Electing the ostriches to office

Mark Steyn pithily reminds us why the anyone-but-Bush and the anyone-but-the-Republicans and the I-want-to-punish-the-Republicans crowds are all wrong:

But if it really is, as Democrats say, ”all about the future of our children,” then our children will want to know why our generation saw what was happening and didn’t do anything about it. They will despise us as we despise the political class of the 1930s. And the fact that we passed a great prescription drug plan will be poor consolation when the entire planet is one almighty headache. My caller at C-SPAN thought this Bush farsightedness shtick was ridiculous. And, though I did my best to lower her blood pressure, I can’t honestly say I succeeded. But suppose the ”Anyone But Bush” bumper-sticker set got their way; suppose he and Cheney and Rummy and all the minor supporting warmongers down to yours truly were suddenly vaporized in 20 seconds’ time. What then?

Nothing, that’s what. The jihad’s still there. Kim Jong Il’s still there. The Iranian nukes are still there. The slyer Islamist subversion from south-east Asia to the Balkans to northern England goes on, day after day after day. And one morning we’ll switch on the TV and the smoke and flames will be on this side of the Atlantic, much to President Rodham’s surprise. Bush hatred is silly and parochial and reductive: History is on the march and the anti-Bush crowd is holding the telescope the wrong way round.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    One question about the ’30s…..was there an actual “chorus” or warning then, as there is now?

    My impression has always been that Churchill was virtually alone – can we go back and read warnings about the consequences of appeasement in the newspaper columns, or find radio broadcasts, or even opinion pieces in periodical journals?

    Perhaps these were all there, and we simply don’t hear about them as part of an iconography of Winston….does someone know?

  • http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/ Bookworm

    Excellent question and, no, I don’t know. Anyone?

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    I think the 1930s were given far less warning than even pre 9/11 America. A lot of American capitalist bankers and what not supported the Nazi party, before it showed its true colors. In order to use it to fight against communism, of course.

    But the thing was, we didn’t need to back the Nazis to defeat communism. We could get rid of BOTH. And the fact that we did not, lead to the Cold War and a much longer communist reign of terror.

    They appeased the Nazis because of communists. Why are the Left appeasing Islamic Jihad? Perhaps because they see the Islamic Jihad as a way to achieve Lefty power, and to bludgeon the classical liberals? Hrm, interesting power triangle. But of course, if you break one leg of a triangle, you know what will happen, right. (Think Nazi vs Stalin vs US) Knock a triangle out, what happens next? One on one, one on one, is what.

  • erp

    FDR et al. was rooting for Uncle Joe. As long as Hitler was his ally, FDR just bided his time. When Hitler attacked, we went in against the wishes of the voters and the wishes of the congress. The rest is the most blatant attempt in our country’s history of a takeover of our government by a president. The Nazi’s were only a threat to the Commies. They couldn’t sustain the war and were low without supplies and food without friends or allies.

    At the end of the war, FDR gave Stalin everything he could. Only his death saved western Europe from a Communist takeover. Then came the cold war and only a few brave souls like McCarthy sacrificed themselves to bring the truth to the people. The same lefties remained in power until well after the war ended and laid the ground work for the 60’s and the next attempt to take our government down.

    Then came the Clintonistas, some of which remained in the state department ready and willing to take down the Bush administration.

    Ann Coulter is right on target.

    Those who think we should teach Bush a lesson by voting to put Democrats back in power, should think again. How many times came we survive the concerted efforts of so many at home and abroad to turn us into a third world country.

  • Lulu

    I really think the Left supports Islamists because they see this as a struggle of the people-of-color 3rd world against white colonial imperialism. It’s that simplistic. They can’t be caught dead faulting a person-of-color against western imperialist born-again Zionist colonialist Nazi war-for-oil money Haliburton, now can they?

  • erp

    Islamists aren’t people of color, unless you mean the Negroes in Somalia, the Sudan, etc. The people of the Middle East and the Indian peninsula including Pakistan and Afghanistan are Caucasian just like us western imperialists.

  • JJ

    There was a chorus, but it was a pretty subdued chorus. Churchill was the leading light, because he was the loudest voice, but there were plenty of others.

    Interestingly, a lot of them were military; guys who knew that WW I hadn’t really settled much.

    In this country we were struggling to recover from the Depression – which incidentally wasn’t working out at all well. FDR gets endles credit for the alphabet soup of federal agencies he created to address the problem, but the actual net effect of them was, as a matter of history, pretty close to zero. The Depression rolled right on past all the new agencies and pretty much ignored them through the thirties. It was a preoccupying concern.

    In this country, as noted, voices that warned of war were people such as George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, and George Marshall. They were ignored, because they were part of a greatly scaled-down peacetime army that the politicians figured they didn’t need to give any attention. But Patton in particular, watching Germany and Italy, started fighting for the creation of armored units as early as 1930, lobbying congress for funds. He wrote articles throughout the thirties pointing out the coming need – and was roundly ignored. Specifically referencing European terrain he developed all new radio communications for tanks in the mid-thirties.

    Then, of course, along came the Blitzkrieg, and he got the funding and was put in charge of the armored brigade (the single one he’d managed to annoy them into creating) which became the 2nd Armored Brigade.

    Marshall and MacArthur were equally clear-eyed – and equally ignored. Just as Churchill was.

    And FDR always did hold idiotic views on matters foreign, which is how Stalin was able to enslave eastern Europe post-war. (It also led to Stalin referring to him as “a child” after the Teheran conference. On the other hand, Stalin didn’t much like Churchill, because Churchill saw right through him – but Roosevelt didn’t. It didn’t do the world any good, because England was a spent force by that point, and Stalin got Roosevelt to give him the world.)

    FDR in fact was easily the most useful of Stalin’s useful idiots.

    There were plenty of people, mostly military, who were not in the least surprised at the outbreak of war in 1939.

  • Al

    It really is not suprising that people with a military background were considering, if not outright anticipating, a resumption of hostilities which became WW II. In my pediatric practice, it is always, and almost only, the military families who bring their kids’ shot records with them when they transfer into my practice. The military live, and think, and prepare in and for the real world. There is yet another telling comment in Steyn’s column about those who are drawn to action, and those who just react. Steyn relays a comment from a Belgan puplication in the penultimate paragraph. A Mr. van den Boogard is quoted as saying “I am not a warrior. But who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom, I was only good at enjoying it.” This is van den Boogard’s comment on the Islamification of Europe.
    I sincerely hope that the majority of the European populace have a more proactive attiude.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Roosevelt was suffering from an advanced stage mental disease, Alzheimer’s I recall. HIs negotiations were totally sub par, regardless of what he would have done at top quality. Truman was far better. Roosevelt gets credit for aiding churchill when Churchill met him on a (navy ship) out in the middle of no where, and agreed to aid Britain. Truman gets a lot more credit. Anyone who was clear eyed enough to end the war with Japan with only two nuclear weapons showed wisdom beyond the age.

    They don’t, Al. They were never responsible for their own protections, or even getting their own jobs because of the welfare state. No self-defense, no duty to protect their families, no duty to even work to pay for their families. Without duty, mankind slithers unto dust and is free for the reaping by the strong.

  • Danny Lemieux

    All of you are overlooking something saliently important – the Left DID support the rise of Adolph Hitler. Hitler’s emissaries were feted at Harvard, Columbia and other universities during the 1930s, much like the Islamofascists are today. The Left didn’t turn against Hitler until Hitler broke their treaty and invaded their beloved Russia. And, actually, when you look back at Hitler’s Germany, it’s a wonder that the Left can find anything to complain about – product of a broken home, vegetarian, bisexual, “loved” children, avid proponent of gun control and State power, state-control of industry, universal education, dabbler into Eastern religions, voice for the downtrodden proletariat, anti-semite…heck, he was their kind of guy. Maybe, in their eyes, his great failing was that he lost to the Capitalist regimes.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Sure Danny, but that was when Hitler was the poster child of the Socialist movement in Germany. The left reserves its most hate for traitors of the fold.

    Well, ya, they weren’t fighting Hitler cause Stalin said that Hitler was the friend of the proletariant, an ally against the imperialist and capitalistic pigs in the UK and US. Then when the US was Stalin’s ally, we were their compatriots and Hitler was the fascistic thugs that were the enemy of the proletariat…. talk about 1984.

    I think Hitler’s great failing was his betrayal of the Socialist Left side. The Left never forgives a traitor.

  • Pingback: The Pelosi Agenda. Part 4 « Nuke’s news & views()

  • Sarge


    “Roosevelt was suffering from an advanced stage mental disease, Alzheimer’s I recall. His negotiations were totally sub par, regardless of what he would have done at top quality.”

    He also had communists advicing him from the Sate Department.

    I have just finished reading “Witness” by Whittiker Chambers, and Whittaker Chambers: A Biography” by Sam Tanenhaus. Alger Hiss was one of the high level State Department guys at both Tehran, and Yalta. Hiss also was the guy who spear headed the UM charter. Great work…… for the communists.


  • zhombre

    Y — I read once, I believe in Joshua Muravchik’s Heaven On Earth — that National Socialism substituted race hatred for class hatred, converting the proletariat into the mystical Aryan volk, but like the Communists the Nazis held liberal democracy and bourgeoisie values in contempt. It was said an ex Communist made a good Nazi; they merely had to adjust their rancor.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Dean wrote something similar. I liken it to the difference between baatezu and ta’nari of AD and D cosmology. The Baatezu believe in regimented murder, as the Nazis did. In discipline and order, in order to perpetrate evil. The ta’nari believed in mass murder and insanity, the basest of nihilistic destruction. Now they both hated the angels, which represented Goodness. But the people that the ta’nari and baatezu hated the most, were each other.

    Then there’s the Sunni-Shia divide. Then there is the Baath-Iran divide. And after awhile, it seems to me, that evil hates other people who are evil, more than they have ever hated beings of good and justice. Makes sense. Evil wants power, a power that is limited. They don’t want any competition.

    Sarge, the communists were always better at the cloak and dagger betrayal stuff than Americans. Honor and loyalty, the foundations of the American union, does not leave much room for the betrayal and dishonesty requirements of spycraft and intrigue.

    A society based upon truth and the freedom of information, available to all citizens and people, is a society that is not engineered for the hardcore of hardcore cloak and dagger operations. While soldiers and protectors base their lives on fullfilling and honoring their promises, oaths, and obligations. Spies and saboteurs rely upon breaking their promises, betraying their oaths, and making sure someone else faces their obligations. It is a great joke that in warfare, deception is the rule, not the exception. Even the most honest and honorable of leaders, must learn how to deceive and manipulate. But they drew a line between cheating the enemy and cheating their own side.

    The communists not only cheat everyone not on their side, but they also cheat everyone on their side as well, if they can get away with it. Stalin’s riches and Troutsky’s fate, being only one of few. But of course, this is always true of dictatorships brought on through revolution.

    In a clash to the death, the better man won. No matter how good they were at spycraft, we were still better at killing and hardware. Reminds me of the Arabs. Great in propaganda, way low on the toten pole of being able to inflict casualties on the enemy.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Muravchik was partly right, Z. The Nazis first had to convert anti-semitism into class hatred by artificially blaming the Jooos for being the upper class and “controlling” the German economy. Hitler co-mingled racism with class hatred..

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    It has always been like that I think. The KKK originally was fearful of all these foreigners coming into their country and disrupting their culture and way of life. There has got to be material benefits people can gain by getting rid of one group or another, else people just probably wouldn’t care.

    Here in the US, we hvae damped down on this hatred not because humans are better, but because punishments are greater and there is no real economic need to start hating others for not having a job. The Left tries to get as much power from illegal immigration and blacks as they can manipulate and backstab for, but it is not nearly enough for their purposes of revolution.