Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > July > 26
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Save America? Let’s negotiate.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Recent discussions here — those related to the war on terrorism and to Israel’s fight for survival, among them — convince me that in fundamental ways, the divide in this country is so pronounced that we are two nations occupying the same land.
Rereading the July 10 blog on the draft and our obligations to national service, in the context of the nation’s debate over pursuing the war on terrorism and Israel’s survival fight, I am struck by how differently liberals and conservatives see this nation and their obligation to it. In particular, I have in mind two quotes from the July 10 postings, the first from WFC. He wrote, in part, “As a history teacher I’ve studied war for forty years and have reached this conclusion: I would voluntarily have risked my life (or my son’s life) in only two of our wars: the Revolutionary War and World War II …”
The other quote, from B, is that “no one owes their country any more than the country needs from them.” True enough. But since 9/11 I’ve listened to liberals on the street-corner and in Congress define the threat or the circumstance that would take them to arms and this nation to war. I don’t hear it. I don’t see it. Presumably, if the U.S. finds itself in the situation Israel is in, they would. But that’s negotiable. Unless they know in advance the unknowable — that history will judge the conflict to have been as necessary as World War II or the Revolution — my sense is that it doesn’t rise to the liberal test.
Lastly, I look to what liberals are doing to three-term U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the 2000 vice presidential candidate, and find it chilling that this is a party that could determine terms of war and peace. To his credit, former President Bill Clinton rode to Lieberman’s defense this week. Al Gore, the candidate for whom Lieberman practically gave up his soul, hasn’t. And in the latest poll, Lieberman’s trailing 51-47 to a silver-spoon anti-war liberal, Ned Lamont, who is making his first run for public office.
So the liberal America I see is one that will fight — conditionally, after serious individual negotiation, on the assurance that history will judge the war to have been essential to save the nation or mankind. But if you try to make the case, as Lieberman did, that it’s possible to support the nation at war with some lesser certainty about the stakes, liberals turn to a cable TV mogul from nowhere, as they’re likely to do in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. Yep, that’s a party I’m willing to turn the country over to.
