Partisan political war?

Unless I am reading him wrong, Professor Bainbridge seems to think that success in the Iraq war should be measured by whether it benefits partisan (in this case conservative) politics:

The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?

In sum, I am not a happy camper. I'm very afraid that 100 years from now historians will look back at W's term and ask "what might have been?"

I'm sorry, but I think this is fundamentally the wrong way to look at any war. The country is supposed to be at war, and ideally, all citizens should be in support of it. The war is not being waged for the benefit of the "conservative" cause -- or any other cause other than the cause of freedom.

I must be missing something. Is Professor Bainbridge suggesting that this is a war for conservatism?

I hope he isn't, and I hope it isn't.

UPDATE: Rick Moran has a very thorough refutation of Professor Bainbridge's post. (Much more thorough than mine.)

posted by Eric on 08.22.05 at 11:26 PM


Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq...

This pretty much sums up this guy's mental and moral bankruptcy: however bad things get in Iraq, whoever wants to kill Americans and undermine the basic values of a civilized society, his greatest enemy and boogeyman will always be nonviolent Americans different from himself.

Raging Bee   ·  August 23, 2005 9:58 AM

I totally agree with you. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans or even necessarily about Left vs. Right. The Left, and the Left in the Democratic party, have done their best to make it so, but the rest of us should think of ourselves as Americans first in this War. I agree with Dean Esmay that "politics stops at the water's edge". I oppose the New Deal, but I would have totally supported FDR and Truman (and Churchill) in their War against Hitler and the Japanese empire. If fighting and winning that War had the unfortunate side effect of further entrenching the Democratic party and its New Deal and Fair Deal, that's too bad, but that's the way it had to be. Winning this War is far more important than just about any internal political controversies. If our enemies win, then there won't be homosexual marriage or women's rights or legalized drugs or any of the freedoms we want or any of the freedoms we take for granted. The choice before is either victory or slavery. We must fight and win this War.

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits