Friday, May 23, 2003
Stefan Sharkansky writes that, contrary to his prior predilictions, he will likely vote for GWB for re-election, never having voted for a Republican Presidential candidate before.
I know the feeling, as I'll probably be doing the same.
For me, the personal paradigm-shift that accompanied my post-9/11 view of George W. Bush (I thought he performed phenomenally) caused me to re-examine a whole array of former positions. For some I was already going over to the other side, like say with regard to the type of Affirmative Action that gives testing and admissions preferences - I was already coming to new conclusions about such things (changing over to oppose them).
Other items were true changes of heart, though. There was a time when the mere term "Faith-Based Initiatives" would have sent me into fits - even before I knew what they were about. Nowadays...I dunno...it doesn't sound so bad to me. I went and looked at The White House page on the subject. It sounds reasonable, and not at all the horrific assault on the separation of Church and State some would have you believe, especially when juxtaposed to the true Church-State problems a renewed interest in the Middle East can bring. Is George Bush saying "God Bless America" and wanting local Church groups to be able to receive federal funds a real abuse? No, I think not. So suddenly, where before, I would have been in the amen corner with a Shark Blog commentor who says, "faith based initiaitves (aka, government sanctioned employment discrimination)," now I have a far more negative reaction to what sounds to me like manipulative hysteria. It soounds like the kind of anti-religious bigotry that a lot on the "religious right" complain about, rather than good, rational, measured concern for separation. I still don't know the full picture, but it's going to take a far more reasoned, rational explanation from someone who truly seems to know what they're talking about to get me to oppose the issue.
I guess my point is that buzzwords, cliches and labels don't have the effect they once did. I've taken a fresh look at a whole spectrum of issues I oce took for granted.
One thing that I've got now is a feeling for and appreciation of our Constitution, and a softer spot in my heart for those who advocate a tighter reading of it. If there's anything standing between GWB and the Mad Mullahs of the Middle East (or the Raving Reverends of Republicanism for that matter), it's the United States Constitution.
Which brings me to this blog.
Well, not really, I'm starting to ramble, but bear with me. One of my purposes here is to give myself a sort of outlet for things that are on my mind, while keeping to a forum I control. There's a slightly more selfless purpose, though. I started to feel like the USA and Israel were under attack. That's not a difficult conclusion to come to right? Bad history, bad logic both making it into the mainstream of the discourse. "We" need advocates.
So, in my tiny, little way, in this backwater of the internet, I'm adding a little bit of advocacy to the totality of what's out there. It may just be a drop in the ocean, but one drop is better than none. Maybe someone who's just starting to feel out their opinions on some of the issues I focus on will stop by, see my site and feel comforted that, "Hey, there's someone else out there thinking the same stuff I am..." and it will help them come to terms with their own half-formed opinions, and maybe give them a similar feeling to what I felt when I found sites like Frontpage Magazine.
It doesn't matter so much to me if I never get the readership of a Glenn Reynolds, and maybe it's better I never do. I don't need the pressure, and I intend to keep doing this as long as I have fun. I never knew there was such a thing as a "blogosphere" before I started this little project, and I can already sense myself trying to avoid getting drawn too far into the "blog culture." In a lot of ways the blogosphere mirrors a sort of broad-cast BBS community, with a lot of the cliques, pressures and other things that that implies...but that's a subject for another day.
I tend to focus on Israel and the Middle East right now because that's what I happen to find interesting. I'm passionate about the Middle East. It's not that I don't find other place interesting, I do, and I'll write about them from time-to-time, but the fact is, the Middle East is what I know most about, so I don't feel as qualified to have passionate opinions about many other places.
Which brings me to my position vis-a-vis Israel. To some, I certainly come off as a hawk, but I am not here advocating positions for Israelis to take. Regardless of what direction the Israeli electorate decides to go, my stake in the results is low in the extreme. Therefore, I see it as the height of irresponsibility to sit here from my chair in the USA and dictate to Israelis what they should do as I won't pay the price either way. I won't pay the price in security and risk should my voice have a part in forcing Israelis to make concessions. I won't face the bombs. I won't be the one taking the risks.
Likewise, I won't be the one facing the endless violence that may come from intransigence, settlement expansion and refusal to take any risks at all for peace. It's easy for me to say whatever I want from an ocean away.
What I can do is put my voice behind the choices the Israelis themselves make. What they do is up to them and I support them. That happens to make me a "hawk," because I happen to believe that pretty well whatever they decide is OK with me, yes, up to and including "transfer" (which isn't gonna happen). Anything short of that and I think the Israelis deserve credit, and I have no qualms about lending my voice to point it out to whoever wants to listen.
So that means that if the Israelis want to elect a Mitzna and offer to make great concessions again, I'll support them, and I support them if they, as they have, want more "right-leaning" leaders. Not mindlessly, but any of those choices are fine with me, and justifyable, and I am cognizant of my small stake in the risks either way, so I'm more than happy to lend moral support to those who take the risks.
ttfn
Welcome to the fold. I am a retired Naval Officer, who never managed to get wrapped up in politics. We weren't allowed to talk about it so I kept silent. Besides that, whenever anything was going on in the world, I was likely to be there, instead of here where I could see if folks were behind it or not.
Now that I have retired, 2002, I have looked at the state of our country, and what i have seen shocks me.
While I am not happy with all the things that the Bush Administration has done I feel that the war on terrorism was necessary and a long time in coming.
I too, feel that Isreal should be allowed to do what they must, and will not hold that against them.
Again, welcome to the fold.
Welcome to the Dark Side.
It's actually not so bad once you get used to it.
Hey, thank you for the welcome gents. :) The water's not bad once you're in.
And thank you for your service, RWO.
I came from a military family and lived in such an isolated environment that I had no real understanding of discrimination and poverty. So naturally when I entered college I was immediately drawn to liberalism to combat what I thought was evil resistance to change from conservatives. But one thing that haunted my newfound religion was the experience of professionalism and earning through competence. The liberals around me began to grumble about my belief that, sure it's important not to be discriminated against, but I expected effort even against tall odds. Like many in my generation, Ayn Rand slapped to sense into me and made me an advocate of reason. She led to to further my knowledge of philosophy, even if it disagreed with many of her positions. But now I have rational independence and I am now able to evaluate issues from their premises to results. I still maintain friendships with many liberals, it keeps me honest and sharp. The intelligence failure of the Left is rooted in their isolation. Logic and reason die in a room of sycophants and they have been reduced to sloganeering and canard peddling. Just talk to anyone who had a sign that says, "Bush = Hitler."
Intergalactic Capitalist
Welcome Aboard from a similar convert, though my conversion from campus radical to a conservative academic took place over the course of the past 17 years, and I've been on the "neo-con" (I hate that term) for about 15 years now. I hear ya, and will blogroll you on my own site.
I like the combination of colours used for your site -- masculine combination and very soothing to look at. NJC
My mother was the black sheep of her Kansas family when she decided to vote Democrat in 1960.
Today she is appalled that I am determined to vote for GWB in 2004 (absentee ballot).
Beats me why those who seek to change things are the "conservatives" and those who stubbornly defend the unworkable status quo are the "liberals" but maybe that just proves that labels are distractions for fools.
Yes, being a thinking person means constant excitement and challenge!
Phenomenonally.
Bwaha! Are you sure?
I believe that's what some people (who we don't cotton to 'round here) refer to as a "Bushism."