For Democrats, Ignorance Is A Leadership Quality

Who could have imagined a few short months ago that the bombastic, self-styled "outsider" Howard Dean would rocket to the head of the Democrat presidential pack? The hardcore political left that is the foundation of the Democrat Party, that's who. And why shouldn't they have expected it? He represents everything that makes a leader in their eyes. He is a bit tepid on gun control, but as the primary season heats up, he'll likely make the same convenient adjustments to his core beliefs that Joe Lieberman did when he was tapped as Al Gore's running mate. What he does possess without question is the gift of self-righteous ignorance, which is an indispensable quality for those wishing to carry the Party's banner into the Oval Office.

For the sake of brevity I will attempt to limit my scope to ignorance in foreign policy, which is no more dangerous to the future of the United States than domestic ignorance, but in a time of global terrorism and the unchecked spread of weapons of mass destruction it is certainly more immediate.

Not only does his foreign policy naiveté qualify Dean for the Presidency, it sets him up to be ranked among the "greatest" Democrat presidents in our history. Should he actually win, and then act on the rhetoric that is electrifying core Democrats across the country, the name of "Howard Dean" will be spoken with reverence along with all the others that have brought so much misery and death with their doltish beliefs and foolish actions.

Given the opportunity, a President Dean may one day be considered as wise as Woodrow Wilson who, when the entire world was being engulfed by World War I, campaigned on the slogan, "He kept us out of war!" A few months later he was asking Congress for the authority to wage war, a "war to end war," to attain "peace without victory." His reluctance to take action against the German led Triple Alliance, which had designs in the western hemisphere (including Mexico) nearly crippled Britain and France. When the czarist regime in Russia fell, Wilson recognized the danger of Bolshevism. But he dispatched a paltry 5,000 troops to oppose them. They were left unsupported and were ultimately withdrawn. With more decisive action, there would have been no Soviet Union, no Joseph Stalin and no Cold War.

Howard Dean may one day be viewed alongside Franklin Delano Roosevelt. While he should be commended for some leadership against the Axis Powers, his arrogance likewise contributed immeasurably to the Cold War. He ignored repeated warnings from Winston Churchill and others as to the treachery of Joseph Stalin, relying instead on his personal charm to "handle" the Soviet dictator. As such, Stalin was emboldened and was able to gain control over Eastern Europe. Moreover, FDR ignored concrete evidence of an ongoing campaign of Soviet espionage, which included agents in his own administration. As a result, the people of Eastern Europe were imprisoned for 50 years and the Soviets gained access to American nuclear secrets making them a nuclear power much earlier than otherwise would have been possible.

Dean isn't as "cute" as John F. Kennedy, but he might one day be equally admired. His incompetence may even make him a "hero," as with our late, great savior during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Pushing aside the myth for a moment, JFK had neither the strength of will to call off the Bay of Pigs invasion, nor the will to fully support it. The resulting debacle and subsequent comedic attempts on Fidel Castro's life embarrassed the United States, pushed the Cuban dictator into the arms of the Soviets and culminated in the aforementioned missile crisis. And let's not forget that it was JFK that began the escalation and assembled the team that turned Vietnam into the nightmare that it was.

Kennedy's successor Lyndon Johnson, in addition to giving us the "Great Society," which created a culture of dependency and is slowly but surely destroying the American family, micro-managed the conflict in Vietnam. His administration's insane restrictions on the execution of the war fatally hampered the effort and drained the will of the public, dooming it to failure. The loss of face and undercutting of American fighting spirit brought communism to the very doorstep of the United States in Latin America.

Then we have Jimmy Carter. Oh yes Jimmy Carter, our "Greatest Ex-President." During his time in office he reacted with incredulity that the Soviet Union, an empire based on military domination of surrounding countries and brutal oppression at home, would invade a neighboring country, Afghanistan. He considered Syrian Dictator Hafez al-Assad to be a "moderate" not long after he annexed Lebanon, the same man who later ordered the massacre of 20,000 civilians in the Syrian town of Hama.

Due to his personal animosity toward the Shah, he stood by and allowed the Islamic revolution in Iran to succeed, igniting a global "jihad" against the West. When the communist Sandinista government seized power in Nicaragua, Carter invited them to the White House and secured $120 million in aid, though they were clearly backed by the Soviet Union.

After he left office, and while the Sandinistas were building a 500,000-man, Soviet supplied military, Carter went to Nicaragua as a show of support for them and opposition to the Reagan administration. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, he appealed to the communist Chinese to block U.S. military action. And he has befriended every despot worth mentioning, including Kim Jong Il, for whom he negotiated the farcical "Framework Agreement" that enabled North Korea to become a nuclear power.

Bill Clinton? No. Clinton's presidency was just as disastrous, as the current world situation demonstrates, as the others. But it wasn't due to ignorance. Clinton's dismantling of our military, and avoidance in dealing with obvious and growing dangers were the results of selfish political calculations. But then it isn't certain that Bill Clinton ever was a Democrat. He has always been more of a cause onto himself.

And how do I know that given the chance Howard Dean will rightly be a "great" foreign policy president in the Democrat model? For starters, as William Saletan from the leftist publication Slate has written, "he gives off a whiff of hostility or indifference to American military power."

Moreover, Dean's words are a testament to his dangerous naiveté. He has described the Bush-led response to the events of 9/11 as a philosophy of "get out of my way or I'll see you in the playground..." When commenting on the fall of Saddam Hussein, a demonstrated mass-murderer and supporter of terrorism with a hunger for weapons of mass destruction and conquest, the Democrat frontrunner said, "We've gotten rid of him, and I suppose that's a good thing."

And probably the most asinine statement in recent political memory Mr. Dean, Candidate Dean, potential President Dean said the Cold War should be looked to as a model in the war on terror because we, "defeated world communism without firing a shot."

This may come as news to Howard Dean, but the Cold War was fought with real weapons for half a century on a global scale. The most glaring numbers from the war that we (as if Democrats had much to do with it) won "without firing a shot" were 34,000 Americans killed and 103,000 wounded in the Korean War, and 58,000 killed and 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. There were untold casualties suffered both by Americans and those we supported in actions large and small, covert and overt in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. And when considering global casualties throughout the bloody history of communism, the deaths number in the hundreds of millions with suffering inflicted on billions.

But that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? For all the sanctimonious noises that Democrats/Liberals make about their concern for the oppressed and forthrightness against tyranny, they consistently refuse to acknowledge the unimaginable horrors inflicted by world communism (a system that they have always found compelling) and the suffering perpetuated by their own utopian ignorance.

As Islamic fanatics all over the world plot our destruction, Howard Dean is regurgitating absurdity that a long line of Democrat heroes before him have spewed, and millions have died because of it.

He may still be a long shot, but so too was Bill Clinton at this stage. We have elected such men before and managed to survive the game of presidential Russian roulette, but as anyone who is keeping track could guess, we are quickly running out of empty chambers.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Lowell at lfpphillips@yahoo.com .

>>Who could have imagined a few short months ago that the bombastic, self-styled "outsider" Howard Dean would rocket to the head of the Democrat presidential pack?<<

I disagree. The selection of the Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic Party's House Minority Leader revealed to most Americans that the far leftists have the Party firmly within their grip. Howard Dean should do very well.

Muleteam1

We need to do better than this as we confront Dean. This article is more about what the author perceives Dean to believe than what Dean himself has stated. It is also more about other Democratic presidents than it is about Dean.

However, thankfully, we will be doing better. Karl Rove has had his tape recorder on lo these many months. Indeed, the best analysis I have seen of Dean the candidate was given by our own Common Tator, the summation of which is presented here:

Anyone who thinks Dean is a Democrat with firm ideological beliefs should look at his past actions. He has all the firm beliefs of a snake oil salesman. He will say what ever it takes to get what he wants. He wants the nomination. If he gets it he will want the office.
I am convinced Dean thinks the public has a very short memory. Perhaps the public does, but video tape is a fantastic memory jogger. Dean is not hedgeing his bets. He has not learned the skill of saying something that appears to mean one thing now, and can appear to mean another a year from now.
It is a major flaw. No major league candidate would make that mistake.

Once again, thanks to the Common Tator for some of the best political analysis on the web today.

Dean can be beaten. Badly, too. And by his own mouth. He is making mistakes now that Bill Clinton did not make at this point in 1991. Dean is digging himself into a hole now that Karl Rove won't let him out of later. Bill Clinton never made that kind of mistake. He was a snake oil salesman, too, but he knew that the essence of selling snake oil was the ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Dean is shrewd, but doesn't have that ability.

He needs the Left Base to get where he wants to go: the nomination. He talks their language to get there. But it is not the language that will connect to the Center. That is why he will fail.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

No. I didn't explain myself properly.

Bill Clinton was careful to talk like a centrist. This made it hard for his opponents to beat him. Clinton didn't lay down markers like Dean did. But understand that Clinton was dealing with a different "base" in those days.

In 1991, the Dems would put up with anything to win the White House. Clinton understood this. He could talk like a centrist, run off and have Ricky Ray Rector executed, and diss the blacks at their own convention by hammering Sister Souljah, and the base would grin and bear it. Clinton, a deeply partisan man, could pretend to be not so partisan and still win the nomination. They knew that with this guy, the pot at the end of the rainbow was at 1600 Pennsylvania.

In 2003, the Dems will support a True Believer in the stead of all others because they despise Bush so much. Dean knows this, and is concentrating all his energies towards getting the nomination. This does not involve speaking to the people as a whole. That is his major failing. Dean's actions are about getting in Bush's face and ginning up the base voters who will run out and kill Kerry in NH, and possibly do in Gephardt in Iowa.

BTW, Common Tator has indicated that Gephardt is in a very strong position due to his corraling of the union delegates.

Clinton's way is the smart way. Dean is merely shrewd. Clinton was brilliant.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Dean can be beaten. Badly, too. And by his own mouth. He is making mistakes now that Bill Clinton did not make at this point in 1991. Dean is digging himself into a hole now that Karl Rove won't let him out of later. Bill Clinton never made that kind of mistake. He was a snake oil salesman, too, but he knew that the essence of selling snake oil was the ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

This is partially true, but there have been quite a few articles by compliant liberal presstitutes that try to pass him off as a moderate (the old saw "fiscal conservative and social liberal" is just one such device favored by these presstitutes). You'll see much more of these as time goes by if Dean gets close to winning the nomination.

The Media Research Center has documented quite a few instances where this was done.

As far as Clinton goes, he said quite a few liberal things during the primaries such as supporting socialized medicine, forcing the military to admit queer soldiers, railing against Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's cap gains reduction...

The thing is that he never called himself a liberal so the media could get away with calling him a moderate. Dean has not done so either. He avoids the label assiduously, preferring euphemisms like "democratic" or "progressive.

Dean will try the same stunt. He has, in many ways, patterned himself after Bill Clinton. However, he has gone somewhat further in his denunciations of conservatives (but not too far since Clinton routinely railed about the "worst economy in a generation...") and there are now many sources to challenge the spin from the liberal press.

I don't think Dean will get the job, especially once everyone realizes that he is not serious about actually running things. He has basically no knowledge of military affairs and does not appear to have any foreign policy other than to do the opposite of what Bush does. His close association with the pervert movement will also harm him, too.

I don't really think Hillary will try in 2004. Although I certainly believe the Democractic Party is more than capable of throwing a white male candidate to the wolves for the sake of a pro-baby-killing female, I just don't think it will happen. I continue to believe Hillary's target year is 2008, if any. I also believe there will be a conservative woman as President long before there is a liberal one. Hillary will physically look worse than Helen Thomas before more than half of the nation will consider her for President.

Muleteam1

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.