Until last week, President Bush was intelligent enough not to plug the domestic protesters of the impending war with Iraq. He acted as if they simply didn’t exist. But then he publicly downplayed their significance: he isn’t going to conduct a misguided Gallup Poll democracy. However, if they are so meaningless, why even bring them up?
From a purely pragmatic outlook, Bush has nothing to gain by informing the public that the streets of various major cities had momentarily become thickets of political discontentment. These protesters are by no means representative of mainstream America. The war hasn’t begun. Bush hasn’t even finished playing the last round of diplomacy. When — and if — the body bags begin to pile up, Bush might want to sit down and listen.
But at this point, the protesters are doing nothing more than dishonoring the U.S. military before it even gets a single chance to demonstrate its courage. Thankfully (although not surprisingly), many of them care little enough about this nation to consider voting. Bush needs to grasp political reality and move on.
However, Bush is playing the moral angle of the protest movement even less astutely. He should not devote a second of his time lending an ear to this faceless onslaught of neo-Chamberlains whose followers are well aware of the notion “peace in our time” but are wholly ignorant of its decimating historical implications (six million dead Jews, etc.). The most extreme elements harbor grave reservations about the morality of war under any circumstance. I cannot fathom a more dangerous breed of people than those who regard self-defense (on any level) as unethical. It is unconscionable for them to believe as they do, but it is doubly so for Bush to lend their cause an ounce of credibility by even mentioning them.
An American is right in hurrying by a war demonstrator, loath to even make eye contact. But he is committing a grave error in dubbing the pamphleteer a peace-monger. What these protesters pine for is not peace. Peace is not a means to an end but the successful state of affairs brought upon by an arduous and well-fought journey. There can be no peace without justice — and often, without the point of a gun.
The calls for peace now and at any cost are akin to a wounded soldier’s demand for an amputation so he doesn’t have to see the blood. Instead of waiting for his leg to be treated in a hospital, he whines and opts for the easy way out. His call for “an end to the bloodshed” at any cost will indeed cost him dearly, as it will America if it listens to the song of the sirens.
What they desire is not peace but a humiliating silence. Saddam can have his peace, but we must go without. They question the legitimacy of our living in peace while the great majority of the world suffers in circuitous conflicts and they seek to level the playing field. They do not believe the freest country on earth has the right to prosper in peace while a backwards nation under the hands of a dictator is ravaged by heat-seeking missiles. If their demands are met, the time for revenge will come; Saddam will be left in peace while suicide bombings come to a café near you.
Similarly, these miscreants should not be confused for vanguards of our Constitutional protections. They question not the philosophy behind an ever-encroaching government but behind the government’s one irreproachable task: protecting our individual rights by protecting our lives. Where are the marches when Washington guarantees an aspiring artist his free speech — by requiring another to foot the bill? Where are the protesters when the government forces a struggling middle-class family to support a crack-addicted mother of seven?
These protesters view the government not as a mechanism with which to protect individual rights but a tool with which to achieve justice (a.k.a. redistribution of wealth). If one wants to do his part in safeguarding civil liberties, he might consider joining the American Civil Liberties Union but not take part in lulling his government into fatal complacency.
Media figures revel in reminding us that protest is an exercise in patriotism. While the legality of civil demonstration should always be revered, simply making use of a Constitutional right doesn’t always make one a good American. These broadcasters philosophically tied to the 1960s can continue masquerading the protesters as newsworthy.
And the Hollywood left is free to further disgrace itself with its mock contribution to the political debate by waving peace signs at the front lines. The president has already forcefully made the case for war to the entirety of America and the world. He needn’t be lecturing Rob Reiner because he didn’t get it the first time. He’s always been a “meathead,” anyway.