• STOCKTALK
• POLITICS
• PASTIMES

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

---

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 12:58:57 PM From: JakeStraw   Respond to of 769667   www-personal.ksu.edu

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:10:06 PM From: Neocon   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   Schisms within The Weekly Standard itself started developing during the race for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. Kristol and senior editor David Brooks endorsed Arizona Sen. John McCain’s campaign as a “political phenomenon with a potential appeal to the country as a whole.” Barnes supported George W. Bush. poppolitics.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:25:45 PM From: Neocon   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   Neoconservatism (United States) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth. Neoconservatism is a conservative movement with origins in the Old Left that has been very influential in formulating hawkish foreign policy stances by the United States. Old Left origins The intellectual founders of neoconservatism, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Irving Howe, and most prominently Irving Kristol, were all alumni of City College of New York, known then as the "Harvard of the proletariat" due to its highly selective admissions criteria and free education. They emerged from the (largely Trotskyite) Old Left and retained these origins in the factional New York intellectual debates of the 1930s. The Great Depression radicalized the student body, mostly children of Eastern European Jewish immigrants sometimes on the edge of poverty, who were introduced to the new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. Opposition to the New Left and Détente with the Soviet Union Later to emerge as the first important group of social policy critics from the working class, the original neoconservatives, though not yet using this term, were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War. Multiple strands contributed to their ideas, including the Depression-era ideas of former Trotskyites (world socialist revolution parallels their desires today to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by force), New Dealers, and trade unionists. The influence of the Trotskyites perhaps left them with strong anti-Soviet tendencies, especially considering the Great Purges targeting alleged Trotskyites in Soviet Russia. The original "neoconservative" theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were often associated with the magazine Commentary and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. However, they grew disillusioned with the Johnson administration's Great Society. They also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, in the movement against the Vietnam War and in the emerging New Left. According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives following decolonization and the entry of many African and Asian states into the United Nations, which tilted the body toward recognizing Third World interests. As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals further to the right in response, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism. Admiration of the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt remains a common theme in neoconservative tracts as well. Now staunch anti-Communists, a vast array of sympathetic conservatives attracted to their strong defense of a "rolling-back" of Communism (an idea touted under the Eisenhower administration by traditional conservative John Foster Dulles) began to become associated with these neoconservative leaders. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, The New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and lately The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservatives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers. Academics in these circles, many of whom were still Democrats, rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Many clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet expansionism. Generally they supported a militant anticommunism, minimal social welfare (to the consternation of extreme free-market libertarians), and sympathy with a traditionalist agenda. Its feud with the traditional right, especially William F. Buckley's National Review over the welfare state (although the staff of the present National Review are recognisably neo-conservative) and the nativist, protectionist, isolationist wing of the party, once represented by ex-Republican Pat Buchanan, separated them from the old conservatives. But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by a hawkish foreign policy, opposition to communism during the Cold War and opposition to Middle Eastern states that pursue foreign and domestic policies which do not align with U.S. interests. Thus, their foremost target was the old Richard Nixon approach to foreign policy, peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control known, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China and the US. There is still, today, a rift between many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions, and the neoconservative hawks. Reagan and the neoconservatives Led by Norman Podhoretz, these "neoconservatives" used charges of "appeasement", alluding to Chamberlain at Munich, to attack the foreign policy orthodoxy in the Cold War, attacking Détente, most-favored nation trade status for the Soviet Union and supporting unilateral American intervention in places like Grenada and Libya. These activists condemned peace through diplomacy, arms control, or inspection teams, comparing negotiations with relatively weak enemies of the United States as appeasement of "evil". During the 1970s political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick increasingly criticized the Democratic Party, of which she was still a member, since the nomination of the antiwar George McGovern. Kirkpatrick became a convert to the ideas of the new conservatism of once liberal Democratic academics. During Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, he hired her as his foreign policy adviser and later nominated her US ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. Known for her anticommunist stance and for her tolerance of right wing dictatorships, she argued that Third World social revolutions favoring the poor, dispossessed, or underclasses are illegitimate, and thus argued that the overthrow of leftist governments (such as the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile) and the installation of rightwing dictatorships was acceptable and essential. Under this doctrine, the Reagan administration actively supported the anti-Communist dictatorships such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and the racist white rulers of South Africa. Some have attacked these views as simplistic and extreme, especially in light of the Vietnam War, which was by no means a revolution being orchestrated by the Soviets from Moscow, long a charge of neoconservatives who view Third World liberation struggles as illegitimate. The Vietnam War, for instance, was in many ways a direct successor to the French Indochina War, fought to maintain control of their colony in Indochina against an independence movement led by Communist Party leader Ho Chi Minh. After the Vietnamese communist forces, or Viet Minh, defeated the French colonial army at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the colony was granted independence. According to the ensuing Geneva settlement, Vietnam was partitioned, ostensibly temporarily, into a communist North and a non-Communist South. The country was then to be unified under elections that were scheduled to take place in 1956. However the elections were never held and the South fell under a US-backed military regime representative of the small, middle class Christian minority. Neoconservatives, however, have tried to counter these points, arguing that the chances of democratization in a Communist state were slight, in contrast, from their standpoint at least, to the authoritarian but pro-Western South Vietnam. Neoconservatives argued that in unstable situations the United States should try to align itself with the "less offensive" regime or armed faction, which almost certainly would be any faction or regime hostile to a pro-Soviet rival, rather than stay out of the conflict altogether, as some liberals advocated. Neoconservatives thus argued that Communist states could not be democratized and must be "rolled back" to further US strategic interests, which were shaped by the domino theory during the Cold War era. Before the election of Reagan, the neoconservatives sought to stem the antiwar sentiments caused by the U.S. defeats in Vietnam and the massive causalities that the war induced; and indeed this was a difficult task, which they have ostensibly accomplished, considering the hawkish mood of the US public after the September 11th attacks. The lowest casualty estimates, based on the now-renounced North Vietnamese statements, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war. While liberal thinkers tended to point to the massive civilian deaths as a direct result of America's involvement in the war, neocons saw the loss of life from a different perspective. In their view, the millions of war casualities, and more importantly the millions of executions and tourtures that had occured in the post-war Communist regimes in Vietnam and Cambodia, proved that America had failed to follow through on her commitment to her non-Communist allies in the reigon. They saw the Vietnam war as a series of mismangements, led mostly by a left-leaning congress sympathic to the extremely vocal (and in their view, largely unimformed) anti war movement. Thus, while Vietnam created great distate among many Americans for ever trying to intervene in a third world war again, to neo cons, the war simply proved that America must never fail again. Reagan, however, did not move toward protracted, long-term interventions to stem social revolution in the Third World. Instead, he favored quick campaigns to attack or overthrow leftist governments, favoring small, quick interventions that heightened a sense of post-Vietnam quagmire military triumphalism among Americans, such as the attacks on Grenada and Libya, and arming rightwing militias in Central America seeking to overthrow radical leftist governments like the Sandinistas. Moreover, the Reagan administration's hostile stance toward the Soviet Union, the so-called "evil empire" (despite significant changes since the Stalin-era), the abandonment of Détente would force the Soviets to greatly improve their productive capabilities in order to reciprocate the new arms build-up, especially amid talks of "star wars" missile defense. By the time Gorbachev would usher in the process that would lead to the political collapse of the Soviet Union and the resultant dismantling of the Soviet Administrative Command System with Glasnost (political openness) and Perestroika (economic restructuring), the Soviet economy suffered from both hidden inflation and pervasive supply shortages and was in little position to be able to match US spending on armaments. en.wikipedia.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:34:28 PM From: Hope Praytochange   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   aci.org Taking Action to Strengthen America’s Economy On January 7, 2003, President Bush announced a growth and jobs plan to strengthen the American economy, and he called on Congress to act swiftly to pass it. The President’s economic plan has three main goals: Encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery and create jobs. Promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation. Deliver critical help to unemployed citizens. The President’s new proposal would: Speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of the recovery and job creation. Encourage job-creating investment in America’s businesses by ending the double taxation of dividends and giving small businesses incentives to grow. Provide help for unemployed Americans, including extending unemployment benefits and creating new re-employment accounts to help displaced workers get back on the job. Building Momentum For Job Creation Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 Economic Strategy Who benefits under the President’s plan? Everyone who pays taxes—especially middle-income Americans—as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately. Middle-income families will receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket. Everyone who invests in the stock market and receives dividend income—especially seniors—will benefit from elimination of the double taxation on dividends. About half of all dividend income goes to America’s seniors, who often rely on those checks for a steady source of retirement income. Every small business owner who purchases equipment to grow and expand will get assistance through an increase in the expensing limits from $25,000 to $75,000. Every worker who has lost his or her job and qualifies for unemployment benefits will get more help, and many will qualify for new, more flexible Personal Re-employment Accounts, which provide a bonus if they find work quickly. Under the President’s proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003. 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716. 34 million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473. 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541. 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384. 23 million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042. Americans in the lowest tax brackets receive the largest percentage reduction in their tax burden. 3 million moderate-income families will see their income tax burden eliminated entirely. Example: A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 under the President’s plan. According to a projection by the Council of Economic Advisers, the President’s plan will help the economy to create 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004. Making Progress: From Recession to Recovery Since the beginning of his Administration, the President has acted decisively to promote economic growth and job creation. In 2001, he fulfilled his promise to reduce the tax burden on the American people. This tax relief gave the economy a boost at just the right time—ensuring that the recession was one of the shortest and shallowest in modern American history. These tax cuts worked, and the President will continue to press the Congress to make the cuts—including the end of the death tax—permanent. In 2002, he proposed and signed into law an economic stimulus bill, tough new corporate accountability standards, terrorism insurance legislation to put construction projects back on track, and an historic trade act. All these measures will help our economy as it recovers from the shocks of recession, the attacks of September 11th, and serious abuses of trust by some corporate officials. Today, America’s economy is recovering and showing signs of growth. The country is now in its second year of economic growth. Nationwide, incomes are rising faster than inflation. Interest rates are the lowest in 37 years, and low interest rates have allowed Americans to refinance their homes, adding more than $100 billion to their pocketbooks and to the economy. The homeownership rate—a central part of the American dream—is 68 percent, close to the highest ever. Productivity of American workers—the most important indicator of our economic strength—went up 5.6 percent over the last four measured quarters, the best since 1973. Our trade with other nations is expanding—bringing the lower prices that come from imports, and the better jobs that come from exports. More to Do: The President’s Agenda to Strengthen America’s Economy America has the strongest, most resilient economy in the world, yet this economy is not creating enough jobs. We have made great progress, but there is still more work to do. The President today proposed a specific agenda to increase the momentum of our economic recovery. The President’s proposal would: Speed up Tax Relief to Speed up the Recovery: The President’s proposal builds on the success of the 2001 tax cut. As a result of this law, Americans are due to receive additional tax relief in 2004, and again in 2006. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have already enacted these cuts. The President believes the time to deliver this relief is now – when it can do the most good for families, businesses, and the economy – not years from now. The President’s plan would: Make all the tax rate reductions from the 2001 tax law effective this year—and retroactive to January 1, 2003. Upon passage, the President will order the Treasury Department to immediately adjust the amount of money withheld for income taxes, so that Americans will keep more of their paychecks right away. For income earned after January 1, 2003, the following tax rates would be in effect: 10% 15% 25% 28% 33% 35% The President’s plan would also bring middle-income families additional relief by speeding up three other tax reductions promised in 2001. It would: Reduce the marriage penalty this year, instead of waiting until 2009. An estimated 46 million married couples would benefit under the President’s plan. Raise the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child this year, instead of in 2010. That would amount to a $400 increase per child, and checks would be issued in that amount this year to help parents across America. An estimated 34 million families with children would benefit under the President’s plan. Move several million working Americans into the lowest tax bracket of 10 percent now instead of waiting until 2008. [Note: The plan will hold harmless any taxpayer who may be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax]. Encourage Job-Creating Investment in America’s Economy – The President has proposed two new steps to encourage individuals and businesses to invest in America’s economy. End the double taxation of dividends Roughly 35 million American households receive dividend income that is taxable and will directly benefit under the President’s plan. More than half of these dividends go to America’s seniors, many of whom rely on these checks for a steady source of income in their retirement. More than 40 percent of people who receive dividends make under $50,000 per year—and three-fourths make less than $100,000 per year. Yet seniors and other investors are not getting the full benefit of their investments because those investments are taxed twice. The IRS taxes a company on its profits, then it taxes the investors who receive the profits as dividends. The result is that for every dollar of profit a company could pay out in dividends, as little as 40 cents can actually reach shareholders. It is fair to tax a company’s profits, and under the President’s plan, company profits will still be taxed – but only once. It is not fair to tax this income twice by taxing the shareholder on those same profits. Double taxation is wrong—and it falls hardest on seniors. Almost half of all savings from the dividend exclusion under the President’s plan would go to taxpayers 65 and older. The average tax savings for the 9.8 million seniors receiving dividends would be $936. The President’s plan would eliminate the double taxation of dividends for millions of stockholders – allowing taxpayers to exclude dividend payments from their taxable income – and returning about $20 billion this year to the economy. Increase incentives for small businesses to grow Small businesses create the majority of new jobs and account for half the output of the economy. Current tax laws permit them to write off as expenses up to $25,000 worth of equipment purchases. The President’s plan would increase that limit to $75,000 and index it to inflation – encouraging them to buy technology, machinery, and other equipment they need to expand. Help Unemployed Americans Find Work –As we work to encourage long-term growth in the economy, we must not forget men and women struggling today. The President’s plan would help the unemployed on two fronts, providing both short-term benefits and long-term opportunity: Extend unemployment benefits Close to 70,000 workers exhaust their unemployment benefits each week and need our help. The President called on Congress to extend unemployment benefits as a first order of business this year and signed that extension into law on January 8, 2003. Create new Personal Re-employment Accounts The President’s plan would create Personal Re-employment Accounts, a new, innovative approach to help unemployed Americans find a job. These accounts would provide unemployed workers with up to $3,000 to use for job training, child care, transportation, moving costs, or other expenses associated with finding a new job. A person who gets a job within 13 weeks will be able to keep the leftover funds from their account as a re-employment bonus. This will help them when they are looking for work and give them an incentive to find work faster. President Bush proposes giving states $3.6 billion to fund these accounts. The program would be administered through the One Stop Career Center system and would work through existing state unemployment systems to ensure speedy delivery of benefits. Under the President’s plan, these accounts would be available to at least 1.2 million Americans. Workers would receive these Personal Re-employment Accounts in addition to their regular unemployment benefits. Turning Recovery into Prosperity The President’s jobs and growth package will spur real overall economic growth and create jobs, yet it is disciplined and tailored to address specific challenges. The American economy is strong, but it must be stronger. The President’s plan is a focused effort designed to remove the obstacles standing in the way of faster growth and greater progress. President Bush will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find one; until every business has a chance to grow; and until we turn our economic recovery into lasting prosperity that reaches every corner of America. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to this article at: whitehouse.gov

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:35:59 PM From: Hope Praytochange   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   National Security Advisor Dr. Rice Remarks to National Legal Center Remarks by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest The Waldorf Astoria Hotel New York, New York DR. RICE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Well, thank you very much. But I just have to say one thing, Bill, I am not one year from my 50th birthday. I am one year, 16 days, and 15 hours from my 50th birthday. (Laughter.) So I have a little longer than one year. I want to thank my good friend, Judge Webster. When after September 11th, we were trying to figure out some of the issues about how the CIA and the FBI might work better together to make the country more secure, the person that I called first was the person who had actually merged them, Bill Webster. And he came right away and talked about his experiences, both as Director of the FBI and as DCI. And I want to thank you, Bill, for your advice and counsel throughout the years. I want to thank Ernie Hueter, who has been a good friend for a long time. And your service to this organization and to the country is wonderful. And we honor you tonight, too, for your service. (Applause.) I'm really pleased to be speaking to this distinguished group. I, too, want to thank you for changing your schedules so that you could join me here. The rule of law is one of the vital foundations of civilization and one of America's defining principles. And it's a central part of what we are and who we are, and it's a central part of what it is that we protect every day. And this organization has been stalwart in discussing the important issues that face us in this area. And so I'm really delighted to be here with you. It has been more than two years since terrorists made this city -- and our country -- a battleground in the war on terror. It will take years to understand fully the long-term effects of that fateful day, September 11th. But that tragedy brought home to us certain verities in the most vivid way. It crystallized our vulnerability to attacks hatched in distant lands that come without warning, bringing tragedy to our shores. It made clear that sweeping challenges under the rug is not an option. And it laid bare the shortcomings of our and, indeed, the world's approach to terrorism for many years before. It is now undeniable that the terrorists declared war on America -- and on the civilized world -- many years before September 11th. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, in 1983; the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, in 1985; the bombing of Pan Am 103, in 1988; of the World Trade Center, in 1993; attacks on American embassies, in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000 -- these and other atrocities were part of a sustained and systematic campaign for utter devastation and fear. Yet until September 11th, the terrorists faced no sustained and systematic and global response. They became emboldened -- and the result was more terror and more victims. Since September 11th, the United States and, indeed, the international community have pursued a different strategy. We are taking the fight to the enemy. And as President Bush said to the nation last month, we are finally rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power. This bold strategy is, in fact, emblematic of a larger approach to foreign policy that we now must follow in the wake of September 11th. We live in a time of grave threats to our national security -- to our very national life -- from terrorists, from rogue states, from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And the gravest threat of all is the potential nexus between them -- the dreadful possibility that terrorists could gain nuclear, biological or chemical weapons from an outlaw regime, thereby realizing their means -- and rationalizing their means to match their hatred. These threats cannot be ignored or wished away. The only prudent course in the face of such dangers is to meet them head on, without illusions. That is what the administration and our friends, our allies, around the world are doing. Rooting the Taliban out of Afghanistan was the first battle because the Taliban had provided the home base and primary sanctuary for al Qaeda. Today, that sanctuary is denied to them. Al Qaeda remains a danger, and we continue to pursue its members. Across the globe, unparalleled law enforcement and intelligence cooperation efforts are underway, successfully breaking up cells and disrupting operations. It happens all over the world in many, many different place. Nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's senior leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators have been captured or killed. And the rest are on the run -- permanently. Some time, just listen to the stories of the various places in which it happens. Many countries of Europe, in Thailand, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, across the world, there is a net, an umbrella of intelligence and law enforcement cooperation that is making a difference. Confronting Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was also essential. For 12 years, Saddam Hussein sat in the middle of the world's most volatile region, defying more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions, threatening his people, his neighbors, and the world. Saddam Hussein twice launched unprovoked invasions of his neighbors. After losing a war of aggression that he began, Saddam's threatening posture toward other Gulf nations -- and his continued oppression of his people -- required the United States and Great Britain to maintain a massive military presence in the Gulf, and to patrol vast no-fly zones for a dozen years to keep him in check. Saddam is the only tyrant of our time, not only to possess weapons of mass destruction, but to use them in acts of mass murder. He maintained ties to terror. He harbored known terrorists within his border, and he subsidized Palestinian suicide bombers. And he remained, until his final days in power, one of the cruelest tyrants of this or of any time. As his killing fields continue to yield up their dead, as more mass graves are discovered, the world sees fresh evidence of his torture and his oppression of the Iraqi people. All of this had been well known for more than a decade when President Bush went to the United Nations in September, 2002. The intelligence agencies of most governments agreed on Saddam's capabilities and his appetites. The United Nations and other international organizations had -- again and again -- documented his aggressions against his neighbors, the tortures of the Iraqi people, and the violations of international law. The United Nations Security Council passed resolution after resolution -- 17 in all -- laying out Saddam's obligations to the world and demanding that he comply or face consequences. Can we really debate the wisdom of removing Saddam Hussein from power and liberating Iraq? Let us be clear: Saddam Hussein was not going to go away of his own accord. For 12 years, he gave every indication that he would never disarm and never comply with the Security Council's just demands. In fact, he mocked those demands and made every effort to circumvent them through massive programs of denial and deception. There was no reason to believe that waiting any longer for him to change his mind was going yield results. The threat, and the challenge, he posed to the international community could not be tolerated any longer. The choice before the world was stark. Should we have countenanced indefinitely his continued deprivations of the Iraqi people? Should we have stood by indefinitely as more mass graves were dug, more innocent children put into prison? Should we have let Saddam Hussein continue to defy the world and indefinitely, poised in the heart of the Middle East, sit atop a potentially deadly arsenal of terrible weapons, threatening his neighbors? Those, ladies and gentlemen, were the alternatives. President Bush and a coalition of more than 40 nations chose to act, and the world is both safer and better because they did. The threat from the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons and the means to deliver them is another danger that has simmered for years. The traffic in ballistic missile technologies between North Korea and Iran is longstanding. People have known for a long time that the nonproliferation treaty was in trouble from those who would sign it, but easily violate its tenets. Under President Bush's leadership, the world is taking new action against this old threat. We are working with the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thanks in large part to the President's unwillingness to sweep this problem under the rug and his patient yet persistent diplomacy, countries around the world are keeping the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. And Iran is feeling that pressure, as evidenced by its recent announcement that it will sign the Additional Protocol for the IAEA and suspend its enrichment activities. While we will only be able to judge Iran's compliance by its actions, the firm stand of the United States against proliferation has clearly established a broad consensus that the international community must be proactive in countering this growing threat. Diplomacy is also yielding results in our dealings with North Korea, a rogue state that for years has been cheating on its agreements to halt all nuclear weapons development. The path of least resistance would have been for the United States to, once again, engage in bilateral talks with North Korea in hopes of stopping its programs. But this would simply have repeated the experience of the past, when North Korea accepted, and then systematically violated, an agreement offered by the United States in good faith, while gaining the benefits that it, the North Korean regime, sought. President Bush saw from the beginning that there was another way, that Japan, South Korea, China and Russia -- no less than the United States -- all had a vital interest in ensuring that the Korean Peninsula is free of nuclear weapons, and that only close cooperation among all five of these nations could lead to a lasting resolution of the issue. And today all of us are working together to show North Korea that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will bring only further isolation. Building a diplomatic consensus took time. Some believed that such a consensus could never be reached. But today, when the North Koreans come to multiparty talks, they look across the table at a united front of nations opposed to their own nuclear armament. And the North Koreans know that a strategy of divide and conquer is no longer an option. As we advance a broad non-proliferation agenda, we also recognize that determined proliferators cannot always be stopped by diplomacy alone. But they can be stopped. Through the Proliferation Security Initiative, the United States and 10 global partners have recently approved a Statement of Interdiction Principles and are developing the capability to search planes, ships, trains and trucks carrying suspect cargo, and to seize weapons and equipment that raise proliferation concerns. This initiative will soon be broadened to include new members from across the globe. While all actions will be taken consistent with existing national and international legal authorities, we are also seeking ways to expand those authorities. And it is for this reason that the President proposed in his September address to the United Nations that the Security Council adopt a resolution calling on all states to criminalize proliferation activities, establish effective export controls, and ensure the safety and security of sensitive materials and technologies. The world has an obligation to confront squarely the threats of our time, and President Bush is determined to meet that obligation. But, of course, we must do more than just confront problems. We also have an historic opportunity to make the world better by fighting poverty, by fighting disease, and by ending hopelessness. It has always been America's way to try and leave the world, not just safer, but better. And we follow in that great tradition. For years, the world talked of the need for a decisive action to stop the spread of AIDS. President Bush has matched his words with deeds, and by committing the United States to a five-year, $15-billion emergency plan for AIDS relief, the world will now begin to confront this challenge in a serious way with assistance to developing nations that need it. For years, there was always talk about the need for greater development assistance to those who are trying to fight their way out of poverty. President Bush stepped forward with a 50% increase in American aid over three years. By linking increased aid to sound policies, the President's plan encourages developing nations to govern justly, to invest in their people, and to support economic freedom. Those who do those things will be eligible for this new assistance. Those who do not cannot be eligible because, ultimately, unless development is a partnership between donor and recipient, nothing of lasting value can be achieved. And for many years, the world viewed the Middle East as hopelessly mired in conflict and misery -- somehow incapable of liberty, or prosperity, or democracy. President Bush, instead, sees a region of potential, filled with talented and resourceful people who, when blessed with greater political and economic freedom, and better and more modern education, can fully join in the progress of our time. As the President has said, Iraq is the central front in the war on Terror. But it is also a central front in the international effort to realize the vision of a Middle East that is a center of hope and change, rather than despair and hatred. We are aggressively attacking the Baathist remnants and foreign terrorists. And increasingly, Iraqis are fighting alongside our troops to secure their own freedom. The numbers of Iraqis now risking their lives to defend their nation is over 85,000 and growing. Together, we continue to discover arms caches, thwart attacks, track down killers, and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. And we are helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country, reform their economy, and create a road to a representative and democratic government. Success will take time. And recent attacks by Baathist remnants and foreign terrorists show that the enemies of freedom will stop at nothing to prevent the emergence of a free Iraq. We must always remember that every democracy, even our own, is built day-by-day, brick-by-brick. Persistent effort produces something strong and solid. These achievements do not, of course, come without great sacrifice. Today those sacrifices are being borne by our men and women in uniform, by those of our coalition partners, by international aid workers, and by the Iraqi people. But we must and will stay the course -- because free nations do not sponsor terror, and free nations do not breed hatred. As we move forward across this broad and ambitious agenda, we must remember that times of the greatest strategic importance are also times of great turbulence. Anyone who has ever built a successful democracy has been through times of turbulence. We here in America have no reason to have false pride in the democracy that we have built over 225 years, if we do not remember the sacrifices and the difficulties that were incurred in building it. When the Founding Fathers said, we the people, they didn't mean me. It's taken us quite a long time to find a way to live up to our principles and our ideals. And so when we see the people of Iraq, or the people of Afghanistan toiling in the new freedoms, toiling against a dangerous landscape and backdrop of those who would try and kept them from that success, I hope that we will remember that nothing of lasting value is ever won without sacrifice. It is also the case that great historic changes take time. I well remember serving on the National Security Council staff a dozen years ago, when the Berlin Wall fell, when the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and when the Soviet Union gave way to a free Russia. It was, of course, an exhilarating time to be in government, and I will tell you that I felt some small measure of pride. But that pride quickly gave way to a humble awe for the giants who faced the great challenges of the post-World War II moment - Truman and Marshall and Acheson and Kennan. These men -- in the most uncertain of times, amidst often noisy acrimony -- made decisions that bore fruit only decades later. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, my colleagues and I were lucky enough to reap the harvest that they had sown. That harvest, a safer, freer, better world, is no less our hope for today's moment of decision and challenge. That that we do today with our allies and our friends will take years to fully realize a vision and a completion. It will require a commitment of many years. But if done well, the march of freedom and security and safety and prosperity will continue. And it will continue because America has chosen, again, to lead. The effort will take time, but the wait will be worth it. Thank you very much. END

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:38:05 PM From: Hope Praytochange   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   President Bush Discusses Economy, Small Business from Alabama Remarks by the President on the Economy Craneworks Birmingham, Alabama In Focus: Economic Security 10:35 A.M. CST THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. It's great to be back in the great state of Alabama. I'm honored you all came out. Today I'm going to talk about a couple things on my mind. One is our economy. (Applause.) I want to make sure people are working here in Alabama and all across America. I'm going to talk about how to make America a more secure place. Before I do, I want to thank the CraneWorks boys for hosting us, the brothers, the Upton boys -- (laughter) -- entrepreneurs, job creators, dreamers, people who have created something out of nothing. I want to thank the employees, as well, for being such hard-working, good folks here at CraneWorks. I'm honored to be in your place of business. I'm honored here -- in a company that is creating jobs, new jobs, to be talking about how best we can continue to create new jobs all across America. This economy of ours is growing. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong. But there's more work to do, and that's what I want to talk to you all today about. Before I do so, I do want to thank David and Steve for hosting us. I want to thank Rom Reddy, as well. Rom is a local entrepreneur. He started Nexcel Synthetics. I'm going to talk a little bit about his business, but I know he's got some employees here, as well, hard-working people who have helped take this start-up company from nothing to something in a quick period of time. The chief executive officer has got a bright and enthused future about this little company. He's talking about creating more jobs, but he also said, when you get up there, make sure you recognize the people that work with me in my company, because I wouldn't be having -- we wouldn't be having the success we're having with out the good, hard-working people that are working with Rom. So wherever you are, thank you for coming. (Applause.) Building Momentum For Job Creation Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 Economic Strategy I'm traveling in some pretty fancy company today, at least from the airport to here. Your Governor, Bob Riley is here today, and I want to thank my friend for serving the state of Alabama, I appreciate you being here, Governor. (Applause.) Two really fine United States senators are here with us, strong allies, good friends, and that's Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, I appreciate you all coming. (Applause.) The mighty Alabama congressional delegation is strong and active, Spencer Bachus, and Robert Aderholt, and Jo Bonner, and Mike Rogers, and Terry Everett are all with us today. Congress people, thank you for coming. (Applause.) Attorney General from the state of Alabama is with us, Bill Pryor. I'm honored that Judge Pryor is here. (Applause.) Today, when I landed out there, I met a fellow named Jason Nabors. You probably never heard of Jason. He is a soldier in the army of compassion here in Birmingham, Alabama. The reason I like to bring up people who are volunteering in their community is oftentimes people look at Americans and say, well, that's a mighty country -- because we've got a strong military. It's a mighty country because our wallets are heavier than other people around the world. No, we're a mighty country because the people who live here in this country are decent, caring, compassionate people who have heard the call to love a neighbor just like you would like to be loved yourself. (Applause.) Jason Nabors, who works at a local law firm -- and, by the way, his law firm encourages the lawyers in that firm to find a way to contribute to the Birmingham community by helping somebody who hurts -- he's involved with First Look. It is a non-profit organization that is created to increase the number of young -- youngsters and young adults in the service to the people of Alabama by encouraging them to follow their hearts, by mentoring a child, by helping somebody who may be addicted, by feeding the hungry and housing the homeless. I see we've got scouts with us today. There's nothing better than being a Boy Scout leader and sending good signals and examples to the youth of America. For all of you who take time out of your busy lives to help somebody in need, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart -- you are the strength of our country. (Applause.) When we talk about our economy and the future of our country, it's important to remember what we have been through. See, we've been through a lot here in America. The stock market started to decline about nine months before Dick Cheney and I showed up in Washington, and then the country was in a recession. That means three quarters of negative growth. That means we were headed backwards. That means people were not finding work. That means we had trouble on the home front in many homes across the country, because people weren't able to do their job of providing food for their families; they were looking for work. And then we began to recover somewhat, and the enemy hit us on September the 11th, 2001. And that hurt. It hurt us economically. Frankly, it hurt us psychologically, because most of us grew up in a period where we thought oceans would protect us from harm. We saw a problem overseas, we could deal with it if we felt it was necessary for our security, but we at home were secure, we were protected. It was a big blow to us, it hurt a lot. We responded. We dedicated ourselves to the security of this country. We understood the challenge. America is a tough, resolved nation when we're challenged. And then we began to recover from that, and our confidence was shaken by the fact that some of our chief executive officers forgot what it meant to be responsible citizens. They didn't tell the truth. They didn't tell the truth to their employees, they didn't tell the truth to their shareholders. They betrayed the trust. We passed laws, by the way, that are sending a clear signal: if you betray the trust, there will be a consequence, we will hold you responsible for not telling the truth. But the fact that some in corporate America betrayed the trust affected our confidence. And then, as you well know, we marched to war in Afghanistan and Iraq for the security of our country and for the peace of the world, all of which affected our confidence. It affected the economy. I mean, Alabama has been hit hard by -- in the manufacturing sector and the textile sector. These are challenges. But we met the challenges with action. We took tough action in order to move this economy forward. First of all, as I mentioned, we passed new laws that say, if you're going to cheat, we will hold you to account. And if you noticed, some of those who behaved irresponsibly are now being held to account. Secondly, we acted on principle. We said, the best way to get this economy going and the best way to help people find work is to let people keep more of their own money. We understand how the economy works -- if a person has more of his or her own money, they're likely to demand a good or a service. And when somebody demands a good or a service, in this economy, somebody is going to produce the good or a service. And when somebody produces a good or a service, somebody is more likely to find a job. And so, therefore, I went to the Congress, not once, but twice, and said, in order for people to be able to find work here in the country, let's pass meaningful, real tax relief. And I want to thank the two senators and the members of Congress who are here today for joining me in passing tax relief so people can find work. (Applause.) We wanted tax relief to be as broad and as fair as possible. So we reduced taxes on everybody who pays taxes. We thought that was a fair principle. Government shouldn't try to pick or choose winners and losers on who gets tax relief. If you're going to reduce taxes, reduce them on everybody, which is precisely what we did. We felt like the marriage penalty sent the wrong signal. See, we want people to be married. We think marriage is good. We think it's a part of a -- (applause). But the tax code penalized marriage. And so we've reduced the marriage penalty. We understand that it's -- when the economy is slow and people are worried about the future, that it takes a lot to raise a child. And so we increased the child credit from $600 per child to $1,000 per child. This summer, I remember going to Pennsylvania where they were cutting the checks, and I said, the check is in the mail. Fortunately, it turned out to be in the mail. (Laughter.) People got money back, money in their pocket. If you had a child, you got $400 per child. That meant you're in a position to demand the additional good or a service, which meant somebody was more likely to find work here. We also wanted to encourage investment. If you're interested in job creation, then you must be interested in encouraging investment. When people invest in plant equipment, for example, it means somebody is going to have to produce the plant -- produce the equipment. And so we encouraged investment by quadrupling the expense deduction for small business investment. I'm going to talk a little bit about that in a second. But we also cut taxes on dividends and capital gains to encourage investment. More investment means more jobs. We also believe that if you're a small business, or a farmer, or a rancher, you ought to be able to leave your assets to whomever you choose without the government getting in the way again. (Applause). So we're phasing out the federal death tax. We don't believe the IRS should follow you into your grave. (Laughter and applause.) We passed these measures to help individuals, but the measures we passed also are incredibly important to the small business sector of America. The small business sector of our country is vital for job creation. See, most new jobs in America are created by small businesses. Most small businesses pay a tax at the individual income tax level. See, if you're a Subchapter S, or a limited liability corporation, just like the two small businesses I've spoken of today, then, when we cut individual taxes, it's really a cut in taxes for small businesses. It means small business owners have got more money to invest. And when they invest, it means somebody is more likely to find a job. It is essential for those politicians in Washington to know that individual income tax relief is incredibly important for job creation, not only because it stimulates demand, but because it provides a vital boost in the arm for the small business sector here in America. (Applause.) The Uptons bought nine cranes last year in order to rent them out. And they told met the one of the reasons why is because of the tax relief -- it provided an incentive for them to purchase additional equipment. Now, that means a couple of things: somebody has got to make the equipment, which means somebody is working; somebody has got to maintain the equipment, go rent the equipment; it means people here at CraneWorks are more likely to keep a job, but in the Uptons case, or this case, it actually added 15 jobs this year. Now, that's a lot for a start-up company; but it's a really a lot when you think about the 15 jobs here and the 15 jobs there and this small business in another state. It's the compound effect, the hiring decisions of millions of small businesses, that paint a good perspective for people to be able to find work. If you're interested in job creation in America, you've got to understand the role small businesses play in the creation of new jobs in this economy. CraneWorks is such an example. Steve Upton says about investing, you go out there, you take your risks -- these are his words, not mine -- you put people to work, you get aggressive and you get business. That's the entrepreneurial spirit. That's what America is all about. That just goes with having a vision for a better tomorrow. That vision was cleared up somewhat by the tax plan we passed -- and I appreciate the congressmen understanding, and the senators understanding, the vital role that small business plays. Now, look, CraneWorks isn't going to succeed because of government policy. It's up to the Uptons to figure out how to build a strategy that works. It's up to the Uptons to figure out a marketing plan. It's up to them to make wise investment decisions. It's up to them to treat their employees with dignity. All our government is doing is trying to put a little wind at their sails -- and it seems to be working. I appreciate Rom Reddy. He's an entrepreneur. He said the tax relief helped him gain confidence in making investments. As he said, leveraged up the opportunity to make investments, so he bought $6 million in new equipment so he could get into the artificial turf business. And somebody had to make the equipment when he purchased it. Somebody had to sell the equipment. In other words, it's part of the economic activity when people make rational decisions in the marketplace. Tax relief encouraged rational decisions to be made in the marketplace. Rom's company has gone from zero sales, zero turf sales, to $17 million in a quick period of time. He's added 60 new jobs in one year. Sixty people are now working. The tax relief helped him to have the confidence necessary to move forward. By the way, a lot of his sales are going to Europe and China. See, I'm going to talk a little bit about what it means to open up markets, but I just want you to know that his business is going to be more successful because he's developing a product that he's confident he can sell in other markets, which is good for job creation and it's good for the 60 he's got working for him and the some he intends to add. Tax relief puts money into the pockets of those who are hiring new people. We've got a consistent and effective strategy and we're making progress. Remember, just last week, a surprising announcement -- at least, it confounded some of the experts -- that third quarter economic growth was vibrant. And that's good. Inflation is down, and that's good. After-tax incomes are up. People are keeping more of their own money, and that's really important for economic growth. We've got the best work force in the world here in America. Incredibly high productivity gains, which is vital for competition and job creation in the long run. By reducing taxes, this administration kept a promise. We did the right thing, at the right time, for the American economy. (Applause.) And our country is approaching a choice now. Just as our economy is gaining some momentum, some in our nation's capital, some in Washington, are saying now is the right time to raise taxes. To be fair, they think any time is a good time to raise taxes. (Laughter.) They're consistent. (Laughter.) So am I. I strongly disagree. Raising taxes now will wreck economic recovery and will punish hardworking Americans and endanger thousands of jobs. (Applause.) There's some other things we can do to make sure that the momentum in our economy continues, and I want to talk about them right quick. It's what we call the six-point plan. I've laid it out for Congress to consider. First, in order to make sure our small business sector is strong and vibrant, and make sure they continue to create new jobs, we must allow small businesses to form what we call associated health plans. That will allow small businesses to pool risk so that they can better control the cost of health care. We also must have medical liability reform. I'm worried about the -- what I call frivolous lawsuits that make it hard for docs to practice medicine, and run up the cost of medicine. It makes medicine less affordable and less available. And by the way, frivolous lawsuits increase the cost of the federal budget to Medicaid and Medicare and veterans health benefits. You need your day in court when you run into a bad doc. But we've got to control these frivolous lawsuits because they're making health care too costly. Since it affects the federal budget, medical liability reform is a national issue that requires a national solution. The Senate needs to pass that bill. (Applause.) And the Senate needs to get out for the junk lawsuits that make it hard to do business. It's important that we have a judicial system that's fair and balanced. Class action lawsuits oftentimes are not fair and balanced. After all, the money goes to the lawyers and not to the people who got hurt. We need a system that's fair and balanced, and the Senate needs to act on that. We've got to cut useless government regulations. We need to do it at the federal level, Riley needs to do it here at the state level. We need to make sure our entrepreneurs are focused on job creation, not filling out needless paperwork. (Applause.) But I believe if you're good at something, you ought to promote it. We're great farmers. We're really good ranchers. We're great entrepreneurs. We ought to be opening up markets for U.S. products. If you're interested in job creation, companies ought to be encouraged to sell overseas. If you're good at something, let's promote it. I'm concerned, like you are, that trade is not on a level playing field, so this administration is spending a lot of time to make sure that trade is a two-way street, that it's fair, that it's open. But I want you to know that 220 foreign companies from 30 nations have located right here in Alabama, in factories and offices -- which means jobs for Alabama citizens. Trade, if it's done right, can help create new jobs, and that's what this administration is committed to doing. We also ought to make sure that tax relief is permanent. It's hard for me to explain the rules in Washington. Let me put it to you this way: the Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away -- not because of these members, by the way. But much of the tax relief we passed is scheduled to go away, and that's a problem if you're a small business owner. The Upton boys need to have certainty in the tax code, so when they plan in the future, they know what the rules are going to be. If you're raising a family, you don't want the child credit to go back down again. If you're married, you don't want the marriage penalty to raise. And, yet, because of the quirk in the law, the taxes we passed will steadily increase over time. And we've got to make the tax relief permanent. For the sake of job creation, the Congress must make the tax relief permanent. (Applause.) And, finally, we need a national energy policy. If you're in the manufacturing sector, you rely upon energy. And the thought of energy supplies being disrupted because of shortages makes it hard for people to plan and be aggressive about the future. We had a wake-up call this summer. It became quite evident that some of the electricity grid needs to be modernized so that people can know the lights are going to be on in their houses, so business owners can plan for the future. We submitted a plan to Congress about two years ago that had some key principles. One, we need to modernize the electricity grid. We need to encourage more investment. Those providing electricity must do so on a -- must have reliability standards not on a voluntary basis, on a mandatory basis. We're going to make it mandatory that you make sure you've got backup systems available for the people so if the electricity goes out here, you can crank it back up there. But the system needs to be modernized. It's antiquated in some parts. Secondly, we need to use our technologies to encourage conservation. That's very important. conservation is a vital part of the future of our country. We also use our technologies to find different sources of energy. I think it would be great if we were able to grow our way out of an energy crisis, have the farmers produce product that'll be converted into fuel. That makes sense. But we've also got to find more energy and use the energy we've got at home. We need clean coal technology, we need to use our technologies to explore in environmentally friendly ways. Let me tell you what I'm telling you, for the sake of national security, and for the sake of economic security, we need to be less reliant on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.) The House passed a bill, the Senate passed a bill. They're now reconciling their differences. They need to get the job done. They need to get an energy bill to my desk. They need to make sure that this country is planted for the future with good, sound energy policy. We've overcome a lot in this country. The economy took some serious shots. But, you know, the entrepreneurial spirit is strong and the work force is vibrant. We handled a lot, we've overcome it. Now we're growing. The six-point plan I laid out is a plan that says to the Congress, let's get together to make sure the economic momentum continues. We want people working. We're saddened by the fact that somebody might be looking for work who can't find a job. There's more jobs to be created here in America. We've laid the foundation for growth. They need to get these other six things done so we can continue the momentum. I'm optimistic about our future because I'm optimistic when I meet people like Rom and the Upton boys. They love their country. They love the people working with them. The entrepreneurial spirit in their heart is strong. They take risk. They're willing to make calculated risk in order to not only expand their businesses, but to make employment possible for people here in the great state of Alabama. As we overcome the challenges to the economy, we're also answering the challenges to the national security. September the 11th, 2001 moved the country to grief. It also moved us to action. We must never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. We must never forget that tragic day. (Applause.) I made a pledge that day, and we've kept it. We will bring the guilty to justice. We will secure America. We put together a Homeland Security Department to do the best we possibly can in coordinating federal efforts and state efforts and local efforts to protect people. We're doing everything we can to get resources to the -- those on the front line of national, state, and local emergency. That would be your fire fighters, and your police officers, and you're emergency management teams. But the best way to secure the homeland is to hunt the enemy down one at a time and bring them to justice, which is what America is going to do. (Applause.) America cannot retreat from our responsibilities. We can't hope for the best. See, that's what September the 11th taught us, that we must be diligent and active. We can't hope terrorists will change their attitudes. I like to remind people that therapy is not going to work with this bunch. (Laughter.) And that's why we've got some really incredibly brave people on the hunt. We will win the war on terror, there's not doubt in my mind. We will not rest, we will not tire, until the danger to America and civilization is removed. (Applause.) We have got a great United States military. (Applause.) And some of the best have fallen in service to our fellow Americans. We mourn every loss. We honor every name. We grieve with every family. And we will always be grateful that liberty has found such brave defenders. (Applause.) We have put the best on the job of securing America and defending the peace. Five-hundred soldiers in the 877th Engineer Battalion, the Alabama National Guard, are deployed. They're fixing roads so life will be better. They're rebuilding orphanages. They're repairing schools. These proud sons and daughters of Alabama were responsible for demolishing the final hideout of the thugs, the sons, of Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) We're grateful for them, and I'm grateful to their families for making the sacrifice. You see, freedom's home is America. We're freedom's defender. We understand that the advance of human liberty is in our national interests. We remember the lessons of September the 11th, but we also remember that free nations do not attack their neighbors; free nations do not develop weapons of mass terror to blackmail or hold hostage the world. We also know that America -- that freedom is not America's gift to the world, that's what we know, freedom is the Almighty's gift to everybody to everybody who lives in this world. (Applause.) The terrorists and the killers and those who harbor terrorists cannot stand the thought of a free society in their midst. That's why the mission in Iraq is vital. A free Iraq will be a peaceful Iraq. And a free and peaceful Iraq are important for the national security of America. A free and peaceful Iraq will make it more likely that our children and grandchildren will be able to grow up without the horrors of September the 11th. We'll defeat the terrorists there so we don't have to face them on our own streets. The enemy in Iraq believes America will run, that's why they're willing to kill innocent civilians, relief workers, coalition troops. America will never run. America will do what is necessary to make our country more secure. (Applause.) We've come through a lot in this country, and, yet, there is a lot more to do. By being patient and united and determined, by remembering the values that make us a strong and unique nation, this country will prosper and our nation will prevail. I want to thank you all for coming. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America. (Applause.) END 11:08 A.M. CST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to this article at: whitehouse.gov

To: American Spirit who wrote (486547) 11/4/2003 1:39:58 PM From: Neocon   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667   The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars Gerson, Mark. The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars. Lanham, Md. and London: Madison Books, 1997. x + 368 pp. Bibliographical references and index. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 1-56833-054-5; $16.95 (paper), ISBN 1-56833-100-2. Reviewed for H-Teachpol by David J. Rovinsky <rovinsky@epix.net>, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Published by H-Teachpol (November, 1997). The Neoconservatives: The New Vital Center? Neoconservatism in American politics is a phenomenon that social scientists, especially that majority whose political home remains to the left of center, have never fully understood. The term is regularly misused, primarily in reference to free-market philosophy during the 1980s and 1990s. In this sense, neoconservatism is not properly distinguished from conventional conservatism, or "paleoconservatism," in the parlance of the neoconservative. Neoconservatism refers to a specific intellectual school in the United States descended from the liberal anti-communism of the World War II era and its aftermath. It is distinguished primarily by its rejection of the pronounced radicalism of both the American left in the early years of the Cold War, and early twentieth century conservatism. Neoconservatism is thus not simply another branch of American conservatism; in fact, a substantial majority of its adherents continue to support the Democratic Party, despite their intellectual proximity to the Republican administrations of the 1980s. The 1980s represented, in some ways, the climax of the neoconservative movement, in that its views on such matters as Communism and American foreign policy, welfare, government regulation of the economy, religion in the public sphere, and race relations became part of the conventional wisdom of American political life. To the extent that the Left has resurrected itself, it has done so by embracing many of the arguments of neoconservatism. In _The Neoconservative Vision_, Mark Gerson presents a detailed synthesis of neoconservative thought, going back to the battles among pro- and anti-Stalin factions within the American socialist movement of the 1930s. In the wake of World War II, democratic socialists were frequently lumped together as "fellow travelers" with pro-Soviet intellectuals. The future neoconservatives resented this association, and quickly came to see the radical Left as more of an enemy than the mainstream Right. Gerson takes his summary of the writings of neoconservatives from Sidney Hook, Lionel Trilling, and Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1930s and 1940s through the observations of the likes of Irving Kristol and Michael Novak as they contemplated a world without Communism. Based upon an extensive reading of neoconservative journals and essays (the favored form of neoconservative writing; Gerson observes that neoconservatives write few books) as well as dozens of interviews with major neoconservative personas, Gerson provides an impressive and perhaps unprecedented review of the literature of neoconservatism, one that will make _The Neoconservative Vision_ an important reference work for students of political ideologies and American political thought. The neoconservatives began their political lives as New Dealers, originally opposing the extreme laissez-faire individualism embodied by the Republican Party of the 1920s. These New Dealers rejected traditional conservatism not primarily for economic reasons, but for social ones. Traditional conservatives were white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who discriminated against all those unlike themselves. The future neoconservatives did not reject the mythology of American life. Rather, as representatives of traditional nineteenth-century immigrant groups like Jews, Polish, Irish, or Slavs, they sought to integrate themselves into American society through the accepted route of hard work and individual achievement, only to find themselves excluded due to their non-British stock. To this day, neoconservatives are disproportionately Jewish and Roman Catholic, the "assimilated" immigrants. Neoconservative intellectuals treat another group of intellectuals, the "anti-anti-Communists" (later to become the New Left), as their chief antagonists. In the wake of World War II, many Western intellectuals remained enamored of the Soviet Union and "Uncle Joe" Stalin, convinced, as was Walter Lippman in the 1930s, that in the USSR they had "seen the future, and it works." Neoconservatives, the liberal anti-Communists, argued, as did George Orwell in his novel _Animal Farm_, that it was unprecedented for the intellectuals of a democratic country to fall under the sway of a totalitarian ideology. Neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz, editor of the journal _Commentary_, later went on to argue that democracies inherently have difficulties standing up to totalitarian regimes, for these latter ideologies are able to penetrate into democracies and influence political debate. For American intellectuals, the McCarthy period dominated the 1950s. This was a difficult period for all American leftists, as all were suspected of connections to the Soviets. During the McCarthy hearings, the split between pro-Soviet and anti-Communist liberals became pronounced, as liberal anti-Communists refused to join in the anti-McCarthy hysteria encouraged by the far Left, while opposing McCarthy's witch hunts, claiming that they distracted from the true anti-Communist struggle, the Cold War. Neoconservatism came into its own during the 1960s and 1970s, and during these decades became a force that would oppose the Left far more than the Right. Neoconservatives view the cultural sphere as the most important one, a sphere from which economics and politics draw their meaning. Therefore, a battle over the definition of American culture is one that neoconservatives view as one for the American soul. The New Left appeared after 1960, with an agenda supporting civil rights, the restructuring of the American university, and opposing the use of American military power overseas on the grounds that the United States lacked the moral legitimacy to act as a global force. Neoconservatives joined the New Left in opposing the Vietnam War, but on the narrower grounds that the war, as defined by the Pentagon, was not winnable, and that the overall strategic interest of the United States in Southeast Asia was questionable. Neoconservatives also supported the civil rights movement, in that it offered the potential for African Americans to join the American mainstream in the same way that their own grandparents did. However, the civil rights movement soon spawned affirmative action programs that offered elaborate racial and gender preferences to traditionally disadvantaged groups. Neoconservatives, sympathetic to individual achievement without regard to membership in a social or racial group, opposed affirmative action for both ideological and self-interested reasons: they believed that the true path to success in the United States was the one taken by their own families, and they were resentful that the discrimination faced by their own families (especially Jewish ones) was repeated, this time as reverse discrimination. Neoconservative disaffection with the Democrats mounted particularly during the Carter administration after 1976. They saw it as embodying New Left values, and the Iranian hostage crisis and the administration's limp response to it showed that it remained a hostage to the Vietnam syndrome. For these reasons, most neoconservatives supported Ronald Reagan's successful bid for the presidency in 1980. Reagan promised not to be afraid to project American military power and undertook a substantial buildup of American armed forces to send a clear message to the Soviets. At the same time, Reagan turned Washington away from attempts at economic management in the direction of a less fettered capitalist economy, another favorite topic of neoconservatives, still chafing at the resentment many New Left activists harbored toward capitalism and the way of life that upheld it. While Gerson's historical review of the neoconservative movement illustrates well the reaction of the group to specific periods in American political history, it runs the risk of obscuring the common themes that have animated neoconservatism from the beginning. Above all, neoconservatives stress the centrality of ideology and culture (they are two sides of the same coin for neoconservatives) in determining the course that a society ultimately follows. While paleoconservatives differ from neoconservatives in their apparent lack of interest, and even contempt for, culture, the New Left shows active hostility to an American culture developed over more than two centuries. Neoconservatives believe it is this New Left critique of the United States that is more nefarious and that demands pointed opposition. All neoconservative writing is inspired by this perceived need to protect American culture and the forces that support it. Neoconservatives believe that politics is about morality, and that morality should infuse political behavior. Democracy thrives upon what they call "the bourgeois virtues" of thrift, the delaying of gratification, honesty, probity, and loyalty. The importance of individual moral responsibility is the flip side of the classical liberal's insistence upon personal freedom and initiative; neoconservatives maintain that each side is needed to make the other work. For example, while material wealth is necessary for a thriving society with a high standard of living, it is not an end in itself. This wealth can be put in the service of the things that truly "matter" in life, such as education and intellectual vitality; civil society, as in those mediating institutions that give society a collective existence independent of the state; and religion. Religion is the source of the moral virtues that animate both individuals and the society in which they live. This raises the question of the role of religion in public life. In recent decades, under the influence of modern liberalism, the practice of religion within public institutions has been discouraged on the grounds of separation of church and state. Neoconservatives, Jewish and Christian alike, respond that this is too broad a reading of the concept. They note that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of an official state religion but does not say that religion has no place as a motivating force in politics. The state merely cannot do anything for interfere with the individual practice (or non-practice, a point on which neoconservatives do not all agree) of religion. Judeo-Christian morality is the starting point of American culture, and neoconservatives believe that such controversial events as invocations at public school graduations and Nativity scenes on municipal property reflect this morality and do not stop followers of other faiths from practicing them. Neoconservatives have displayed a religious fervor in their defense of capitalism. In fact, religion and capitalism together create what neoconservatives view as the ideal social order. While most of the paleoconservatives praise capitalism for promoting economic growth and personal freedom, neoconservatives view the market as an ideal mechanism of moral restraint. Libertarian arguments for capitalism point out that the market efficiently translates individual demand into social outcomes. Neoconservatives respond that capitalism, having no values of its own, requires some form of moral background to sustain it, a moral background that is to be found in religion. If a public is infused with religious morality, it will influence consumer demand, meaning that all participants in the economy, if they are to thrive, must acknowledge this morality. Therefore, economics cannot pollute culture, but a corrupt culture can be propagated by the ruthlessly efficient market. Therefore, neoconservatives do not fret over the likes of selfishness and greed--they are moral failures that religion, not socialism or government regulation of the market, will cure. The neoconservative theologian Michael Novak has put forward a moral defense of capitalism along these lines that seems to have influenced even Pope John Paul II. Keeping in mind that the support that neoconservatives offer to capitalism is more for moral than economic reasons, several writers worry openly that capitalism, an inherently amoral system, is coming to undermine the Judeo-Christian ethic, just as it sustained it in the past. For this reason, Irving Kristol has written that capitalism deserves only two cheers instead of the traditional three. It supports the production of material wealth, and it is the most efficient of economic systems, but it also has the potential to undermine religion and morality by doing nothing to combat a nihilistic ethic of self-indulgence and greed. While neoconservatives are pro-capitalism, they are anything but libertarians. Indeed, neoconservatives have a diffident attitude toward democracy and freedom. Neither is a good in itself. Rather, they are acceptable only to the extent that they are consistent with the bourgeois virtues. While they oppose totalitarian regimes on the grounds that they impose an all-encompassing ideology upon society, the bourgeois virtues seem to take on the same kind of global role. While castigating New Left intellectuals for lacking touch with the common people, neoconservative intellectuals also complain that the United States is too democratic in its ideology, leading the people to reject the wise advice that neoconservatives are offering them. Similarly, neoconservatives believe that freedom is inherently subject to abuse, with liberty dissolving into license, in the terminology of John Locke. Criticism of the bourgeois virtues ultimately undermines society's institutions, meaning that dissent is a threat to society rather than a vehicle for improving it. Therefore, society is inherently fragile and under constant threat. Perhaps neoconservatives are not aware that they are using a similar argument to that of totalitarian Marxists. Gerson, content merely to summarize neoconservative writings, never addresses this contradiction. Similarly, what is the role of the intellectual? Traditionally, from the Greeks to the present age, the intellectual has been the force to discomfort the comfortable, the gadfly to shock society out of its complacency. Life is to be examined, not simply to be accepted for what it seems to be. Indeed, through Gerson's words, the neoconservatives dwell upon the consequences of ideas, arguing that what intellectuals debate at their conferences today dictates the shape of society decades down the road. The neoconservatives thus condemn the New Left intellectuals who challenge the accepted institutions of society. Neoconservatives criticize social scientists for putting forward ideas that are not necessarily workable, yet the Canadian neoconservatives David Bercuson and Barry Cooper argue that inventive intellectual suggestions are vital to the political system, and that the give and take of politics, and the inherent need to compromise, generally sand down the most unrealistic edges of intellectuals' prescriptions.[1] From American neoconservatives we again see the belief that to contest society is to destabilize it. Instead, neoconservatives pride themselves upon _celebrating_ bourgeois virtues and society's existing institutions. Is this to mean that the intellectual's obligation is to serve merely as a cheerleader for the status quo? Stalin demanded the same of Soviet intellectuals--in what way is this different? Religion played an important, if not primary, role in the formation of neoconservative thought. Yet the place that religion is to have in the neoconservative vision is far from clear in the text. For example, Gerson frequently writes that neoconservatism is a unique alliance of Jewish and Christian (largely Catholic) intellectuals making a common defense of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other places, Gerson portrays neoconservatism as a Jewish movement that only begrudgingly tolerates a Catholic presence. In places, Gerson hints that the Jewish neoconservatives welcomed Christian allies when politically useful (such as their courting of the Christian Right, another force that wanted religious morality to direct decisions in the marketplace), but on other occasions depicts Christian conservatives as a threat to Judaism in the United States, such as in a peculiar digression into Irving Kristol's heated opposition to religious intermarriage (p. 302). Is neoconservatism an ideology that is meant to offer something to every American, or does it boil down to the self-interest of Jewish intellectuals? Is affirmative action distasteful because its groupist focus is illiberal, or because it threatens the faculty positions of future Jewish intellectuals? Is U.S. support for Israel laudable because Israel represents an important strategic interest of the United States, or are the neoconservatives merely another manifestation of the Jewish lobby? Once again, the approach of reviewing literature never brings this contradiction into the open, and even in choosing the texts to review, Gerson's text often shows little distinction between the important and the trivial. As Bill Clinton's "New Democrats" and Tony Blair's "New Labour" preside over a renaissance of the Left in English-speaking democracies, the question of the origin of this post-Reagan Left arises. While Clintonite policies are typically derided as warmed-over Reaganism by the most strident liberals, in many ways, Clinton's administration may well signal the reconciliation of the neoconservatives with the Democratic Party. For example, the Clinton administration has not shied away from the use of the U.S. military, defends welfare but supports measures forcing individuals to seek private employment, and maintains an overall attitude of tempering private activity with concern for its effects on the entire community. Blair's government in Britain is even more open about its support for these traditionally neoconservative themes. The success of Clinton and Blair against paleoconservatives is rudimentary proof that the neoconservatives were more liberal critics of liberalism than converts to conservatism--their ideas were partly responsible for the resurrection of the Left. As 1990s conservatives continue to place economic growth before the health of civil society, Kristol's refusal to give capitalism "a third cheer" seems increasingly valid. While the analysis is severely underdeveloped, Gerson provides an excellent summarized history of neoconservative thought. For this reason alone, _The Neoconservative Vision_ seems to be a prima facie candidate for classroom use. The only problem I foresee in my own courses is where to place it upon a syllabus. Neoconservatism is a rather specialized intellectual school, and as such, does not rate more than cursory attention in introductory classes. In "Contemporary Political Ideologies," my department's first level course in political theory, I already ask my students to read a chapter from Kristol's _Two Cheers for Capitalism_, which is all the time that can be spared for a short course that covers ten distinct ideological systems. "American Political Theory" would be a possible candidate for this book, though again, in this course I focus on primary texts (including Kristol and Novak). Gerson, however, may make useful supplementary reading. Where I see Gerson as being most useful in the classroom is at the graduate level, especially in a seminar on American conservatism or in recent trends in American political thought. Above all, Gerson's detailed summary and bibliography present an interesting and useful overview of neoconservatism for those who intend to go on to more detailed study of the subject. teachpol.tcnj.edu

Home

Mail

Hot

SubjectMarks

PeopleMarks

Keepers

Settings

Terms Of Use

Contact Us

Copyright/IP Policy

Privacy Policy

About Us

FAQ

Advertise on SI

© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News