Monday, September 18, 2006
Rush's question
Rush is on a wonderful roll this morning, ripping McCain and Graham a new one or two. He just asked: "When have we EVER become like the enemy?"
Though the question was rhetorical, there is a real and informative answer. Twice in history we did in fact adopt some of the enemy's characteristics. Both times it was part of a 'long twilight struggle' in which we were more focused on 'winning hearts and minds' than on winning the war.
In the '30s, FDR was conscious of the appeal of Fascist ideologies; he was watching Fascism march across Europe without any actual fighting. He introduced government programs like Social Security not because they were the best possible solution to our problems, but because he had to co-opt the desire for big government. (The word "social", though it sounds nice, had a specific connotation understood in those times: avoiding riots and unrest.)
Later, as we competed with the Soviets, we built our Military-Industrial Complex in Soviet form. We felt that we had to match the Soviet emphasis on heavy industry and heavy weaponry, so our industries and schools came under government control and became regimented in an unnatural way. This also gave Soviet agents plenty of time to infect and corrupt our culture and courts, where they still hold power. The trend started to reverse when Reagan decided to use American strengths like innovation and individualism. At that point we were able to win the war, though the damage done by subversion (i.e. Federal judges assuming powers they don't hold) is still sabotaging our current war.
So: If we want to become more like the enemy, we should carry on with the Bush / Wilson / Rumsfeld approach. Fight carefully and sensitively, build schools and water systems for the enemy, focus on 'hearts and minds', obey the Leninist courts, settle in for a long patient competition, give the enemy 50 years to sabotage us and weaken our will.
I guarantee we will end up in Allah's razor-wire embrace if we continue along this path. ¶ 9:48 AM
Though the question was rhetorical, there is a real and informative answer. Twice in history we did in fact adopt some of the enemy's characteristics. Both times it was part of a 'long twilight struggle' in which we were more focused on 'winning hearts and minds' than on winning the war.
In the '30s, FDR was conscious of the appeal of Fascist ideologies; he was watching Fascism march across Europe without any actual fighting. He introduced government programs like Social Security not because they were the best possible solution to our problems, but because he had to co-opt the desire for big government. (The word "social", though it sounds nice, had a specific connotation understood in those times: avoiding riots and unrest.)
Later, as we competed with the Soviets, we built our Military-Industrial Complex in Soviet form. We felt that we had to match the Soviet emphasis on heavy industry and heavy weaponry, so our industries and schools came under government control and became regimented in an unnatural way. This also gave Soviet agents plenty of time to infect and corrupt our culture and courts, where they still hold power. The trend started to reverse when Reagan decided to use American strengths like innovation and individualism. At that point we were able to win the war, though the damage done by subversion (i.e. Federal judges assuming powers they don't hold) is still sabotaging our current war.
So: If we want to become more like the enemy, we should carry on with the Bush / Wilson / Rumsfeld approach. Fight carefully and sensitively, build schools and water systems for the enemy, focus on 'hearts and minds', obey the Leninist courts, settle in for a long patient competition, give the enemy 50 years to sabotage us and weaken our will.
I guarantee we will end up in Allah's razor-wire embrace if we continue along this path. ¶ 9:48 AM
