Originally posted by rcyannacci
Kendra, I actually did read that thread and the article that you linked. As I remember, however, your comments seemed mainly addressed to the right, asking them to speculate why the left engaged in "Bush hating." I thought it was interesting that the thread and the article questioned and came up with answers about why the left hates Bush without actually asking those on the left to clarify their positions, which is why I chose not to post and save my comments for another forum.
I'm also interested in your comments about Utopian thinking, which is a topic that has come up frequently in my discussions with other educators. Utopian thinking can be a very powerful and productive exercise; the first step in creating a world of increased social justice is to first imagine what that world might be. Utopian thinking gives us the opportunity to rehearse alternates, to train ourselves to think beyond current barriers. So if you want to call me a Utopian, I accept that (and the power that comes with it) and take pride in my hopes for the future.
Finally, yes, it is entirely likely that Bush Inc. engages in complex issues/thinking daily, but this is not the image that they chose to project to the public. Time and time again, they have labeled complex thinking as flip-flopping and wishy-washiness. Bush's speeches continually simplify today's political issues to matters of "common sense" with yes/no, either/or answers. If he is struggling with some of these issues, "analyzing ALL possible outcomes," then why not make that process public?
Your argument seems to betray a confusion between Utopianism and forward thinking. Forward thinking is based in pragmatism and rationalism while, to the contrary, Utopianism is based upon wishful thinking and fantasy.
Nobody wants a president who a fantasist.
Your Utopian desires, while they may be benevolent and humanitarian are not, by definition, based in reality. We are currently dealing with a world-wide enemy who has already attacked our country and our interests in a massive way. We simply cannot afford to base our decisions upon Utopian ideals when our enemies are basing theirs on very basic "kill the Americans" or "Kill the heathen" philosophies. Only in an environment of stability can we afford to think or plan like Utopianists.
As an educator, and perhaps having a knowledge of the United States, this country--at its foundation in the 18th century--was considered a Utopian dream. Why do you suppose hundreds of thousands--maybe millions--around the world come to our shores legally and illegally? For them, the U.S. actually IS a Utopia in comparison to their countries of origin.
As an educator, it is intellectually dishonest to remove an argument from its historical context. This is one of the argumentative crimes of the strident Left.
John Kerry's flip-flopping on issues ought not to be confused for an embrace of the moral and ethical gray areas of our times. Rather, this is a clear indicator of his lack of moral and ethical clarity. One does not take a position for a particular core issue, then take the opposing side-- describing the shift as an illustration of his intellectual might. One is either for the war in Iraq or against it. One is for the defeat of al Quaeda or against it. One is either for national security or against it. For those on the left, it seems, people who have moral clarity and who hold strong positions (pro or con) on any given issue are somehow threatening as they, then therefore, must be too rigid in their thinking.
As an educator, you must have an understanding of the nature of leadership. Consider the great leaders of American history: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, and so many more. There is a fundamental thread that binds all of these people together. They ALL had, every single one of them, moral clarity, ethical clarity, and a strong core belief that was not easily shaken. Clarity of purpose is the foundation of a leader. John Kerry does not demonstrate these qualities. While George Bush may not be a Rhodes Scholar (and seeing the performance of the last Rhodes Scholar to hold the Presidency, this is probably a good thing), he has a firm moral and ethical basis, clarity of purpose and mind, and deeply understands the profound struggles that we face today.
Social justice is not an issue owned exclusively by the Left. However, social justice, the ongoing war against poverty, health care reform, and an increase in the minimum wage, all must be looked at and dealt with in the context of our times. The context of our times, which some of you seem not to be able to see, is that we are at the beginning point of an historical cycle whose character is the fight for the continued survival of American democracy and even Western European democracy. The blindness of those on the Left to this essential truth and their obsession with Utopian fantasies is stunning and disturbing.
Social justice issues are just as important to me as they are to you. But, if we do not secure our national existence by the defeat of a vicious, cruel, murderous enemy--whose sole purpose is our eradication--these Utopian ideals that we are now discussing will never become realities. There is a time for each issue to be dealt with. Unfortunately, today we don't have the luxury to focus on these Utopian, yet valid, concerns. Imagine someone in 1942 postulating a reduction in defense spending so that the minimum wage can be increased. Such an argument would be almost immediately laughed out of existence, and the person making such an argument ignored and derided as a Utopianist.
As an educator, you are aware, no doubt, that the President has certain emergency powers during times of emergency. If there is another 9-11 style attack, we will be in such a time. Some might say we already are. Consider the actions of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. People on both sides of that conflict looked at that war as one of national survival, an existential conflict. This was far more true for the Confederates than for the Unionists. Abraham Lincoln decided that keeping the state of Maryland in the Union was so important, and the secession sentiment in Baltimore so strong, that he took the extraordinary measure of suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Historians have long argued over the justification of this suspension of a Constitutional right. I only bring this up to illustrate that we have been in crises before. And, extraordinary measures were taken. The invasion of Iraq, the apparent impending invasion of Iran, ought to be seen in this context.
Utopian arguments that do not take into account the nature of the current struggle, the character and cruelty of our enemies, and our desire for national security into account are inherently baseless, an intellectual game, and a confusion upon the reality of our present existence. Utopian arguments have more a place in consistently ignored academic journals than in political discussions of good faith.
There is no lack of compassion amongst those of us on the Right. We have a deep compassion for our fellow citizens, our nation, and our friends around the world.
Kerry's support of both sides of an argument is not an indicator of layered thinking. This is an indication of several things: a lack of core values; a Clintonesque obsession with poll numbers; a confusion of truth; and a fundamental emptiness of leadership quality. Those of us on the Right support Bush because he understands and accepts the unpleasant and challenging situation in which we find ourselves. His lack of eloquence and grammar confusions are easily forgiven. His core values, his moral and ethical clarity, and his strength of character in dealing with unforgiving and cruel enemies is admirable. Bush' election in 2000 was not greeted particularly positively by those on the Right. However, if any president grew into the office and became Great through his experience, George W. Bush is that man. How surprising and disturbing for historians to consider that George Bush, the man who pronounces nuclear as nucular, may very well be considered, in hindsight, as one of the greatest Presidents in this country's history.
