John Kerry’s Fatal Conceit
March 19, 2004
by Roger Wm. Hughes
Fredrich A. Hayek wrote a book titled “The Fatal Conceit” that is multi-layered in its many messages and lessons. However, the book reduces the flaws of socialism to one major fatal conceit that an individual or a group of individuals can know everything. This, of course, is necessary for social planning and therefore for socialism to be successful.
Senator John Kerry’s fatal conceit is that he believes his service in Vietnam equates to our blind trust in his ability to protect America.
Howard Dean on NBC’s Meet the Press stated the Presidential election will be about jobs, "after all either I or Kerry would protect America and fight the War on Terrorism."
This conceit leads them to believe that because there is a War on Terrorism, America will trust just anyone to handle it.
Coinciding with Kerry’s conceit that his service in Vietnam equates to blind trust in his ability to protect America is the other false premise -- that Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place and we are failing.
In short, Kerry’s argument is, “lets get on with the issues of jobs, healthcare and education.” After all, Kerry’s fatal conceit concludes, he can fight the War on Terrorism as well as Bush -- if not better.
CAN HE?
For a moment, let us forego Kerry’s past record of voting to decimate our national defense and C.I.A. Let us instead examine the key component of the Democrats’ proposal to fix the Bush problem by "Internationalizing the War."
Kerry has referenced our current coalition partners as the “bribed and coerced.” However, the two key players Kerry is really saying are lacking from our coalition are France and Germany.
Robert Kagan writes in “Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order” that France and Germany have an alliance and a desire to "limit’ America’s power. Kagan also writes that the conflict in Iraq was greater than France, Germany and Russia’s financial interest in continuing to make money from the Saddam Hussein regime. It was also about the fact that America has provided an unparalleled level of security to "Old Europe" – so much so that they have come to believe we can all just ‘sit down and talk it out.’ In short, they do not subscribe to Bismarck’s "real politics." … that is, if people are shooting at you, you should do something about it.
The other thing that is enormously disturbing about Kerry’s position is that it is reminiscent of the two erroneous foreign policy assumptions of the Clinton administration. One was that the long history of geopolitical conflict had come to an end. The second was that international politics would center around globalization and environmental issues, déjà vu.
Will America buy into this viewpoint on how America should defend itself?
Polls indicate the answer is no. This, despite Kerry’s attempts to show that he would be a better defender of America by attacking Bush for not taking care of veterans and cutting their benefits -- something that is not altogether true.
The truth is, Bush’s taking on Saddam Hussein has made America safer and stronger. It enforced several U.N. resolutions that weren’t being enforced -- one of the real reasons for going into Iraq. It has changed the dynamics of power in the region and is achieving results from Libya, Yemen, Iran and Syria. Democracy in Iraq will be devastating to our enemies. The Democrats’ position that Israel and Palestine must be solved first has been proven to be equally wrong, but our success in Iraq will also help gain progress with the Israel/ Palestine problem.
So, the question is: why would America elect someone who has voted against funding for 24 critical weapon systems, wants to give greater influence to France and Germany whose goal is to curtail our power, voted to cut funding for the C.I.A., thinks we should have waited for the United Nations and criticizes our current coalition members and allies as being coerced or bribed?
mensnewsdaily.com |
