VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:29:00 10/17/04 Sun
Author: Charles Austin
Subject: A Plea for Your Vote Based Upon What Is at Stake

October 15, 2004
A Plea for Your Vote Based Upon What Is at Stake

In the final episode of his A History of Britain, titled The Two Winstons, Simon Schama provides an exposition on British history in the 20th Century focusing primarily on Winston Churchill and George Orwell. The title of the episode comes from the given names of the former and the protaganist of the latter's novel, 1984, Winston Smith.

Winston Churchill and George Orwell could hardly be more different in their political and social views, and yet, each independently and accurately recognized the growing menace of Nazism in the 1930's, realized the necessity of fighting and defeating fascism in WW II, and feared the growing menace of Stalinism after WW II. Simon Schama captured both the divergence of their political views and their convergence of thought on these matters, by playing an audio clip of Winston's famous blood, toil, tears, and sweat speech before the House of Commons three days after being named Prime Minister on May 10, 1940, and then saying the following:

This kind of indefatigible defiance was why George Orwell, for all his mistrust of Churchill's conservatism, was so relieved that at last Britain had a leader who realized, as he wrote, "that wars are won by fighting."

Although the socialist and the old aristocrat were so different, the one loved the empire and the other detested it, both understood that their differences were nothing compared to what seperated them both from the Nazis and the defeatists.

I mention this because there are some who are refusing to vote to re-elect President George W. Bush on November 2, for one reason or another, even though their political philosophies are generally much closer to President Bush's than to John Kerry's. I do not seek to address the issues they may have with President George W. Bush. They are entitled to be disgusted at any number of the sins of ommission and the sins of commission he has made, and I have no desire here to try and dissuade them of their beliefs or opinions. I share many, though probably not all, of the concerns they may have with President George W. Bush as well, yet I will be voting to re-elect him on November 2 because I believe we have to choose sides in this war.

Yes, I'm going to mention the war. Disregarding the fundamental differences in political views and the many more sins I believe John Kerry and his campaign have committed for the moment, I believe it is important to defeat John Kerry in his bid to become the forty-fourth President of the United States for one primary reason. We are at war, and I am certain that it is far from over and that we have not yet seen the worst of it. Unfortunately, John Kerry chooses to downplay the seriousness of the war, seemingly constricting the War on Terrorism to the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and I fear if elected he will pursue what appears to me to be a strategy of appeasement to gather the approval of erstwhile friends and foes, whether they will supply material support or not.

President George W. Bush has demonstrated forcefully that he is willing to fight this war to win it. He may not move as fast or on as broad a front as many of us would like, and he may not use the tactics or strategies we prefer, but he is fighting the war. I am a proponent of Michael Ledeen's "Faster, please" approach to the War on Terrorism, but I also understand that most of the American public is not yet ready for that. I believe it is shortsighted to claim that this is evidence of a lack of leadership, since we have already seen how small steps to do the right thing have been exploited by John Kerry to try and derail the entire War on Terrorism. It is more important that we win the war rather than every battle in that war, and especially every battle on an abbreviated timetable.

You must choose a side in this battle in the War on Terrorism, and as we have seen with the election in Spain and Australia, our general election on November 2 is another battle in that war. But keep in mind that there are three sides in this battle, rather than two. You can vote to allow President George W. Bush to continue to lead the fight in the War on Terrorism, you can vote to allow John Kerry to lead the fight in the War on Terrorism, or you can sit on your hands and accept the outcome dictated by the will of others -- including our enemies. I do not believe that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for our enemies though I believe it is a vote to fight the War on Terror in a way that I believe is misguided and likely to lead to more death and destruction in the short and long term.

A vote to re-elect President George W. Bush is not, and should not be taken to be a vote to endorse everything he advocates. It is useful to remember that he can only serve another four years and that he is likely to have, at best, only small majorities in Congress to work with. It is also useful to remember that even Winston Churchill was thrown out of office by the people of Great Britain in a resounding defeat in the elections of 1945. Their democracy survived and so shall ours, though I don't know if I would be able to write that had Lord Halifax become Prime Minister in 1940 and proceeded to broker a deal with Hitler as he desired rather than fight a protracted war with an uncertain outcome to defeat Germany unconditionally.

I like that word -- unconditionally. It is how we used to fight and win wars by demanding the unconditional surrender or destruction of our enemies on the battlefield. It sounds very harsh to our sensibilities today, yet it was only sixty years ago when we followed through with our demand for unconditional surrender by destroying our enemies in the Pacific when they would not surrender. I recently watched Hell in the Pacific, which documented in the clearest terms possible, and with shockingly graphic footage, what the destruction of our enemies on the field of battle meant and why it was necessary. It seems to me that it is only when we abandoned the idea of complete victory with the unconditional surrender or destruction of our enemies in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Bosnia, and again in Iraq that we have had left bleeding, festering wounds that will not heal rather than pursuing decisive, though undoubtedly painful, final results from which we can move forward.

Our enemies have a desired outcome for our election, though I will freely admit that I'm unsure of exactly what it may be. Whether we re-elect President George W. Bush or elect John Kerry as president on November 2, we may be giving our enemies what they want, but if you do not vote, you are making it easier for them to achieve their aims, whatever those aims may be. To that end, I suppose I am arguing that I'd rather you vote for John Kerry than not vote at all. If that is what you choose, then so be it, but at least choose or accept the consequences. At the very least it shows that you have not been intimidated into not voting out of fear or self-paralyzed into inaction by pathetic arguments that conclude with a pox upon both their houses, especially since a pox upon all of our houses is what might well result.

Whatever your reasons for disliking President George W. Bush and his policies, I feel comfortable stating that your political and policy differences with him cannot possibly be greater than those separating Winston Churchill and George Orwell. And yet, even the great, unrepentant socialist found common cause with virtually the last defender of the British Empire when it came to fighting a war of survival for Britain, however the political landscape might change after the war. But as Simon Schama also said:

Churchill wasn't fighting for the Vale of York or for some unreal dream of village England. He wasn't fighting for Britain at all understood just as a piece of geography. He was fighting for what he thought was the meaning of being British and that meaning was an idea. A precious idea we'd given to the world -- freedom and rule of law. Without it, having to endure an existence by permission of the Fuehrer, all we had was a mock Britain, not worthy of the name really, let alone of our long history. Better by far to die fighting than to live with the shame of being a slave state.

I leave it to the reader to connect the dots and draw the appropriate parallels from the world of 1940 and the challenges Britain faced then with Nazism to 2004 and the challenges the United States (and Britain, Australia, Poland and so many others!) face today with Islamofacism and the War on Terror. I pray your vision is as clear in this matter as I believe mine to be.

As I am no Bill Whittle, lacking the sufficient goodwill of readers to slog through an extended essay, I have tried to keep this plea to a manageable length to avoid readers skipping right past it. I could go on for many pages to try and address the thoughts, arguments, and objections that occured to me as I composed virtually each sentence, but I thought it better to limit the scope to something that serious readers can review within five minutes. Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated.

Posted by Charles Austin at October 15, 2004 08:56 PM | TrackBack

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.