« Previous · Home · Next »
How I Voted & Why
By John
Election day for me actually came a few weeks ago, I voted absentee in the Virginia Senate election.
Bottom line up front, I voted for George Allen. Here's why.
Since 9/11, my political views have become laser focused on security. I don't hate Democrats and I don't think that they're bad folks. I've even voted for a few of em, like Mark Warner and his successor Tim Kaine for Governor of Virginia.
But this election, like in 2004, my vote went to the party that demonstrated the highest committment to the national defense. Democrats, for all their passion, seemed to have lost their way in national security. Their opposition to the President has taken a higher priority than defeating our enemies, a political shift that I find inexcusable.
I cannot entrust my vote to a party that I cannot entrust with the protection of the American people.
Looking back, it wasn't Democratic opposition to the Patriot Act or their calls to withdraw from Iraq. It wasn't their demands that the NSA cease and desist their monitoring of Al Qaeda communications into the United States or their fight to shut down our detainee facility at Gitmo. It wasn't even their insistance that we grant trials in US courts to terrorists captured in Afghanistan. It was their abadonment of Joe Lieberman that hammered the final nail into their coffin.
There's still a fighting spirit in the Democrats, the moderate pro-victory camp does exist. The problem is that the current balance of power lies in the hands of the folks who abadoned Lieberman soley for the sin of supporting the war in Iraq.
That makes me nervous, and nervous is an emotion that I shouldn't be feeling when it comes to defense. Especially in this brave new world. I challenge all voters on Tuesday to ask themselves: can the Democrats do better? With the economy and the defense? If so, what exactly will they do different? A vote for a Democrat is a for what?
Make the right decision on Tuesday folks, too much lies in the balance.
Below the fold, I'll be headed off on a slight tanget. But my basic point has already been made.
One thing in particular, aside from the Lieberman issue, that has really struck me about the left in the past few years is their perplexing loss of historical perspective.
Never before in our history have we granted trials in American courts to our prisoners of war. And our current enemy doesn't even meet the criteria for POW status under the internationally recognized Geneva convention. Why are Democrats insisting on trials now?
Iraq is one of the lowest casaulty conflicts in American history. Violence is localized to the Baghdad area, and even by the stomach-churning pratice of counting bodies, Iraqi civilian casaulties are lower than they were during the Saddam regime. Why are Democrats crying "retreat!" with so much at stake?
Security has long bent civil liberties during time of conflict, like the suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War and the internment of Japanese civilians during World War II, and yet the Republic still stood strong. Israel is an even more effective example of how a democracy can balance individual freedom with necessary security measures and still preserve their union. In the instance of the Civil War, World War II, and Israel's 50+ year war with an enemy inside and out, our War on Terror hasn't even approached that level of infringement on personal freedoms. Why are the Democrats insisting otherwise?
Context is incredibly important during this war. I want, in the worst way, for the left to realize this and remember what is important and what isn't. Voting, supporting a candiate who supports your views, and exercising your rights to enact change in the Republic is important, yes. But not at the cost of American lives.
Discrediting the President and sacrificing the greater good to satisfy your own political ends is wrong. And it was a practice most undeserving of my vote.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/590
Comments
The last part of your post can in part be attributed to the leftward tilt in academia over the past few decades. The lack of historical perspective, the dearth of understanding about the nature of warfare, the lack of civics education in how "politics should stop at the water's edge" can all be partially pinned on that trend.
What you speak of here can only be remedied by a widespread grassroots movement to return to the basic civics that used to be taught, as well as the realities of America's past wars in history and social studies. These are no longer studied. History and social studies teachers themselves often have no perspective on these subjects, beyond inculcating the idea that war is bad, and usually our fault.
For the citizenry to judge the war in proportion to history, and to be able to see it in historical context, these things have to be part of public education. America's role in the broad sweep of mankind's history is painted as almost uniformly negative.
Instead, kids today are learning to be "citizens of the world" rather than American citizens. Their history textbooks give short snapshots of Christianity's ancient warlike past, while many more pages are devoted to Islam, the Muslim world, and the religious tenets that undergird Islam.
The chapters on non-Muslim history are critiques. The chapters on Islam are sales brochures. I've combed through many of these textbooks, written by "professionals" in tandem with "cultural advisors".
A movement has to start somewhere to revise these distortions and teach history the old fashioned way -- truthfully.
This is part and parcel of how you get people to participate in democracy from an informed vantage point, with the shared goals of patriotism and respect for, and interest in preserving our country and political system. This is missing today, and until it changes, I think what you speak of will not come about.
Very well said, Jordan. There's room on your soapbox for more than one.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
I certainly don't subscribe to all that the GOP has done but, as you said, a vote for an opponent means critical thinkers also look at the record of that side.
I see very few areas in which Dems are an improvement and none of them pertain to being an improvement on how we will conduct the current war. Thus, I cannot give them my vote either.