My Latest Correspondence With A Liberal Friend

I have a bright and literate friend who is decidedly inclined toward liberal thinking, and even more disinclined to approving of Republicans. This is the large part of my response to his communication about Bush’s foreign policy fiasco in Iraq. What has always been remarkable to me is how someone so philosophically and practically ambiguous as George W. Bush is often portrayed as an expression of “the extreme radical right wing.” That kind of talk can leave one speechless.

Anyway, I’ve edited out the personal references and conversation, but left my personal reactions to today’s political situation and a very basic reason why I so strongly support Mike Huckabee:

I was going to write a response to some of these specifics with some questions. But, it would be better if we could talk over a drink and a piece of bread, where tone and motivation can be clearer.

It is beyond clear what you think and what it seems you will think, no matter what happens. Remember that as a Texas I never was a George W. Bush supporter, never voted for him for president, and still wouldn’t. But watching someone, especially someone so modestly armed to explain himself, so roundly and completely slandered as he has been, is sad and offends my moral sensibilities.

I have some questions, but it seems to me that there is an element for whom George W. Bush will be a dishonest, devious, and inhumane devil regardless of whether the facts play our far to the east or far to the west. As I have said, either in intellectual or leadership terms, I don’t count him as clear enough to be responsible for either. And, I don’t say that as an insult. I would say the same of all but a few of the presidents and candidates that we have seen in our lifetimes: Morally-driven people usually lead scout troops and intellectually lucid people usually write books for a living. Ordinarily, the job doesn’t demand extraordinary capacity in either of those respects. But, given the extraordinary disorientation of America, in both foreign policy and domestic terms, I think an extraordinarily able shepherd is needed.

About Ron Paul, whom I often agree with about things like the social waste of bureaucracy and the ideal of a hard, fixed-commodity currency, I am left to wonder to what extent the unconcern for the Iraqi people is denial or indifference.

You and others who disdain anyone with an ® after their name today, do not exhibit that indifference,but many clearly do. As you know, most people would identify me as having constitutionalist ideals, to which Sophie and Ron Paul appeal. But basic humanity lies beneath The Constitution in the foundation of a moral disposition.

In terms of respect for his character, I am convinced that Ron Paul is honest and serious, as is Joe Lieberman in the opposite direction. But I have a great deal more uncertainty about the accuracy of Ron Paul’s belief that it would be better for America if we pulled right out of Iraq, leave aside what horrible calamity may or may not befall people in Iraq. And the matters at stake are unprecedentedly huge.

But I wouldn’t say that about most Democratic politicians. My impression has been that the most sober and able of the Democratic presidential candidates would be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Biden balked at the slandering of General Petraeus’ character, while Richardson has joined the rest of them in jumping over each other to advocate for the most expeditious withdrawal, in an effort to attract even a sidelong glance from the moveon.org type activist Democratic voters.

Biden would be a sober and responsible president, though I would disagree with him about most everything, especially the essential nature of cultivating and maintaining a respect for human life in the American consciousness. I don’t believe that Richardson would follow through on the immediate pullout plan that he has proposed, either. He needs the attention, but he isn’t stupid. In fact, I don’t believe that Hillary or even Edwards (who near to makes my skin crawl) would, either. I doubt Barack O’Bama would, though I think he might make one of the most under qualified presidents that we have ever had.

I really look at the situation and very seriously consider that the nation might be better off today, if Al Gore had won in 2000. Don’t get me wrong, I think Al Gore was an outright ridiculous candidate. But, if he had won,

1) he wouldn’t have made an occupation of flogging the Chicken Little anthropomorphic global warming fear-mongering, behind which I see no scientific/logical substance.

2) There wouldn’t have been the national trauma about the terrible nature of whatever he had to do in The Middle East. When he said it was necessary, it would have been accepted as necessary, rather than him being called the lying evil genius worst disaster of a president in American history, except by a minority, most of them Republicans!

3) Republicans in Congress would have resisted his suggestions of expanding government, instead of rolling over like a puppy as they did for George W. Bush ®, and bathing in the corruption of power. And, they probably wouldn’t have been kicked out of office.

4) The bottom-line is that we probably would not be quite the hair-pulling, eye-scratching, hating, screeching popular culture that we are, today. The visceral unreflective venom that fills the blogosphere on both sides is ugly and dismaying. The most basic problem our society has is not one of whose dogma (speaking as a reputed dogmatist), but of disposition. That is the major reason that I support Mike Huckabee. Though he’s not off the map on the most vital issues, as he says, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” Boy, could this nation use a little moderation of demeanor.