The 2008 U.S. Election: Simplistic and Shallow Understandings

Every year, for the past 45 years or so, we have had a Thanksgiving dinner and family gathering in our home; this year was no exception. For three or four days, The Lovely Joan, purchased the "makings" and then proceeded to cook a fantastic meal: cheese platters, veggies and dips, provided by one daughter, turkey, dressing, sweet potatoes and marshmallows, curried fruit, 12 pounds of mashed potatoes, corn pudding, gravy, five kinds of pies, and on and on. We had originally planned on 18 to 20 people and by the time yesterday arrived, the guest list had grown to nearly 30!

Among the gang were a dozen or so children, ages 2 through 18, including grandsons Joshua and Jake, 18 and 11 respectively. As readers of my various musings and commentaries, I have strongly held opinions and love, absolutely love, being challenged by people who are prepared to offer rational argument. Of all the adults in that gathering who disagreed with me and my opinions, the expressed beliefs of Joshua and Jake were the best presented.

The other evening, while we were recovering from devouring a Thanksgiving meal, complete with massive amounts of calories and gravy, the adults in our home found themselves in groups discussing American politics and the election next November, just under a year away. As host, and resident Liberal, I found myself in several such groups and noted the common misconceptions and shallow reasoning that underpinned much Conservative thought.

The first group was represented by my sister-in-law, Edith, who reported that she and her friends from New Jersey were likely to cast their votes for Rudy Giuliani on the ground that he would "protect us from terrorists." During the conversation, the issue of protecting us from another 9/11 attack was paramount. I asked if she felt that Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and Edwards would be lacking in the degree of protection, and each of the Democratic candidates were summarily dismissed; Obama too inexperienced in foreign relations, Edwards a disreputable trial lawyer, Clinton, well, they just didn't trust Hillary. She had a practice of shifting opinions and values to suit the potential voter. Edith hadn't really considered Senator Biden and, in any event, she felt, Republicans were better at protecting us, generally.

I suggested that, regardless of the election, it seemed certain to me that someday, eventually, regardless of the safeguards imposed, it was inevitable that there would be another terrorist attack on United States soil. Lives would be lost and the nation again put through the agony of September 11^th. This statement was received with horror and fear. And yet, this is a truth that is being ignored by many thinking people.

We speak of a "war on terrorists" but there is no such "war" in the conventional meaning. A war is, traditionally, pitted by nation-states, has a start and an ending. World War II ended by the demanded unconditional surrender of German and Japanese forces and their respective governments. That war was fought, incidentally, by a clash of cultures and political ideology, but the true rationale was the capture of territory.

We are engaged now in a conflict of ideologies. There is no territory to bomb into submission. For every terrorist we kill, ten more spring forth. For every civilian non-terrorist that is killed, 100 more rise from the ashes. The conflict is sui generis, unlike that which we have confronted in the past. We have to face this and consider new approaches.

A consequence is that our country, with its passion and history of transparency and freedom, is certain to be a target in the future, whether is will come in the form of a seized aircraft, lethal gas in a subway, an explosion in a football crowded stadium; whatever, it is a certainty. No candidate can prevent it. If you wish to cast a vote for Rudy, fine; but not under the impression that he will make it safe and the others candidates will not.

(As a matter of fact, in case anyone is interested, I find Mr. Giuliani's positions quite acceptable - in those areas in which the Republican base finds offensive. He is, or has been in the past, in favor of a woman's basic rights to choose an abortion, in favor of regulations and limits on gun ownership and has many progressive opinions. He is, above all, a pragmatist. For those who hate Senator Clinton because of her husband's infidelity, Rudy has exchanged wives several times for a younger, improved model.)

Edith's reaction was one of horror and a refusal to accept an, in my opinion, inevitable future attack. She felt that such an acceptance was paralyzing. I respectfully disagreed. We are in a fight over freedom and values and the only way to persevere is to maintain those freedoms and values. If we relinquish them, we are no better than the terrorists and, perhaps, have no justification to survive. In a wholly bizarre way, President Bush was correct in urging Americans to continue to shop, work and live normally following the 9/11 attack.

The prescription is one of hope and not dread, living and not cowering; going off to invade countries that have done us no harm, have not attacked us (e.g., Iraq) is counterproductive. (Parenthetically, immediately after the World Trade Center attack in 2001, had we committed our entire forces in destroying Afghanistan, a country that had trained and was hiding al Qaeda, there would have been no objection coming from me!)

The next political discussion was with a gentleman from Ethiopia, now living in the Atlanta area. Haddis is an intelligent man and quite successful in his business ventures. His approach was one of "strength". We should immediately impose financial sanctions, that is seize or block assets, on any nation that is felt to be supportive of terrorists, including and predominately, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I pressed him as to our course of action after sanctions had not rooted out terrorists in each middle-east country. Then, he stated, we would bomb and invade any recalcitrant country; Syria and Turkey? Pakistan and Afghanistan? Jordan and Wherever?

Haddis was, also, in favor of a strong Federal government, and a willingness to allow the government (certainly if the G.O.P. were in control) to restrict freedoms if such were "necessary to "protect" the nation.

Haddis' point of view was consistent with that of the Bush (43) administration. There was an acceptance of the concept of "preventive war", the willingness to take unilateral preemptive action against another sovereign nation. He suggested that the situation in World War II was analogous, where we attacked Germany to prevent the over running of Europe and, eventually the United States.

I disputed this by noting the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7^th, the Declaration of War by Germany the following day, December 8^th and the subsequent Declaration of War by The United States on December 11^th, 1941; we did not attack preemptively. We reacted. Our preemptive and unilateral strike at Iraq was not a reaction to a threat or attack. Just as the dubious start of the Vietnam conflict, this is indeed a slippery slope.

One common argument made by Edith and Haddis was repeated later: We should be willing to forfeit theoretical freedoms and rights of privacy in the cause of protection. Thus, if we accept searches prior to boarding an airplane, we should be willing to accept warrantless searches and interception of mail and telephone conversations by a concerned and benevolent government. This argument may appear to be attractive; after all, if you have nothing of which to be ashamed or guilty, what harm has been done?

There are two fallacies at play. First, boarding that airplane is a voluntary choice; there are alternative ways to travel that do not require searches and, in any event, the search is minor. Second, wholesale searches of private conversations and mail, without a showing of probably cause and prior judicial authorization, or at least such judicial examination promptly, is a violation of a bedrock principle of freedom.

I am fond of quoting Benjamin Franklin. A people who give up freedom for security deserve and will gain neither. As I have stated, our values make us unique and worth preserving, make us better than the terrorists. Forfeiture of those freedoms is a price more than I am willing to pay.

Haddis, and to a lesser degree, my sister-in-law, is a believer in "being tough". We should go forth and smite the foe, without really acknowledging that the "foe" doesn't wear a uniform, is not a standing army and is extraordinarily difficult or impossible to identify. There is a feeling that Moslems in the United States are, if not disloyal, certainly worthy of suspicion. How soon will be feel compelled to reopen the Japanese "camps" and relocation centers of the 1940's?

I finally entered into a spirited conversation with Grandsons Joshua and Jacob, ages 18 and 11, respectively. I have noted in a previous post that my discussion with these young people was the most heartening and exciting of the evening. Both young men, demonstrating a power of logic and comprehension far more sophisticated than the people with whom I had discussed issues previously, were, in my opinion, far too ready to accept a diminished right of privacy and an increased role of the Federal government in return for a sense of security.

This is an area in which I respectfully disagree with my grandsons. And it is the area in which I find many too willing to accept. We have allowed the present administration to adopt fear as a tool of government. While we ended the conversation by agreeing to disagree and while I would have preferred to win over these young people with my logic and reasoning, I am so very proud of them and in awe of their thought processes.

I believe, however, that too many of us are willing to give up many freedoms that make us unique. Fear is not an attitude that made this nation strong. We must accept the truth that our open society creates risk but that the alternative is far worse.

In the meantime, my confidence in the future is high because of the insights and thoughtfulness of these grandsons, their siblings and cousins, the girls strong, the guys handsome and all above average.

Thanks for making my holiday.