  Many people here take pride in having views that are on the fringe of American politics and are supercilious enough to think that not only are they in the majority, but also that nobody has a right to a divergent viewpoint.  Needless to say, the atmosphere here, especially since the beginning of the war has made for very interesting bumper sticker fodder.  With the number of Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers still around, you'd think by looking that it was still the Fall of 2004 (guys, it's over your guy lost, get a grip and move on).  Not only that but the selection of creative anti-Bush stickers is staggering.  You've got your classic "Impeach Bush" and a W with a circle and a line through it, another more classic one where a "No War" bumper sticker has been recycled and transformed into a "No W" bumper sticker (I'll give these people credit, at least they're trying to save the environment in their contempt for the Bush Administration).  Beyond these, come some of the more creative and annoying, including, "Re-Defeat Bush" (well he was re-elected, not sure that's what they wanted...), "More trees, less Bush," "Support our troops, bring them home now," "Doing my part to piss off the right," and "Some village in Texas is missing its idiot."  These bumper stickers are moronic and sophomoric in my opinion, and I feel that people who put them on their cars do not grasp politics well enough to have an intelligent debate.

Aside from the individual messages about specific candidates or current events, there is another class of bumper stickers that take the cake as the absolute worst.  We've all seen them, these are the stickers with lengthy political statements on them, often four to five lines.  These are problematic for a number of reasons: primarily because they're too small to read, so, out of curiosity I often maneuver into a position where I can eventually read what the sticker says, and secondly because once I finally do read the thing I am more pissed of because I had made an effort to read something so ridiculous.  The prize for the most absurd bumper sticker message I've seen is actually a fairly popular message, "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."  That bumper sticker is very popular with teachers, and I actually first came across it in my middle school English class.  It is laughably wrong on so many levels, mainly because it marginalizes the military (as protection is the single most important thing our government is charged with providing), and it assumes that schools are underfunded, which they are not (more on that in a future blog).  It's scary that people who can put this ridiculous statement on their cars are charged with teaching kids.

Bumper sticker politics plainly stink, as do any other bumper sticker messages, and they just convey bad messages about you if you use them.  "Proud parent of an honor student," means that you're pretentious, while the counter message of "My C student beat up your honor student," reeks of insecurity.  "How's my driving, call 1-800 EAT SHIT" reflects a simplistic person who thinks he's clever, while the morons who put "School's open drive safely" bumper stickers and/or, "If you can read this you're too close," stickers on their cars are just pricks (especially since the small writing entices you to drive closer so that you can read it, go figure...).  All in all, stay away from bumper sticker politics and bumper sticker humor, all it does is further piss off the other drivers on the road.

Radical Islam

Radical Islam is the biggest scourge on the world at the moment and the biggest danger to humanity.  Following religion, many of these devout followers seek to upend western civilization and return to a period where women are subservient to men in every way and all the benefits of modern technology have been nullified.  While everyone is trying to be politically correct and not offend Muslims, we are neglecting the fact that in the current world, the radical Muslims parallel the barbarians who succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire.  These people are armed with a fervent ideology that seeks a world full of followers of Islam, with no tolerance for any divergence in opinion, and they will continue to brutalize innocent civilians in order to forward their quest.

One thing to consider is what the fall of the Roman Empire meant to humanity.  Many of the components of the Roman Empire and their great civilization were lost until the 19th century, nearly 1500 years after the fall of the Romans.  Like the Barbarians, Osama bin Laden and the radical Islamists seek only to destroy everything that has made the West and the world great, including our culture and our technology.  We are clearly superior to the Muslim world in every way, especially in terms of our inclusion and our technology.  With the fifth anniversary of September 11th a few days away, it is a great time to review who we are and who our enemy is.  Osama bin Laden, who proudly presided over the attacks that brutally killed several thousand people and destroyed American landmarks has recently released footage showing him with the 9/11 hijackers.  Many in this country say we should try to understand what made them do this, my opinion is that we must destroy them, and we are off to a strong start.

September 11th was a prime example of good versus evil, and the fact that our enemies will kill each and every one of us if they had the chance.  They have proven it by capturing and torturing civilians just because they happen to be of Western descent.  This is an enemy that we should not waste our time trying to understand, rather it is one that, for humanity's sake, we need to destroy.  Additionally, we need to surveille and scrutinize the Muslim community in the West, as that is a community that has yet to convincingly condemn its radicals.  While communism was a threat to our way of life, Radical Islam is a threat to our very existence, and we should use any means necessary to completely eradicate it from the Earth.  We need not repeat the tragedy of the barbarians, led by Attila the Hun, destroying civilization, which these radical Muslims intend to do.  The agenda of radical Islam makes the Nazis look like humanitarians, and we must destroy them.