[BRIGADE] An Open Letter to Sarah Palin
Published: Wed, 10/01/08
American Conservative Magazine.
Feel free to post your comments on Pat's website at:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/10/an-open-letter-to-sarah-palin/
For the Cause, Linda
--------------
An Open Letter to Sarah Palin
By The American Conservative Magazine Editors
To: Gov. Sarah Palin
From: TAC Editors
Re: What Your Tutors Aren't Telling You
Congratulations on being chosen as John McCain's running mate. It's
an honor, if a dubious one. As you know, conservatives have
reservations about McCain. To your credit, they have few such
concerns about you.
You've given new life to a party whose brand was bankrupt. You've
energized a campaign that was embarrassing its own partisans.
Across America, crowds flock to see you--not that old man who barely
wheezed his way through the primaries. If John McCain wins, he will
owe you, as the guy in the undisclosed location says, "Big time."
Wonder why Middle America finds you irresistible? Maybe they're big
Tina Fey fans. More likely, you remind them of the conservative
values they feared lost: faith, family, independence. This
impression owes more to who you are than what you've done. But at
least you keep Obama from cornering the market on hope.
Conservatives have faith in you. Don't fail them as George W. Bush
has.
You see what happened: the president's entire domestic agenda
collapsed under the weight of his failed foreign policy. Social
Security reform stalled. Pro-lifers became political orphans. And
whatever gains Bush's tax cuts secured were wiped out by record
spending. Everything was subordinated to the war on terror.
Conservatives grasping for something to commend give the president
points for his judicial picks. But he would have much preferred
justices like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers--toadies whose top
qualification was their willingness to give the executive more power.
The party that championed the things you prize--individual liberty,
fiscal restraint, and a strong defense--has trampled civil rights,
pushed us to the brink of insolvency, and broken our Armed Forces.
After eight years of Bush, even diehard Republicans are glad to see
him go. You might have noticed the elephant not in the room in St.
Paul.
There's a better way. In fact, you figured it out in the 1996
presidential primary when you sported the flair of the leading
pro-life candidate. (Your minders would prefer that we not mention
his name. It triggers their Tourette's.) As you surely know, even
beyond social issues, he represents a strain of conservatism that
offers a consistent ethic of life and philosophy of limited
government. It was not a coincidence that the most pro-life
candidate in '96 was also passionately noninterventionist.
It's also no coincidence that those who want you to heed the siren
call of global democratization care little for traditionalist
causes. Recall that second night of the Republican Convention when
you were told to blow off a reception in your honor hosted by
Phyllis Schlafly so Joe Lieberman could chaperone your debut before
the directors of AIPAC. Neoconservatives pay lip service to life,
but, as their enthusiasm for Lieberman shows, they have higher
priorities. Now they plan to make them yours.
You'll find the new friends conducting your foreign-policy crash
course pleasant enough, if a little dogmatic and a lot
condescending. They call you "Project Sarah." We saw that one
staffer at AEI--that mystery monogram on all your briefing
books--said you're "a blank slate." He added, "She's going places,
and it's worth going there with her." That's how they operate. They
don't implement their agenda themselves. Rather, they impose it on
rising star. If things don't work out, it's because the Project
wasn't sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)
Now you're the latest object of their attention, and you're
probably finding the program a bit confusing. They tell you that
the U.S. is fighting "World War IV," a struggle against
"Islamofascism." We can win, they say, as long as we're prepared to
bomb Iran and build up the national-security establishment at home,
just like Reagan did.
Trouble is, your tutors also believe we're still engaged in "World
War III," the Cold War with Russia. So maybe the Gipper didn't win
that one after all. In fact, neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz
chided Reagan for appeasing Moscow. And when terrorists struck the
Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, Reagan, instead of "staying the
course," withdrew our troops. Your Beltway suitors prescribe the
opposite of Reagan's strategy.
And as they would have it, we're not only waging World Wars III and
IV, we're still fighting World War II. At least, that's the way it
sounds when Robert Kagan opens a Washington Post op-ed by likening
Russia's conflict with Georgia to Hitler's invasion of
Czechoslovakia.
But Russia is not Germany, Georgia is no innocent Czechoslovakia,
and Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler--no matter what your guru
Randy Scheunemann says. (He probably forgot to tell you that he
used to lobby for the government of Georgia.)
Here's a hint: don't believe everything you read in the papers,
especially if the byline is Kristol or Krauthammer. Russia is not
an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional,
semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence
in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage. That's why
Russia intercedes in the domestic disputes of unruly states on its
periphery. Putin balks at Poland hosting our antimissile systems
for the same reason we would bristle at Cuba or Mexico receiving
Chinese antitank missiles.
With more validity, some of the people whispering in your ear tell
you that Moscow wants to corner the European markets for oil and
natural gas. And what nefarious end does Putin have in mind?
Raising prices and reinforcing Moscow's political clout, not with
nuclear blackmail but with good, old-fashioned economic power. We
have plenty of that ourselves (or at least we used to). Putin, far
from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as
the leaders of great powers traditionally have been.
Then there's the Middle East, where only American arms (and lives)
can prevent little Israel from being swept into the sea by Muslim
hordes. Surely that's what AIPAC told you that night you left
Phyllis cooling her heels. But again, it isn't true. Israel has
nuclear weapons, for one thing, and can outfight her neighbors even
without resort to atom bombs. Israel's problem isn't external
threat so much as internal security and demographics. When the
Jewish state was founded, tens of thousands of
Palestinians--Christians as well as Muslims--lost their homes.
Palestine was no wide-open Alaskan frontier: when the newcomers
moved in, Arabs were moved out, often by force. Terrorism didn't
come to the region with Hamas or Hezbollah; decades earlier groups
like the Stern Gang and Irgun used violence to clear the way for
Israel's creation. Nor was Palestinian Authority leader Yassar
Arafat the first terrorist to lead a state in the Holy Land.
Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had
unclean hands as well.
While your minders probably don't put much stock in his work,
University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has shown
that suicide terrorism develops almost always among occupied
peoples. The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves
against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the
Palestinians already in their midst--to suppress terrorism without
suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to
more bloodshed. The most helpful role the United States can play is
that of impartial mediator in the conflict. There is injustice and
suffering on both sides.
No doubt you've been told (again and again) that Iran wants to
"wipe Israel off the map." Here's something to keep in mind: Iran
does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them.
Ironically, the Bush Doctrine's pledge that "America is committed
to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of
the most dangerous regimes" makes rogue states like Iran more
likely to seek nuclear devices, as a deterrent against pre-emptive
U.S. strikes. This is a vicious circle. Instead of boxing Iran into
a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though
he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an
existential threat to Israel, let alone America.
Since you had some difficulties in your oral exam with Charlie
Gibson, your new friends will no doubt ramp up their lessons. (For
the record, you can scarcely be blamed for fumbling the answer
about the Bush Doctrine. Your tutors were clearly reluctant to
bring it up, even though the whole scheme was theirs, not Project
George's.)
They may even start assigning you book reports. It will feel like
the third grade, except the subjects won't be charming orphans. Now
it's rogue states against America the Benevolent. Near the top of
the list will be An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum.
They'd have you think that Muslims will impose Islamic law on
America if we don't go to war with 18 different countries. But you
know that a bunch of Muslims can't make red-blooded, moose-hunting
Americans wear burqas. Think what happens if you try to get a book
pulled out of the library.
That's only the beginning of the curriculum. You'll be handed
titles like Present Dangers and The Return of History. Thankfully,
just like third grade, you don't really have to read them. If they
ask, just say, "The enemies of freedom won't be appeased. We must
stand firm, like Churchill."
Meanwhile, we suggest sneaking a look at The Limits of Power by
Andrew Bacevich. It's stern stuff, but he gets to the point:
America can't spend money it doesn't have, beat everyone up, and
expect to stay healthy, wealthy, and wise. If you want a good book
on how America screwed up in Iraq, there is Fiasco by Thomas Ricks.
You said some nice things about Ron Paul during the primary. He
gave Giuliani a list of books that might be worth your time.
You'll have to keep your extracurriculars quiet. We know how these
things work. Since he helped you break into the big leagues, you
have to toe McCain's line. But the outgoing administration has
shown us how powerful a veep can be. If you go all the way,
President McCain will be in your debt. (If he forgets, ask him how
many rallies he held while you were home in Alaska. He wisely opted
not to deliver speeches in phone booths.) Don't leave your maverick
spirit on the campaign trail.
Despite all the briefing books being thrown at you, you know your
own mind--and you realize that the neoconservative agenda doesn't
square with your worldview. You prize localism, their vision is
grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the
country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think
nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of
ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision--imported from the
Left--is coherent and conservative.
It is neither, but your supporters are both. They've turned against
this war and definitely don't want another. Yet your running mate
does. Perhaps you've noticed that his interest in domestic policy
pales alongside his foreign-policy ambitions. Or maybe you caught
his virtuoso performance of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
You surely see that the Bush policies have come to a dead end. If
the millions poised to vote for you wanted four more years, the
president's approval rating wouldn't be 25 percent. This isn't
because Republicans dislike Bush personally or disagree with his
positions on energy and taxes. It's because they know that his main
legacy--the Iraq War--is a disaster.
Thankfully, they don't think you're like him. They see in you
someone like themselves--a patriot and a mother. The Middle
Americans waiting hours to hear you speak don't want the United
States to be defeated, and they don't want Iraq to be a haven for
al-Qaeda--something it never was before the invasion. They are
pleased that the surge has made it more possible to leave because
they don't want to send their boys back for a third or fourth tour.
They want America to come home--not because she's weak but because
she's wise. They hope that you are, too.
SOURCE:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/10/an-open-letter-to-sarah-palin/