Gus Van Horn has opined on the disagreement between Jack Wakeland and Nicholas Provenzo over Bush's handling of the war on terrorism here.
I think Gus was very reasonable in his comments, but that is not why I write now. Gus said something with which I totally agree and on which I want to expand.
"But on a more important front -- the domestic front -- we are potentially far better off because Kerry and most of the Democratic party have strongly totalitarian impulses and, as I have blogged recently, want more than anything else to restrict our freedom of speech, which is the very means by which one's opinion of the war effort is registered."
"Totalitarian impulses" I agree with 100%. I have always believed that a liberal Democrat would be tough and forceful, very much so, against Americans but nobody else. He, or she, would see the American way of life as evil and the way of life of foreign nations, no matter the squalor, morally superior.
This would be due to moral relativism. Virtually all leftists and most liberals firmly believe in this morality. But what relativism does is reduce all moral values to the level of the approximate. If a value can be a moral value today but maybe not tomorrow, then why would a person risk his life to defend it? He wouldn't.
Philosopher Ayn Rand pointed out that: "When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil aquires the force of an absolute...." (Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged) When a relativist is confronted by an aggresive absolutist, he will cower before it. He has no choice. He will believe that because all moral values are relative, the values of his enemy might just be right, for now, and will be eager to negotiate away the ones he does hold.
In the 70s there were little relativists running around carrying signs which read "I'd rather be red than dead." On the suface that meant they would rather surrender to communism than defend capitalism. What it really meant is that these people held no values that they thought were worth fighting and dying for. That is why, when confronted with the absolutism of Communism, their impulse was to cower. And it just wasn't cowering out of fear. They were eager to cower, proud of the fact that they had nothing to be proud of.
Today these people dominate our schools, universities, media and government. They are being confronted by another absolutist enemy, Islam. And they are cowering. Notice how many intellectuals bend over backwards to accomodate Islamic customs but snarl vituperous hatred at Christian ones? If they hate religion so much, why are they cowering before Islam?
I think it has to do with the fact that all the Christian religions are percieved to be compatible with Capitalism-even though they're not-and since capitalism is the enemy, then Christianity is the enemy too. Whereas Islam clearly wants to destroy capitalism so it will be viewed approvingly.
Those with this mindset will not hesitate to come down hard on an American citizenry that is viewed as greedy, selfish and destroying the planet and because of that, evil. Even now they are calling for the government to initiate "decisive and bold" action to save the planet. Of course such action means government force applied to the people.
So if a liberal Dem wins in 08, it would be in our interest to give him (or her) a Rep congress. That won't stop a socialist state from happening but it will slow it down, maybe.