Of two articles on comely French dropper-of-libertarian-names Sabine Herold, which is from libertarian Reason, and which is from warmongering National Review?
A. Approvingly notes Herold’s pro-war, pro-Bush sympathies
B. Praises Herold’s politics, but makes no mention of her pro-war, pro-Bush sympathies
Here’s an idea I tossed off to a reader earlier today: a Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket for 2004.
Now that you’ve picked yourself off the floor and quit guffawing, think about it. The plan is inspired by the Reagan/Ford “co-presidency” floated at the 1980 Republican convention, but it’s much weirder. The campaign would focus on common ground–opposition to war, occupation, the neocon agenda– with both candidates pledging to pursue separate programs where they diverge once elected. Let Congress sort it out.
This would push foreign policy to the foreground in ’04. And if Kucinich/Paul could get a slate of like-minded candidates in congressional races, even better. The coalition could pick up disaffected voters all over the spectrum, with definite potential for the best 3rd party showing since ’92.
Encouraging note: upon Googling the idea to see if I came up with it, another mention appeared.
Jack “Islamic Revival” Wheeler’s list of those belonging to “The Anti-American Right” includes Antiwar.com advisor Jon Utley, who he claims “…has simply gone around the bend in his hatred for everything America does in terms of foreign policy and everything the Bush administration does, foreign and domestic.”
One person’s around-the-bend hatred for Bush is another’s consistent opposition to destructive policies, however. In August 2001, Antiwar.com posted an article by Utley that criticized Clinton’s military interventionism and had this to say about Bush:
“…the best defense is ‘to give foreigners less offense,’ in the words of Ivan Eland at CATO. Already under President Bush we seem much less ready to go about bombing other nations as Clinton did. Except for Palestine and Iraq, no blood is being shed by American bombs.”
A mere month before the Sept. 11 attacks, Utley presciently warned that the combination of military intervention overseas and lack of civil defense preparedness at home made America “immensely vulnerable to terrorists who would give up their lives for a mission.”
“This missing element, not wanting Americans to think that there may be consequences to our killing foreigners, seriously affects civil defense. …
“Still, the government is now spending $10 billion yearly on civil defense, most of it going to protect government personnel and installations. But very little, only some 2%, is going for civilian medical preparations. … For details on legal and medical preparedness, please see our handout, ‘Preparing for the Terrorist Threat,’ published in Insight Magazine last January 15th. …
“The Pentagon and CIA are surely the most juicy targets for any terrorist, but American bases overseas are easier – and more likely – targets now. …
“However, as Jude Wanniski has written, no one controls mad fanatics. Very possibly any major American city could be targeted by those consumed with hate against us. A dirty bomb could contaminate much of a major city. A small tactical nuke (of which many are reportedly missing from Russian bases) would take out 4 or 5 city blocks; new breakthroughs in biology may develop truly horrendous agents of selective death. Or just plain suicide truck bombers with dynamite in a tunnel could wreak havoc upon us. In truth, we are immensely vulnerable to terrorists who would give up their lives for a mission. …
“WHAT YOU CAN DO…
· Go to your Congressman’s town hall meetings and ask him the embarrassing questions about our interventions overseas and ask for civil defense.
· Start a movement asking that our military send guards to protect key bridges and reservoirs and electric stations. The real threats are here, not overseas.”
And check out this interesting article (with photo above), “Rogue Statesman,” about Wheeler’s Afghan jihad buddy Dana Rohrabacher.
(To be fair to Wheeler, though, he did warn about the dangers of funding Hekmatyar.)
A few random thoughts on last night’s “Rock the Vote” “debate,” which I admittedly watched with a couple of sheets to the wind:
1) My generation could not think its way out of gossamer handcuffs.
2) Playing “The Times They Are A-Changin'” at youth forum in 2003 = playing Helen Kane at youth forum in 1968.
3) All I can say for Dean, Moseley-Braun, Lieberman, and Sharpton is that they didn’t stoop to fashion-pandering.
4) Given the historical illiteracy of college students, I was surprised to learn that more were interested in Ft. Sumter than in Fallujah.
5) John Edwards’ character was forged in the crucible of fraternity hazing.
6) Despite looking as if he got lost on the way to a Happy Days version of a beatnik happening, Dennis Kucinich was the only decent human being on stage. He doesn’t stand a chance.
7) You’ll want to have your passport in order by Jan. 20, 2005.
Long-time liberventionist Jack Wheeler identifies the connections between Murray Rothbard’s anti-interventionism and the new anti-interventionist right, which he calls “The Anti-American Right” in this article on Newsmax.
