Alpine Summit

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

U.S. Doesn't Trust Democrats on National Security

A great Wall Street Journal column about how the White House is FINALLY pushing back against a hostile domestic media. The whole column is great (except for the red-hot economy part... it's bullish, but not "red-hot") and I suggest you read it. What struck me in particular is the claim that Democrats really aren't trusted when it comes to foreign policy.

What Democrats fail to realize is that as long as national security is on the front page--even if it's the war in Iraq--voters are unlikely to trust them. And this is entirely because of their perpetual defeatism. Claiming, in the words of Dr. Dean, that it "is just plain wrong" to think that that "we're going to win this war," is just plain idiocy. As Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert D. Kaplan pointed out in the latest issue of The American Enterprise, much of the political left continues to think in a "1970s time-warp mentality." He was speaking, apparently, of the entire Democratic leadership.

I think a lot of credit is owed to Reagan for giving this patriotism back to America. Reagan ran on a very optimistic ticket of "we've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1 (which was actually Bill Murray in "Stripes," but you catch my drift)!

Reagan's optimism came on the tails of prisoners in Iran, a failed rescue attempt for said prisoners, a costly war in Vietnam that was all but won when we pulled out (according to some), an oil embargo, Nixon's watergate scandal, and a cold war that seemed to be in a stalemate with nobody any safer than before.

Sure, Reagan's administration had its own problems, but one thing he did for this country is give us our identity as proud Americans back. I think that optimism is still alive in America today 20 years later. People don't want to hear about how they're going to fail before even trying a thing. I also think that because of that optimism, people are recognizing more easily that saying our troops are going to lose is not, in fact, "supporting the troops" or "patriotic" in any possible permutation of the facts they can conceive.

Another quick point I'd like to make is that if it wasn't for the blogosphere and milblogs in particular, we would NEVER hear the good news from this war.

If it weren't for FOX News, talk radio, conservative magazines, and the blogosphere, it's doubtful that any good news would be heard over the chorus of the administration's critics. To a degree, this is understandable--press bias is undoubtedly real (as confirmed, yet again, by a new UCLA-led study), and indisputably anti-Bush. Hence why Cindy Sheehan's every move--not to mention those of Rep. Jack Murtha--receives blanket coverage, while the Iraqi elections have already been relegated to the back pages.

I did find it odd (not really) that the Iraqi vote was sort of glazed over by the media. They pretty much front-paged it for a day, then on to how they could make Bush look bad. Those approval numbers are far too high for their so-called "objective" tastes. One need only look at the NYT's timing of the release, of illegally obtained information, about wiretapped international phone calls with the signing of the Patriot Act renewal to see that the media obviously has an agenda hostile towards Bush's plans and, by extension, our troops abroad.

|