Flyover 101: An Education for the American Left

Why George W. Bush Is The Best American President Since JFK

2005-03-10T01:22:00.000-08:00

The following is dedicated to my friend Jason, a recent conservative convert (Can I get an Amen?!). Jason's weblog is about to go public. I encourage all Flyover 101 faithful to fully support Jason's blog, and that goes for both of you.

Let me be frank. I think the world of George W. Bush. He has done so many things that I agee with, and so few that I disagree with, that I am no longer objective on the subject. I feel that President Bush has allowed Americans to see his true character, and I am sold. My first reaction is to defend the man whenever he is criticized by the little people, who are invariably motivated by greed, political ambition, jealousy, or old fashioned craziness. Yes, there are one or two aspects of George that I would tweak and temper, but we may never see a more perfect American president in this century. The President's character, his love for America, and his complete lack of interest in writing his legacy while in office indeed make him the best American president since Kennedy.

Let us compare President Bush's character to that of his predecessor. I have no interest in Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy", and I do not care that the European media portrayed Americans as silly for taking issue with Clinton's sexcapades in the oval office. I did not like that scandal. Great men have stood in that office and held this country together through the darkest of days. Clinton's actions showed complete lack of reverence for his position and disturbing shallowness of character. He blatantly violated the trust of the American people, and teflon-coated as he was, the press loved him for it. Clinton did not merely taint his own term in office. The office itself took a hit. For the liberals out there, we are not talking about the acts per se. The liberals are out there saying, "come on...how can thoroughly enjoying a cigar do all of that?" They miss the point. Clinton's scandalous behavior and his infamous bold-faced lie to the American people illustrate that his presidency had nothing to do with bettering America. It was all about Bill and Bill's image. The desperation to get something done in the Middle East in the final days of his last term represents a pathetic attempt to leave a legacy of something more than a soiled blue dress. To this day, Clinton struggles to shift his legacy away from Monica, Ken Star, the impeachment, all of it. He established the William J. Clinton Library to tell his side. He has become the face of the Tsunami relief effort, and he even aspires to become the Secretary General of the United Nations. Does anyone really believe that any of that is out of genuine concern for Americans or humans at large? I guess it "depends on what the definition of IS is."

And then came George W. Bush. At once, the presidency was again about the business of running the country. President Bush understands that the office is bigger than the man, and this attitude pervades his conduct. The President knows that every action and every word either bolsters or detracts from the importance and credibility of the office he holds. I sense that he feels the trust that Americans have placed in him, and I believe that he operates above the realm of beltway politics. When President Bush makes a statement, people believe it. When he states that he will take action, nobody doubts what will happen next. The liberals are screaming three letters at this point, "WMD, WMD, WMD." Calm down ye liberals, we will get there. The bottom line on this point is that President Bush restored my faith in what a president can be. After the mockery of the office exhibited by the preceding president, the significance of this change cannot be overstated.

I have complete confidence that President Bush will, in any situation, do what he believes is right. This is the stuff of honor, and it has repercussions far beyond what is noticed on a day to day basis. Take for example the extremely complex issue of civil rights. Any liberal will tell you that President Bush cares nothing about civil rights, as evidenced by his snubbing of the NAACP. On the contrary, President Bush has done more for civil rights than any president since JFK. The President selected Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell based on their merits, and with no regard to their race whatsoever. He gave them real power, not token cabinet positions, and they each have blossomed into national treasures. Both of these two are respected at home and internationally, and either could potentially make a run for the White House in the future. Young Americans, black and white alike, can look to Condi and Colin and see heroes. African American youth now have two more exceptional role models that they can emulate. Hopefully, more will identify with Rice and Powell than with 50 Cent and The Game. President Bush is truly before his time on this issue. It will be decades or centuries until all African Americans have absolute equality in this country and are "judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin." President Bush is already color blind. The more presidents like Bush that we have, the faster we will move in the right direction. The same can be said for women. Condi Rice, Karen Hughes...Bush selects people who will get the job done, period.

But, my regard for President Bush is base on more than his sound character. I need my president to love America. I need to know that my president will choose America when circumstances pit this county's priorities against his own personal and political priorities. This is where George Bush shines. In the face of intense political pressure at home and abroad, this president stood firm for American national security. Can everyone imagine how the situation would be different if Bill Clinton was still in office? This country's safety would have been a secondary consideration. If Jacque Chirac disagreed with him, Slick William's brain would immediately turn to concerns of his reputation as a diplomat. He would visualize unflattering accounts of his presidency in future history texts. Let me tell you something, Liberals. If Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder oppose you, you are probably on the right path for America. Even in an idealized environment where all heads of state are rational actors working in the best interests of their respective states, it is not surprising that from time to time the national agendas of allies will not perfectly mesh. Add into the equation the rampant Oil-For-Food corruption, and it is not difficult to determine why the leaders of Germany, Russia, and France were not excited about ousting Saddam Insane. I give the Germans a pass, to some extent. Many people of Germany are still so horrified by their World War II conduct that war of any type is completely detestable. I can understand Putin's corruption. His country's economy is in shambles, and his grip on his fledgling democracy seems to be slipping. I can understand why he might make a few drug deals to obtain some cheap oil. But, the French? The top three items on the French national agenda are as follows: 1) Money, 2) Money, 3) Spitting in the eye of the nearest American. American national security does not make the top twenty on that list. Yes, we need allies. But, when American interests take us in another direction, we need a president who will go in another direction. Frankly, friendship with Jacques Chirac does not mean much any more. Liberals want us to repair our friendship with France? Au contraire mon frere, France needs to repair its friendship with us. The Europeans acted very poorly and with sketchy motives throughout this entire campaign. I will keep that fact in mind the next time France is invaded.

That is all for now. I did not address many of the myths perpetuated by liberals in America. Stay tuned. These will be the subjects of future rants. Here is a list of spins and falsehoods designed to confuse the American public:

1) There were no WMD.
Nobody disputes that Saddam had chemical weapons in the past. He not only had them, in 1988 he showed a willingness to use them when he massacred Kurds in Halabja. In 2003, the intelligence available to the entire world pointed to Saddam having the intent and the means to develop even more horrific weapons. Furthermore, Saddam would still be in power today had he chosen to comply with international law and cooperate with UN investigators. In the wake of September 11, we had no choice but to take Saddam seriously. So, finding a stockpile means nothing to me. Saddam posed (or at the very least, pretended to pose) a serious threat to American national security. Now he does not.

2) America is hated by the rest of the world, and this is a big problem for us.
Not true. Let's look at the America haters. Many people in the Middle East want to destroy America because of our enduring support for Israel, which we will never abandon. Given the profound ties between Israel and the United States, does anyone really believe that we would ever let Israel fend for herself? It will never happen. Terrorists could set off a nuke in Manhattan, and we will still stand with Israel. This attempt to sever American-Israeli ties through terror is the modern face of antisemitism. We do not call it that in the media, because that might temper sympathy for America's enemies. But, antisemitism is at the heart of the matter. Who else hates America? Many Europeans envy American clout, and they wish we needed Europe more. Blah, blah, blah. I will tell you what Europeans do like. They like Americans to travel to Europe and spend lots of Euros. We do that, so they will keep loving us a bit longer. Europeans also like not having large defense budgets. Why are their defense budgets tiny? We provide their security for free. So, neolibs, quit worrying about who hates us. Other people in Europe understand our president. Here is the first homework assignment for Flyover 101, Spring semester 2005. Read and consider the arguments put forth by Axel Springer CEO Mathias Doepfner in this article, which appeared in Die Welt, Germany's largest newspaper on November 20, 2004:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.welt.de/data/2004/11/20/363020.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddie%2Bwelt%2B20%2BNovember%2B2004%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

3) There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Wrong. This is an amazing example of neolibs trying to make something true by merely stating it over and over again. This is not what the September 11 commission reported. The September 11 commission found that Saddam Hussein did not collaborate with al Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center. This is very different than finding no link. Even Bush's harshest critics concede that meetings took place between Hussein and Zarqawi. Money changed hands. This is not 'Law and Order'. We are not looking for "beyond a reasonable doubt." What do YOU think was going on? These are two people who dislike each other uniting over their hatred of the USA. The neolibs are comfortable with that. These were just two businessmen who met, decided not to do business, and then went their separate ways. Ya.

4) Iraq is a disaster.
Iraq has been expensive, and I wish the Europeans, smarting over their lack of influence, would have participated more. But the results have been monumental. Saddam is gone, Iraqis have voted, al Qaeda is crippling along, Libya cannot hand over their WMD fast enough, the Syrians are out of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are holding elections. Can we attribute all of this to one man's resolve. I think we can. Militarily, the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns were works of art. How long were the Russians in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it? We reduced the enemy to a whimper in a matter of months. In Iraq, we moved more solders and material farther and faster than any Army in history, and the loss of life was minimal by historical standards. I give a sincere "thank you" to all of those 1500 soldiers in their families. Their sacrifices have already changed the world for the better.

An Old World Order Is New Again

2005-03-06T12:20:00.000-08:00

In 1992, I was a sophomore in college, and I was required to take a course entitled "Advanced Political Science". I was interested in real science, and I considered political "science" just an interesting diversion. I was not thrilled about having to take the so-called "advanced" version of the course. It sounded like extra work during a period in which time was at a premium. In the end, it was not so bad. If I recall correctly, the benefit of the course was that there was no midterm, only a paper and a final exam. Plus, General John R. Galvin, the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, was a visiting professor, and the course director encouraged his students to interview General Galvin as a source for the paper. Anyway, this paper was fairly important. It was fully half of the final grade, if I recall, and I went to a college where it was actually possible to fail. Again, it was 1992. The Soviet Union had just imploded. I remember arguing in my paper that the United States should modify its foreign policy to reflect the realities of a multipolar world. I tried to identify pitfalls of hanging on to superpower mentality, and some of what I said tended more toward the isolationism end of the spectrum. I ended up with one of the worst grades of my college career. Big red letters on the front of the paper..."THE US SHOULD ABANDON A FOREIGN POLICY THAT HAS SERVED IT WELL FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS???" I did not know exactly what the grade was at the time. I could find no circled letter anywhere, but I knew the triple question mark was a bad sign. In the years since 1992, my mind sometimes wanders back to that paper. I was a bit embarrassed to be so out of line with my instructor's expectations, and sometimes I wish that I would have written it differently. When I look at the world in 2005, I think my paper may have been before its time.

Today, I would still classify the United States as a superpower based primarily on its ability to project military power. No other country in the world can do this in the way that the United States can. I would not want to face China's army in Asia, but at the moment, I am not manning the Old North Church with lanterns in hand. There are a handful of military forces in the world that at least provide a worthy adversary for the US military, but no state can project their power in a meaningful way.

In my estimation, the components of superpower status are dominance in financial, industrial, and military power. We have a firm hold on the latter, mainly because no one else in the world is willing to spend as much on defense. However the centers of industry and finance are scattered all over the world. We do not enjoy the supremacy we once had. I am not happy about it, but guess what? We have been here before. It is not the end of the world. More and more, the dynamics of global politics are going to resemble the pre-World War II era. I think that America needs to adjust its mentality, and just as importantly, the other Great Powers need to start playing the role.

No longer should America try to spend its way out of every world problem. What are we supposed to do? Sell more treasury bills to China so that we can pay North Korea to cough up the nukes? Those days are gone. This is not an American problem, it is a global problem. At the very least, it is a regional problem. China does not want Crazy Kim to have a nuclear weapon. China should take the lead in disposing of the North Korean threat, and we should not be afraid to let that happen. By the way, my favorite president is playing this situation very shrewdly. The calls from Democrats to make this a two-sided affair is woefully off the mark. I would even go farther. South Korea is no longer strategically important to the United States. We are not worried about the spread of communism any longer. The South Koreans protest us being there. Let us bring the boys home. We should set up shop in Kuwait instead. There, we are appreciated, and we are closer to our strategic interests.

Europe united to compete with the United States. We hurt the EU's feelings when we ousted Saddam without the blessing of France and Germany. But now the EU is paralyzed on Iran unless America takes the lead? Come on, people. You united to be a world power. Show us how it is done. Let us see some of that charming European diplomacy. Cannot do it. Why? The Europeans are motivated primarily by money. These carrots that are to be offered to the Iranians should come primarily from the United States. Also, without the United States, there is no credible threat of military intervention if diplomacy fails. There is no European stick.

So, for the moment, we HAVE to play the superpower role. The Europeans insist on it. There is no other way. The United States may lack financial and industrial dominance necessary for true superpower status, but we have been financing Europe's security for years. If we are barely a superpower, they barely rise to the level of world power for their lack of interest in paying for a professional military. I think the French yearn for the days of yore, when the Grand Armee trounced all over Europe. They often wish that they had a military to wield today, or better yet, they wish they had better control over America's expensive digs. But Waterloo was a long time ago.

Many in Europe and elsewhere hope for the end of America's reign as a superpower. I think it will happen over time. Seasons come and go. We have gone from a multipolar world to a bipolar world and back again. But these anti-Americans should realize that as America's superstar fades, the burden of national security will increasingly fall on individual states. Why should America continue the expensive practice of stationing troops in Europe? Technology has greatly diminished the utility of this practice. It is a courtesy to supposed friends, but in light of the support for the Iraq operation, what is it really doing for the United States? Furthermore, students of history know that you do not grow a professional military over night. It takes decades. America will not completely lose superpower status until Europe can negotiate on her own military merit. As President Bush said, "we need a strong Europe."

The End of the American Left

2005-03-06T04:36:00.001-08:00

Congratulations! You are now reading the inaugural posting of my weblog Flyover 101: An Education for the American Left. I need to credit Petteri Sulonen of Helsinki, Finland for inspiring me to start a weblog. I encourage visiting his blog: http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/.

I have long admired Petteri's knowledge and skill as a photographer. I read his postings on dpreview.com regularly, and what he has to say usually trumps everyone else. I was gobsmacked when I innocently pointed my browser at his blog. How can everything he says about photography be so right, an everything he says about politics be so wrong? I do not believe this disparity is Petteri's fault. The European media constantly bathes him in an anti-American milieu, and we need to view his comments in that context. Additionally, Petteri is an artist; he is usually heavy on emotion and light on facts and reason. I'll return to Petteri later.

Today I want to deal with the death of the American Left. Personally, I believe that Americans will not have to suffer through a term with a Democrat in the White House for a long, long time. Fragmentation of the Democratic party, the erosion of the party's identity, a dearth of viable Democratic candidates, and the awakening of "flyover" people have created an environment in which the Democrats will need a miracle to win a presidential election until 2016 at the earliest. If you have not noticed, I embrace the term "flyover". I first heard the term during the 2004 presidential election, and I had to smile. This one word exposes the Left's attitude toward most of the country, which presents an insurmountable obstacle.

There are obvious differences between the two major American political parties and the candidates they nominate. I fail to understand the people who remained undecided in the 2004 election until the last moment. The most important difference between parties is that the Republican party is coherent enough that a presidential candidate can say what he actually feels and means and still hope to win the election. This starkly contrasts John Kerry in the 2004 election, who necessarily became a master of putting words together that do not actually mean anything. Otherwise, he never would have won the nomination. "I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." Que? One of Kerry's tactics of last resort was to feign anger at the persistent interviewer. Many examples of this tactic exist, but the most memorable example to me occurred during an interview with Tim Russert. Mr. Russert became the object of Kerry's faux ire when he tried three times to clarify the candidate's position on Iraq. Kerry could not afford to take a stand. To have a chance, he had to operate within a broad range of stances or risk alienating any fragment of the party, from the coveted undecided to the Streisands, Garofalos, and Rondstadts of the world. Dubya by no means had the election won from the outset, but he could afford to run his campaign in a completely different way. He took clear positions and then tried to find enough Americans who agreed with him. This difference is fundamental, and it has not gone away. The party's great hope is that Hillary Rodham Clinton can move decidedly to the center just before 2008 with a wink to the far left. This was slick William's modus, and the Democrats hope that it will work again. But, read on good friend.

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination in 2008. There is no one else. Who else could possibly win? John Edwards? Please, let's not quibble. John, you don't have a job, son. You will not be on the ticket. Hillary will win the nomination. Here is the bad news for Democrats--Hillary cannot win the presidency. The problem is not her gender. I personally believe the country is ripe to elect a woman. I would vote for Condi without hesitation. Hillary's problem lies in her hubris. She, like her husband (partially BECAUSE of her husband), harbors an innate belief that the American masses lack the ability to survey the political landscape and see truth. Hillary believes deeply in her ability to sway the pathetic masses with supposedly skillful rhetoric, often in the face of what has actually transpired. Two problems, Hillary. First, although pathetic, swayable Americans do exist, they are fewer in number than you think. You have inappropriately discounted the Americans who can cut through the rhetoric and see facts. Just after the 2004 election, various analysts reported that Democrats including Hillary learned their lesson. They need to learn how to "talk about values." The underlying principle being that the masses will not be able to tell the difference between "talking about values" and actually embracing those values. That is a gamble I hope the Democrats take. My faith is still in the American people (the "flyover" people to be sure). The William J. Clinton Library represents an incredible attempt to prepare the 2008 battlefield and potentiate the rhetoric to come. Forget about what actually happened. Let's let Bill and Hillary put it all in perspective for us. Amazing. These two are the ultimate elitists. Hillary's second problem is equally significant. She is not a rock star like her husband. No one can deny that Slick William can light up a room. Hillary lacks the same quality. Even when her rhetoric falls on susceptible ears, she will move a fewer number of people to her camp. Maybe she needs a "I did not have sexual relations with that man, Manny Lubowski" press confirence to bolster her appeal. At any rate, being the first female presidential candidate will make it difficult to win the male vote, and there are also issues among women. I believe that many women find Hillary cold and calculating. Some, I have heard, do not like the way Hillary handled Billy's...ahem...indiscretions in the oval office. Yes, I think Hillary is the only option for the Dems, and it does not look good.

Not having a candidate is a problem; not having a coherent position on a single issue is a death sentence. The Democrats have locked themselves in a zero sum game with Dubya, and George is not playing games. He thankfully takes his job seriously. George has no time for cigars, interns, and conspiracy theories. He goes about the business of identifying tough problems and offering reasonable solutions. The Democratic party has been reduced to a party of obstructionism. Democrats operate with a constant fear that any success for America will be attributed to G-Dub, so they try to throw in the way as many obstacles to success as possible. They often find themselves in the unenviable position of having to root against America. Try selling THAT to the flyover people. Petteri and The Dixie Chicks can get behind that type of position, but it is quite difficult to sell in the heartland, where the Flyovers live.

Young liberals tend to engage in "activism," because activism itself is a virtue in their view. The more they activate, the more respect they think they accrue...the more intelligent they feel. Flyover people do not behave in the same way. The Flyovers tend to get involved only when they perceive that their values are threatened, or they are pushed past the breaking point by the Left. There is that "V" word again. I am afraid that it will take more that learning how to "talk about values" to appease the Flyovers at this point. In the last election, it became clear to the Flyovers that the issues currently on the table are critically important. I sense that it felt good for them to make a statement in 2004, and I believe that we are in a new age of accountability. Dan Rather and Tom Daschle would probably agree with me. The next test of my hypothesis will be in 2006. Our good Senators would do well to take a poll before again filibustering a qualified appellate court nominee vote, least they be Daschled.

That is enough for now, but I have more to get off my chest. Here are some future topics I want to explore:

1) History will hold George Bush as the greatest American president since Kennedy, the William J. Clinton Library notwithstanding.

2) Europe needs to regain my respect and friendship, not the other way around. I am tired of seeing polls regarding the French peoples' opinion of America. Let's have a Flyover poll regarding France.

3) The UN is a waste of everyone's time and money. It is not fulfilling its intended purpose. Let's retain the agency's international elections assistance function and do away with everything else.