Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Confrontation is a good thing
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 01/11/2005)
According to The Sunday Telegraph, on this week's whirlwind tour of the Great Satan, the Prince of Wales "will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11". His Royal Highness apparently finds the Bush approach to Islam "too confrontational".
If the Prince wants to take a few examples of the non-confrontational approach with him to the White House, here's a couple pulled at random from the last week's news: the president of Iran called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Kofi Annan expressed his "dismay".
Excellent. Struck the perfect non-confrontational tone. Were the Iranian nuclear programme a little more advanced and they'd actually wiped Israel off the map, the secretary-general might have felt obliged to be more confrontational and express his "deep concern".
In Sulawesi, Indonesia, three Christian girls walking home from school were beheaded.
"It is unclear what was behind the attack," reported the BBC, scrupulously non-confrontationally.
In the Australian state of Victoria, reports the Herald Sun, "police are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits". Tough luck for us infidel wife-beaters, but admirably non-confrontational Islam-wise.
Having followed the last Prince of Wales in his taste for older divorcées, His Royal Highness seems to be emulating Edward VIII on the geopolitical front, too, and carelessly aligning himself with the wrong side on the central challenge of the age. It's true that Mr Bush does not have the Prince's bulging Rolodex of bin Laden siblings and doesn't seem to get the same kick out of climbing into the old Lawrence-of-Arabia get-up for dinner with them: for His Highness, the excitement is in tents. But Bush has liberated 50 million Muslims from tyrannous regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and, if he was in the mood to be really confrontational, he'd tell Charles to stick it up his djellaba.
Sadly, even a neocon warmonger can't get confrontational over every nickel 'n' dime emissary passing through the office, and the Administration has other problems at the moment. "Mr Bush's presidency is in deep trouble," declared Alec Russell in this space yesterday. "It is worth recalling that even at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal Mr Clinton's approval rating never dropped below 55 per cent, while Mr Bush's is now at 40."
Is it really worth recalling? Mr Clinton's approval rating stayed above 55 because he was careful not to do anything, at least on the non-pants-dropping aspects of his presidency, of which the electorate might disapprove. The oral sex was pretty much the only position he took that wasn't focus-grouped by Dick Morris beforehand - and, come to think of it, it wouldn't surprise me if it was and that's why he went ahead with it. ("Our polling suggests it would make you seem attractively flawed and human to susceptible soccer moms in swing states, Mr President.")
At any rate, above the waist, Mr Clinton governed as an "Eisenhower Republican" - ie, very non-confrontational. The president's distinguishing characteristics loomed paradoxically large over the era only because everything else he did was so small.
Mr Bush, on the other hand, wants to remake the Middle East, reform social security, legalise illegal immigrants, drill for oil in the Arctic wilderness, etc. Whatever the merits of these positions, they are confrontational. Even many of his supporters balk at two or more of the items on that list.
You could fill Yankee Stadium with the massed ranks of assistant secretaries of state and deputy national security advisers from his father's administration - and Reagan's and Ford's and Nixon's - who oppose the Bush Doctrine to blow apart the fetid stability of the Arab world. A radical repudiation of half a century of bipartisan policy on a critical component of the geopolitical scene ought to be controversial.
Posterity will decide whether Bush got that one right. By contrast, posterity will have a hard time recalling Mr Clinton at all, except as a novelty-act intermission between the Cold War and the new war. Would you rather be popular or would you rather be consequential? Popularity is a fine measure for celebrity, and even then it fades quicker than a DNA stain on an old cocktail dress.
Granted, President Bush has failed to use the bully pulpit. As I wrote in the Telegraph in September 2002: "A few weeks after the attacks, he had the highest approval ratings of any president in history. But he didn't do anything with them." And, although I was a bit off in my timing, Mr Bush was indeed eventually "right back where he was on September 10, 2001: the 50 per cent president, his approval ratings in the fifties, his 'negatives' high, the half of the country that didn't vote for him feeling no warmer toward him than if the day that 'changed the world' had never happened".
But, given that reality, it's worth pondering who it is who's dissatisfied with Bush. In November 2004, he won 51 per cent of the vote and John Kerry took 48 per cent. The five or 10 per cent who've temporarily wandered away (a poll yesterday had Bush at 45 per cent) are not "centrists" or "moderates" or "swing voters" or some other mythical category of squishes who want an end to what Alec Russell calls the Karl Rove "style of hardball politics".
The lesson of every contest from the 2000 election to the abandonment last week of Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination is that, as Michael Barone wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Mr Bush can count on being firmly, and more or less unanimously, opposed by the Democrats, and he can succeed only when he has the strong support of the Republican base".
Just so. Bush is a polarising figure because these are polarising times. But, when the dust settles (metaphorically, I hope), his designation of Iran as part of an "axis of evil" will seem a shrewder judgment than that of the Euro-appeasers or the snob Islamophiles. Facing profound challenges, most political leaders in the western world have shirked confrontation on everything from Islamism to unaffordable social programmes - and their peoples will live with the consequences of that non-confrontation long after those leaders are gone.
Bullypulpit said:Yeah...Goatboy just lied about consensual sex in the Oval Office. Dubbyuh lied about the justifications for war...No comparison.
Just this once kind sir, let's try to keep on the topic of the article: Bush has taken quite a few risky steps in office. If they don't pan out, history can be pretty brutal.Bullypulpit said:Yeah...Goatboy just lied about consensual se* in the Oval Office. Dubbyuh lied about the justifications for war...No comparison.
Kathianne said:Just this once kind sir, let's try to keep on the topic of the article: Bush has taken quite a few risky steps in office. If they don't pan out, history can be pretty brutal.
Clinton on the other hand, was more like Ike, keep the masses happy and don't screw up a good thing.
Plasticweld said:Good men are both well hated and well liked. The passion against Bush is a tribute to some of the stands he has taken, I don't remember a similar passion from the right against Clinton; he did have by partisian support on many of his programs. The level of hate on the far left has made and support for even a good program imposible.
I do agree that history will find Clinton to have been remembered for little and Bush for being bold. While I do not agree with everything Bush has done, I never once have heard the public or the press accuse him of taking a poll and then formulating an opinion or policy, something that was quite common in Clinton's two terms
Yeah, Bush didn't sell military technology to anyone--he just sold out a US intelligence officer so that his justifications for war would go unchallenged.CSM said:Those are not the only differences! Let us not forget that Goatboy sold some pretty good stuff to China and North Korea. Dubbyuh didn't. Clinton did zero about the terrorists; obviously, Bush did far more. Clinton made sure he was despised by members of the military, Bush is at least respected by that community.
I still wonder why the heck we went into Bosnia....at least we have reasons for going into Iraq (whether you agree with them or not).
You don't remember a similar passion against Clinton? I guess impeachment isn't passionate enough for you.Plasticweld said:Good men are both well hated and well liked. The passion against Bush is a tribute to some of the stands he has taken, I don't remember a similar passion from the right against Clinton; he did have by partisian support on many of his programs. The level of hate on the far left has made and support for even a good program imposible.
I do agree that history will find Clinton to have been remembered for little and Bush for being bold. While I do not agree with everything Bush has done, I never once have heard the public or the press accuse him of taking a poll and then formulating an opinion or policy, something that was quite common in Clinton's two terms
You never hear of Bush taking polls because he doesn't give a sh*t what we think. You saw the Miers nomination, which is the latest gaffe to have been commited by this president. Government is supposed to reflect the minds of the people. But you think polling the people to gauge public opinion is a bad idea? I guess blindly putting your trust into the whims of a C student frat boy is more of a rational mindset.Plasticweld said:Good men are both well hated and well liked. The passion against Bush is a tribute to some of the stands he has taken, I don't remember a similar passion from the right against Clinton; he did have by partisian support on many of his programs. The level of hate on the far left has made and support for even a good program imposible.
I do agree that history will find Clinton to have been remembered for little and Bush for being bold. While I do not agree with everything Bush has done, I never once have heard the public or the press accuse him of taking a poll and then formulating an opinion or policy, something that was quite common in Clinton's two terms
Bonnie said:It's really very simple Liberals loved Clinton because he stood for nothing, made no judgments about right or wrong, he was just a coardboard cutout occupying and in some cases defiling the Oval office.
Liberals hate Bush because he actually takes a stand for things and is actually willing to call evil what it is EVIL!! Makes em nervous
Well then, Id like to hear from a liberal, just what did he stand for that they liked, besides his socialist leanings.The ClayTaurus said:Come on Bonnie, if you went to a liberal and asked him why they liked Clinton they most certainly would not respond with "I liked him because he stood for nothing!"
The ClayTaurus said:Come on Bonnie, if you went to a liberal and asked him why they liked Clinton they most certainly would not respond with "I liked him because he stood for nothing!"
The ClayTaurus said:Come on Bonnie, if you went to a liberal and asked him why they liked Clinton they most certainly would not respond with "I liked him because he stood for nothing!"
I had no idea you liked the man so much.Bonnie said:Of course they will never admit that..
Okay then what did he strongly stand for???
Raising taxes a lot! Reducing our military to bare bones! He did get some of our boys killed and dragged through the streets of by rebels on buildings with rocket launchers. He passed on chances to take Bin Laden into U.S custody, however to be fair he did hit a tent in the desert with a missile, killed a few camels I guess? He stood for adultery with a homely young intern and cigars. He did broker a faux peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians although his wife seemed to have a thing for Arafat. He stood for selling secrets to the Chinese, pardoning known felons for money, selling tickets to the Lincoln bedroom for money, Dialing for DNC dollars, Whitewater, Inside cattle trading, but really mostly a Hillary scandal,........so on and so on...
I guess your right he did stand for and support many things after all...
What do they say then? Do they just stare blankly back at you?Avatar4321 said:Ive asked alot of liberals what was so great about Clinton. I have yet to get an answer.
The ClayTaurus said:I had no idea you liked the man so much.
My point was, a liberal who likes Clinton likes him for other reasons. What those are, beats me, I don't think there's been a good president in awhile.
Reagan is a hard act to follow
Difference right now is Clinton was found guilty of a lot of those things, for Bush it's just hollow accusations and wishful thinking. And I have no problem admitting that Bush has done things I don't agree with, but I will also say I admire Bush for some of his accomplishments.But just the same way you think Bush is a good president while others only bring up all the negative they can find, there are liberals who think Clinton was a good president, and not because they agreed with the negative you just listed.
Do you actually think that a liberal sits back and thinks "man, Clinton was sweet because he didn't stand for anything. I really liked that he did nothing about terrorism and that cheating on your wife in office thing was really cool."?
No I don't nor did I say that, what I said was (worded another way), they like Clinton because he thinks like they do in terms of moral relativism, but they will never say so outloud, they must be thinking it however. How about this, there was an article in a magazine (can't remember the publiction off hand) that asked which leaders the world liked and trusted most, I think Clinton came in at the top 5, with Bush at number 29........Now think about that for a minute. The world in this age of terrorism in which Clinton did NOTHING to help stop or even slow down.. and we could even go so far as to say could have prevented 9/11 had he taken Bin Laden into custody the three or four times he was offered on a platter but the world (Europe which is mostly liberals) thought and would trust Clinton who did nothing about terrorism but take up space in the Oval office. Does that makes sense to you in any way other than they like a leader who just doesn't make waves, and stays neutral so as to be liked by the masses?? Bush is disliked because regarding terrorism or any other matter he takes a strong stand, often one that is not liked by many especially in Europe, but one that is necessary or just.
Bonnie said:The ClayTaurus said:I had no idea you liked the man so much.
Reagan is a hard act to follow
Difference right now is Clinton was found guilty of a lot of those things, for Bush it's just hollow accusations and wishful thinking. And I have no problem admitting that Bush has done things I don't agree with, but I will also say I admire Bush for some of his accomplishments.
No I don't nor did I say that, what I said was (worded another way), they like Clinton because he thinks like they do in terms of moral relativism, but they will never say so outloud, they must be thinking it however. How about this, there was an article in a magazine (can't remember the publiction off hand) that asked which leaders the world liked and trusted most, I think Clinton came in at the top 5, with Bush at number 29........Now think about that for a minute. The world in this age of terrorism in which Clinton did NOTHING to help stop or even slow down.. and we could even go so far as to say could have prevented 9/11 had he taken Bin Laden into custody the three or four times he was offered on a platter but the world (Europe which is mostly liberals) thought and would trust Clinton who did nothing about terrorism but take up space in the Oval office. Does that makes sense to you in any way other than they like a leader who just doesn't make waves, and stays neutral so as to be liked by the masses?? Bush is disliked because regarding terrorism or any other matter he takes a strong stand, often one that is not liked by many especially in Europe, but one that is necessary or just.
I wasn't arguing anything other than the fact that it sounded like you were saying liberals sit around and talk about how great it is to not take a stand on anything. You've refuted that point so it's a dead issue, far as I can tell.
You can save all the Clinton-bashing and Bush-backing for someone who wishes to engage you on it
The ClayTaurus said:Bonnie said:I wasn't arguing anything other than the fact that it sounded like you were saying liberals sit around and talk about how great it is to not take a stand on anything. You've refuted that point so it's a dead issue, far as I can tell.
You can save all the Clinton-bashing and Bush-backing for someone who wishes to engage you on it
You asked a question and I answered, that simple.
Hagbard Celine said:Yeah, Bush didn't sell military technology to anyone--he just sold out a US intelligence officer so that his justifications for war would go unchallenged.
