Posted by
Old Prof on Friday, July 25, 2008 10:14:05 PM
To begin where we ended last time, we repeat the question, "Which candidate would be most likely to unite the country? The one who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton or the one who spent 20 years in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church?" Methinks it is obvious. However, none of that means anything to the supporters of "Barack Star Obama," or "Nobama," as he is being referred to in some quarters now. What matters most to them is change, any kind of change, even though they looked somewhat chagrined holding those placards that said, "Change We Can Believe In," after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright incident.
Their hatred of George Bush is so great that they will be willing to tolerate anything just to be able to get someone into the presidency who adheres to their values on social issues: abortion on demand, gun control, fiscal irresponsibility, and moral relativism. The major issue for them, however, is opposition to military action of any kind for any reason. This is the touchstone that unites all of the disparate elements that come together to support the candidate who has been against the war from its inception and who favors unconditional withdrawal from Iraq as rapidly as possible.
There has been conjecture as to what issue will prove to be the most important in the upcoming election and many issues have been put forward: high energy costs, improving the economy, handling of the housing crisis, and the character of the candidates. But methinks that the war in Iraq is, and will continue to be, the decisive factor in the election.
By all rights, the Democratic Party should not lose a Presidental election. The country is split almost equally between red and blue voters. African Americans, who constitute about 13% of the country's population, vote from 80% to 90% for the Democratic candidate in a presidential election. Hispanics, who are about 25% of the population also vote around 70% for the Democratic candidate (although this varies greatly according to national origin).
Why then has the Democratic candidate lost 5 of the last seven presidential elections? Could it be because of the kind of candidate they nominate? Let's see: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukaukis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Have any of these candidates been anywhere near the middle of the political spectrum? I don't think so. When the Democratic Party should not lose any presidential elections, everything else being equal, they still insist on nominating candidates who are far to the left on almost every issue and go down in defeat.
How does this make the war the most important issue in the race? Because it is the keystone in the arch that holds the other issues in place.
Democrats want peace at any cost so that tax money can be spent on their socialistic domestic agenda and not wasted on things like protecting the nation. Democratic presidents have fought all the big foreign wars (WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam) and Republican presidents have fought the little foreign wars (Spanish American War, Grenada, capture of Noriega).
The democratic philosophy regarding war is to wait until we are attacked or the free world is in eminent danger of collapse, then go in with the full force of our military might and save the world. Dare I mention that this seems to be somewhat akin to a "messianic complex?" Although both Woodrow Wilson and FDR were entirely justified in their method of waiting until the last possible moment to enter WWI and WWII, wars will not be fought in this manner in the future. "Brush fire" wars involving guerilla tactics by terrorists organizations will be the type of military action that the U. S. and other majors powers will find themselves involved in from now on, just to protect their citizens.
Will war be the most important issue in the coming election? Without question. It always trumps domestic issues and when the cost of even small wars is factored in, the voters will "vote their pocketbooks" with even more of a vengeance. This could negatively impact support for John McCain even though the surge is working and the tide has turned in favor of the U. S. Success in Iraq will not matter to Obama's supporters who will focus their attention on the cost of the war and how this money could have been better used for domestic programs, like universal heath care.
McCain's salvation must come from another quarter. The war in Iraq is a wash for Republicans at best. It would be more prudent to point out the inevitable results of Obama's "tax and spend, and tax again" pledges that he has already made to the American people: economic down turn from a reluctance to invest and the huge cost of his social agenda. Obama's supporters don't remember Jimmy Carter's one term presidency when the misery index was double digit (interest rates, inflation rate, and unemployment rate). It is doubtful that this will make much of an impression on them, but John McCain must attempt to hammer this home to the voters and should have already been doing so instead of gravitating to whatever issue seems to make the news for awhile. O. P.