When the political extremes agree, danger lies ahead. Today the two extremes agree on two issues: they are against American military intervention and they are in favor of not only limiting free trade agreements, but even re-negotiating some existing agreements in order to limit their scope.
There has traditionally been a suspicion of trade. This was the appeal of Ross Perot in 1992. Today the trade issue on the left is concerned with the appeasement of labor unions, a diminishing but still powerful force in the Democrat Party.
Anti-war sentiment is a staple of the left’s ideology. The unpopularity of the war in Iraq has also riled up many on the right. Most importantly, the left will again use this sentiment as their avenue to overwhelming power and there are those on the right who ware aiding in this effort.
Pat Buchanan has just published a book that declares WWII a mistake and an unnecessary war. His thesis is that Britain lost their empire and the west lost the war. But, had America not intervened the British would have lost their country. And, though Europe would probably have been united as today, it would not have been an open democratic society. On June 26, 1948 the Berlin Airlift began as America intervened with massive economic aid in order to stop the communists from taking advantage of war torn Europe. It is beyond imagination to conceive what the world would be like without American power during this time.
This is also what the far left said about Vietnam and now says about Iraq. In 1996
leftist and Vietnam protester Michael Lind wrote Vietnam the Necessary War in which he looked back at the causes of the war and concluded that it had to be fought in the context of the Cold War. (He is currently
demonstrating against the war in Iraq—he
apparently does not learn his own lessons.)
If the political extremes are successful in electing Obama, the whole country loses.
The power of the Presidency will be greatly curtailed as who in the future would risk such opprobrium and punishment. The defense of the nation will be seen as too great an undertaking and for sure America’s enemies will understand and take advantage of this situation. Most of all truth as an objective entity will succumb to situational veracity, because in order to make the case they must convince voters that George W. Bush lied his way to war, Dick Cheney really is Darth Vadar, that John McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years, and that a McCain administration would be nothing more than a Bush third term. In truth, none of that is true, but the left is counting on lies told often enough becoming the truth.
Peter Schweizer wrote in the DC Examiner an article titled “Conservatives more honest than liberals?” in which he quotes the 60’s Chicago leftist, Saul Alinsky, who both Hillary R. Clinton and Barak H. Obama cite as a principle influence on their lives and their politics. (Alinsky was the subject of Hillary’s famous college thesis.) Alinsky said about truth and effective politicians, “...[he] doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing. He is the political relativist.” Situational ethics and relative truth essentially means there is no objective truth; truth is what you need to reach your goal or the ends justify the means. It isn’t just that “you can’t handle the truth,” it is that truth in the traditional sense does not exist. The latest effort from the right is Scott Mc McClellan's hit piece on the administration. It gives impetus to those with “Impeach Him” signs in their yards and to readers of Vincent Bugliosi’s latest book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This is not only extreme, it is dangerous
