Dr. Harry Binswanger, in his essay in support of Bush presents the election as one of independence (Bush) versus dependence (Kerry) in foreign affairs. Bush, he claims, means for America to be on the offensive, while Kerry is all about surrendering national sovereignty, always going 'hat in hand' to the UN. Unfortunately, the entire argument for Bush and independent and pro-America rests on Bush's image, while what Bush is, and what he has done, are treated as distinct and secondary issues, or not at all.
Let's briefly consider what Bush has done. Bush's track record of multilateral negotiations with Iran and North Korea, his request that Syria join the coalition against terrorism, and his almost full year of dithering at the UN about the meaning of Security Council resolutions, would seem to suggest Bush is not all that independent. One could point to Afghanistan as an example of 'America on the offensive,' but what president would not have sent troops there? The other big action taken by Bush, invading Iraq, has now turned into such a disaster, one wonders if America would be better off if Bush did a little less independent 'thinking.'
In fact, Dr. Binswanger does not go into anything Bush has actually done in his essay. He does not even mention Iraq and Afghanistan, except to take a swipe at Kerry. Instead, he focuses on appearances and statements. Bush 'evokes' the image of a cowboy. Bush made a 'symbolic' statement in a speech--his acceptance speech, almost four years ago. To elect Kerry would 'send a message' of retreat. And, while Bush's actions may have been 'bumbling' and 'altruism-laced,' the Bush Doctrine 'intends' us to act, i.e. it makes it look like we are willing to do something.
If this is the best that can be put forth for Bush, then our president is more hopeless than I thought, which is saying something. If it is bad for Kerry to worry about what France or the UN thinks, then why should we elect a president because of what it will make those same entities, and scum-of-the-earth Islamic terrorists, think? Besides, as Dr. Lewis shows in a recent essay, the reactions of thugs worldwide are mixed, so the whole cowboy image Bush supposedly evokes isn't holding up that well. It seems terrorists realize that actions speak louder than words.
And what, fundamentally, motivates Bush's actions? Not only have I answered that in this blog, but so have Craig Biddle, and Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Peikoff, and Scott Holleran (to name a few): his Christian faith. Yet, while Dr. Binswanger writes at length about Bush and the Religious Right, he treats it as a distinct issue from Bush and the war on Islamic fundamentalism. He makes a point of discussing Kerry's 'internal premises' as they relate to defending America, but he does not give Bush's premises that same attention. If he did, he might point out that Bush also thinks that our nation is 'morally stained,' and must apologize for every act of self-assertion with the promise to liberate the masses, or at least give them food and running water. He might also note that Bush's resignation to a possibly theocratic Iraq is rooted in Christianity, in a desire not to appear too arrogant when dealing with the meek of the world, the future inheritors of Earth.
Alas, what we get instead when Dr. Binswanger discusses religion are statements such as "[t]he religious right could well grow stronger, not weaker, under a Kerry presidency,' as if no distinction is to be made between a president that ticks off the Bible-thumpers of this nation, and a president that will implement their agenda at every opportunity, because it is his agenda, too.
In every paragraph, Dr. Binswanger gives Bush credit for what he appears to be, while downplaying what he actually is as not that big a threat. But appearances are no help against Islamic terrorists, and Bush is a disaster in every way, to his core. No amount of cowboy-image evoking can change that.
