The high-minded man must care more for truth...

...than for what people think. - Aristotle, Ethics

Clarifying My Position

By J.R. Nyquist

A Canadian reader of my column on Steven Vincent’s book wrote to disapprove. He said that America ought to leave Iraq and let them figure things out for themselves. That sounds okay on the surface, I replied, but America was attacked on 9/11 by Arabs; and we’ll be attacked again if we don’t do something to change the structure of the Arab world. 

My Canadian correspondent insisted that the U.S. Government had “failed its primary job the first time [9/11].” He could not understand why Americans “wish to give [the government] a second chance with [their] personal security again.” 

Of course, we don’t have a choice, except when it comes to elections. The U.S. Government is responsible for managing our defense. The American electorate merely elects those who will lead the government. 

You may or may not forgive my realism, but if the alternative to George W. Bush was John Kerry then Mr. Bush is my man. At least he courts disaster by waging war in an attempt to change the political structure of Middle East. Kerry, on the other hand, merely advocates a policy of appeasement (which is shameful in and of itself, and ultimately disastrous). I don’t know if President Bush has made the right strategic decision by invading Iraq. I’m sure the armchair generals are full of bilious advice, as they always are. From where I stand, Bush is a man who fights the country’s enemies without apology, and understands that America must take the offensive. You don’t sit back and give mass murderers unlimited time to prepare their next assault.

There are those who will misunderstand what I’ve just said. They will accuse me of being a Bush lackey or partisan. But that’s not what I’m about. To those who revile the president, who are filled with bitter criticism I say: It is wrong to wish for America’s defeat. (For isn't this what it all boils down to, on an emotional level?) We all know what the far Left has to say on this issue. But what about those on the Right who paint George W. Bush with horns and a tail because he is a “socialist” and America is now a corrupted country? If there is any point to this line of reasoning, it signifies a desire to hang those who’ve betrayed laissez-faire capitalism. As much as I favor the free market and distrust the welfare state, I nevertheless recognize that politics has primacy over economics, because national security and national survival ought to take precedence over money-making. Individual rights should be protected, but this protection cannot be without cost. A real defensive mechanism must exist, and a real sense of duty on the part of those who are called upon to fight and die. And here, on this ground, the anarchism of the Libertarians meets its correction. There is no state without armed men to fight for it, and armed men are only as effective and honorable as their sense of duty bids them. It is no accident that the father of our country was a general. It is important, in this regard, to put first things first. The reason for the success of our political system is not to be found in laissez-faire, but in old Roman notions like “military duty,” and “rule of law” and the “organic growth of free institutions.” The laissez-faire we’ve enjoyed stems from national habit and protections arising from the Roman model, and not from an ideologist’s dream-cloud. The first principle of a good government is not laissez-faire but an elaborate system of checks and balances that prevent the eruption of despotic power. A good constitution of itself will lead to a flourishing society with a free market. This is the thing that is protected, but the mechanism that protects must not be short-changed. 

Instead of grappling with complex issues, people often use ideological formulas to answer difficult questions. If they only memorize a few basic principles then everything can be set right. And so they go to work, and what a marvel of wrecking! Take some time-tested good ideas for example: Free trade is a great thing, if you’re trading with people who aren’t bent on your destruction. Laissez-faire is a good thing, if your key industries aren't being bought up by front companies working under a foreign intelligence service.

I support the United States Government because it is the leading benevolent power on the planet. Furthermore, it is the government of my country, elected according to the Constitution, following time-honored political practices that belong to the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Sorry, France.) An alternative to the U.S. Government would undoubtedly prove complicated to actuate, as well as dangerous, and the result would undoubtedly prove inferior to what we now enjoy. You may imagine yourself, with your “perfect principles” overturning the U.S. Government in favor of something more laissez-faire, but: (1) the perfect principles in your head will not translate into an ideal state; (2) revolutions always break the spell of common belief regarding the exercise of supreme power, leading to mass slaughter; (3) therefore, you are better off taking your chances with George W. Bush and Uncle Sam.

Someone sent me the following comment this week after reading my piece on Bush in Europe:

I read (or skimmed through) your article with amazement and amusement. Americans are not noted for their knowledge of the world around them and George W. Bush is no exception. Since a majority of the US citizens elected Bush at the last election rather than by a decision of your supreme court as occurred in 2000 foreigners have a much better measure of the U.S. psyche. Bush is a moron who cannot even pronounce nuclear ("nucular"). In the post Iraq world it's a perfectly rational decision of any country to arm itself with nuclear weapons so as to fend off an American attack if, for example, that country has something the U.S. wants, like oil. By and large the U.S. is a laughing stock. The state of its finances means that it is nothing more than a bankrupt banana republic with an administration to match. Any talk of Bush as a lion is risible. Keep up the good work Mr. bin Laden.

The above is filled with commonplace slurs meant only to degrade. Most irksome, however, is to find myself cannonaded by those who mistakenly think I worship George W. Bush – or that I am a Bush apologist! And here comes the clarification: Bush’s ideas are not my ideas. The fact that I respect the president of the United States, and the Constitution is right and proper. But do not mistake my position, which has been thoroughly outlined in hundreds of articles and hundreds of published pages. What I’m about to say will seem quite harsh; but it isn’t true that George Bush is uniquely courting disaster by his Iraq invasion. The entire United States – as a culture, as a people – has courted disaster for over two decades. Carter, Reagan, the elder Bush, Clinton and the American people as a whole are equally to blame for the present crisis. 

The United States has failed to prepare for the next world war. This failure continues, even now. America lost sight of its enemy and the method of its enemy (i.e., deception). America is presently worried that Islamic criminals should acquire nuclear or biological weapons. I hate to break the news, but communist criminals not only acquired such weapons over half a century ago, but they’ve amassed such a store that they could destroy the United States as a country and reduce its population to a fraction of what it is today. And if you don’t think the leaders in Moscow and Beijing dream of doing exactly that, then you haven't learned your political ABC’s. You can bounce up and down on your ideological hobby horse or retreat into the prevailing groupthink, but Russia has several thousand nuclear weapons 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union and they just announced the development of a new generation of nuclear warheads.

Russia’s arsenal is so large and sophisticated that it could only serve one purpose; that is, to destroy the United States. To counter one objection to this statement, America’s political leadership would be deterred from an attack if Russia only had 100 nuclear warheads; so it’s safe to say that Russia’s 6,000-warhead arsenal wasn’t built for deterrence. And here is one of many clues to the actual situation we face. 

America also hasn’t registered the fact that Russia and China are supporting several rogue states (especially, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.). America hasn’t acknowledged the obvious fact that Russia and China have penetrated the United States (and its allies) economically, in a way that fundamentally compromises our national security. And there’s Russia’s contribution to China’s military buildup – including advanced anti-ship missiles, submarines and fighter aircraft. George W. Bush hasn’t come to grips with these facts, and the American people haven’t come to grips with them. So before anyone accuses me of being a camp follower of the President, they had better understand that there’s a difference between my strategic conceptions and those of the administration.

Given the nature of the threat, as I see it, there is no point in mocking the president as a “moron.” My own point of view is sufficiently frightening that it warrants the sincere wish to find itself mistaken. Someone who sees a threat, or strongly suspects a threat to the country, is obligated to say something. 

The person I am ultimately addressing is the president of the United States and his advisors. I want these matters discussed and debated. And I cannot do this by writing columns that side with those who despise the administration and declare that the United States is the Nazi Germany of our time. Such polemics have no place in my work. And those who share such views can jump in a lake.

Return to Main Page