Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A little history lesson...and the case for Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A little history lesson...and the case for Bush

    Silver Chips Online, MD
    Oct 31, 2004

    A little history lesson...and the case for Bush

    by Armin Rosen, Page Editor
    10/31/2004

    The use of historical precedent often times ignores the nuances of the
    event that is being used as an example. Take for instance the popular
    comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. The two are alike in that they are wars
    in which the United States fought; yet the nature of the conflicts
    could not be less similar.

    But, the presidential election of 1896 and the election of 2004 have a
    number of major parallels.

    In 1896, the United States was struggling to define its place in the
    world. The slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by the soldiers of the
    Ottoman Empire sparked debate over America's humanitarian
    responsibilities. And whereas expansionism had been an unquestioned
    aspect of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century, the
    prospect of expansion in Cuba through intervention in the Cuban civil
    war (which was estimated to have killed almost a quarter of the
    island's population) became a passionate campaign issue, as
    expansionists and anti-expansionists argued over the morality of an
    imperialistic foreign policy. And in 1896, America was occupying a
    foreign country rich in resources. That country was Hawaii.

    In 1896, the economy was coming off a crippling recession. The markets
    were down, unemployment soared, and the economic debate was, as it is
    today, dominated by taxation. The previous year, the Supreme Court had
    ruled the progressive tax an unconstitutional assault on property
    rights; the incumbent party (the Democrats in this case) was
    subsequently criticized for its failure to tax high earners and
    regulate big business.

    And in 1896, a single controversial issue irreconcilably divided the
    country: the mineral standard for American currency after the
    contraction in the gold supply. William Jennings Bryant, the Democratic
    nominee, supported a silver standard for the dollar; to the Republican
    supporters of William McKinley, this was tantamount to theft, as the
    inflation of the dollar (silver was in vast supply in those days) would
    threaten the intricate system of borrowing and lending that supported
    the economy of the late nineteenth century.

    It is worth noting that this issue faded from the public conscience
    soon after Bryan's defeat. Historians now believe that the currency
    issue was simply a flashpoint for the polarity of the times; indeed,
    things became so bad that newspapers wrote of a "new sectionalism,"
    creating a parallel between the political bitterness of the 1890s and
    that of the old "sectionalism" that eventually led to civil war.

    Yet the national crisis of conscience seemed more and more absurd with
    every successive year of the McKinley administration. What did America
    do right? We resisted the urge to elect a populist to the highest
    office in the world.

    Some more history

    Today, similar to 108 years ago, the United States has been forced to
    choose between a man of dubious vision and a man of ignominious
    populism. In 1896, and again in 1890, William Jennings Bryan, with his
    opposition to imperialism, flat income taxation and central banking,
    fell into the latter category. Now, in 2004, Kerry has campaigned on
    similar topics of broad appeal to the working class, casting his
    opponent as an unabashed panderer to the interests of oil companies,
    drug companies, defense contractors and big business in general.

    During his first term (his second was cut short by an assassins bullet
    in 1901), McKinley used American troops to end humanitarian disasters
    in Spanish-controlled Spain and British-controlled China and
    successfully established independent China as a free trade zone. These
    actions stabilized the world, helped the U.S. economy, expanded the
    United State's influence in world affairs and severely limited the
    influence of Europe's two greatest imperial powers.

    Today, India holds many of the same economic opportunities that China
    had 108 years ago; according to Congressional Quarterly Researcher,
    India will export $50 billion in technology by 2008 and currently has a
    middle class roughly equal in population to that of the entire United
    States. Kerry's protectionist policy on outsourcing certainly satisfies
    the minority of workers in the tech service sector that could
    potentially have their jobs outsourced but will, in the long run,
    threaten our ties to a country that is on the way to becoming an
    invaluable economic partner of the United States.

    Indeed the outsourcing debate is a microcosm of almost all populist
    economics. Populists claim that anything that helps big business harms
    the worker, but the health of big businesses benefits the working-class
    employees of those businesses through wages, benefits and pensions,
    which are often stock options in the company they work for.

    Expansion into Puerto Rico and Hawaii were issues every bit as
    polarizing as our present military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan;
    however the voters realized that that the assertion of American power
    and the strength and resolve in areas of international affairs were two
    of the greatest assets a president could bring to the job.

    Kerry, like Bryan 108 years ago, brings neither. Indeed, in his book A
    Call to Service, Kerry writes, "In contrast to the dangerous mix of
    isolationism and unilateralist that characterizes the Republicans, [I
    support] speaking from a position of strength on international
    issues-the multilateral cooperative tradition of democratic
    internationalism forged in the course of two world wars and the cold
    war." Kerry views foreign policy in the context of multilateralism and
    internationalism; the populists of the 1890s viewed it through
    isolationism.

    By 1900, isolationism seemed an absurdity after America's successful
    military and diplomatic campaigns in Cuba, China, Nicaragua (McKinley
    used the threat of military action to protect American interests
    there), Hawaii, Guam (another target of expansionism) and to a certain
    extent the Philippines (which were ceded to the United States by Spain
    after the war in Cuba) tipped the balance of power in the early
    twentieth century. "Democratic internationalism" is by no means absurd.
    But to base an entire foreign policy on "democratic internationalism"
    when so many recent successes in American foreign policy, including
    economic sanctions against Cuba, the unilateral demand for negotiations
    to end the Bosnian civil war in 1995, the invasion of Panama in 1989
    and our ongoing support for the State of Israel, have been
    fundamentally unilateralist, would be simply myopic. And it is simply
    erroneous to assume that America can "speak from a position of
    strength" while ceding at least some of its diplomatic power to other
    countries.

    Indeed, Kerry believes in internationalism so adamantly that The
    Washington Post quoted him as saying in 1994, in respect to the
    possibility of deploying U.S. troops to Bosnia that, "If you mean
    (American soldiers) dying in the course of the United Nations effort,
    yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally
    going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome,
    the answer is unequivocally no."

    There is a word for scaring the working class with stories of abusive
    big business (which, ironically, pays the salaries of most members of
    the working class) and for pursuing a foreign policy downplaying
    America's ability to assert its self: populism. Bush, like McKinley 108
    years ago, promises us a visionary plan for the revival of our economy
    and peace overseas. Recently the columnist David Ignatius compared the
    Bush administration's overthrow of Saddam Hussein to the revolutionary
    sparks that led nineteenth century Europe towards democratic and social
    reform. Today, there are four times more democracies in the Middle East
    than there were four years ago, as Bahrain, Israel, Afghanistan and
    Iraq provide hope that democratic ideals can thrive in the Middle East.
    Change in the Middle East is well under way, thanks to the
    administration of George W. Bush.

    Bush is also in the process of moving our country further towards an
    "ownership society" where low taxation and personal savings can
    eventually replace government handouts. Kerry has criticized Bush for
    recommending a plan for privatizing Social Security that would cost
    taxpayers over $2 trillion during the transition of Social Security
    from government to private control. But at least Bush has presented a
    plan that will provide for the permanent solvency of Social Security by
    eliminating the program's dependency on taxpayer dollars. This is the
    kind of thinking that does not permeate with the majority of America,
    which thinks that government control is the only guarantee of the
    survival of Social Security. But populism will not prevent the run on
    Social Security that may doom the system during the next several
    decades. Again, in the realm of reality, populism fails.

    In conclusion...

    Previously, I referred to Bush's vision for the world as "dubious."
    Bush's vision is limited by his shortcomings as an individual and as a
    leader, and his hesitance to admit and rectify past mistakes should
    worry Democrats and Republicans alike.

    But consider this: Lewis L. Gould, a history professor at the
    University of Texas, wrote that "McKinley was a President who acted
    decisively in going to war with Spain, asserted great presidential
    authority over his cabinet and generals and understood the link between
    foreign markets and national prosperity." If history teaches us
    anything, it is that strong, resolute leadership and a worldview that
    might reject certain popular opinions in lieu of strategic long-term
    goals trumps any defects in personality. That is why it is imperative
    that America elect George W. Bush on November 2nd: because we, as a
    nation that is now mired in a crisis of conscience, cannot afford to
    embrace the popular route while disregarding the necessary one.
Working...
X