Fraters Libertas

They Call Him the Squanderer

Although it’s still early in the presidential campaign, with the first contests not even yet decided, I’ve noticed a piece of rhetoric that already seems omnipresent in the talking points of all Democratic candidates and leaders. Somebody somewhere has tested it and apparently it tests well. As such, I fear these words are fated to be droned into our ears and drilled into our brains by the Democrats and their big media enablers for months to come. Those words are:

"the squandering of goodwill"

Amid all of their sniping and name calling, that seems to be the one unifying concept of the Left. Here’s just a smattering of examples of this sloganeering in action:

Teddy Kennedy:

In its arrogant disrespect for the United Nations and for other peoples in other lands, this Administration and this Congress have squandered the immense goodwill that other nations extended to our country after the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Dick Gephardt:

I'm calling for new national leadership because the Bush-Cheney bravado has left us isolated in the world — fracturing 50 years of alliances, calling into question our credibility, squandering the global goodwill that was showered on us after 9/11.


John Kerry:

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the world rallied to the common cause of fighting terrorism. But President Bush has squandered that historic moment. 

We have lost the good will of the world, overextended our troops, and endangered not enhanced our own security.

John Cougar Mellancamp:

We have managed to squander any goodwill we once had to now succeed in solidifying our image as the globe's leading bully.

Dennis Kucinich:

“If the President takes the US to war without UN approval he will diminish America’s moral standing in the world, squander international sympathy created in the wake of 9/11, and waste international goodwill created by many years of foreign diplomacy.

Gary Hart:

We are the champions of the ideal of democracy. We are the world's greatest source of optimism, energy and hope. To compromise that goodwill through belligerence is to squander our greatest resource."

For the health of the public discourse I have one request for the loyal opposition. Get an original idea. Or a thesaurus. I haven’t voted for a Democrat since my junior high social studies teacher teacher got run out of the Minnesota Senate by the politically maturing people of Woodbury. But, I dare say I’d consider voting for the one candidate who has the syntactical guts to say:

..... blah blah blah George Bush has [consumed/lavished/spent/wasted] the [benevolence/good terms/patronage/willingness] of the blah blah blah blah blah ........

All rhetorical qualms aside, I’m not sure why the Democrats think this is such a winning argument in the first place. What does the ‘squander goodwill’ theory really mean? What was the opportunity presented by a bunch of crazed Arabs killing trying to kill us?

Grossly simplified, I think there were two strategic outcomes post-9/11. Either the US government could get closer to the European position on confronting the state sponsors/enablers of Islamic terrorism. That position being self-hatred, apology, and preemptive surrender. Or, the world could have gotten closer to the Bush administration position - active confrontation and preemptive threat elimination.

It seems that first option, changing our policy to adopt the European stance, is much closer to the official Democratic Party line. It is the way Clark, Kerry, Dean et al. would govern. So, is that the squandered opportunity? The opportunity for the Bush administration to abandon its convictions and good judgment (right or wrong) in a time of crisis? If so, how does the goodwill of the world community work into any of this? Goodwill is not a necessary prerequisite for accepting someone’s capitulation to your beliefs. In fact, capitulation is usually the product of the opposite - stubbornness or belligerence.

Is it instead the second option the Democrats are referring to as our squandering of goodwill? That is, moving the world closer to the Bush Administration position of active intervention. On its face, this seems to make a little more sense. If the world was feeling newly sympathetic towards us and presenting (at least temporarily) goodwill, perhaps we should have seized on that sentiment for strategic advantage. But is that really what the Democrats are saying? That the Bush Administration should have exploited one of the most horrible moments in the nation’s history, in order to get more of the world to agree to our interventionist plans. Would that have made them happier?

Of course, the answer is no. They don’t want Bush to be successful in his foreign policy, no matter what his plans are. Despite all of the repetition and passion their words are delivered with, it’s just meaningless political rhetoric. I think they believe it’s enough to thunder on that our current government doesn’t work and play well with others and that’s enough to get them votes. Maybe, maybe not. Given that most Americans are isolationists at heart, I suspect it won‘t be effective. But, only time will tell.

Which brings me to the point of this entire essay. The opportunity to transcribe some Enya lyrics:

Who can say where the road goes, Where the day flows?
Only time...

And who can say if your love grows, As your heart chose?
Only time...

Who can say why your heart sighs, As your love flies?
Only time...

And who can say why your heart cries, When your love dies?
Only time...

Are you listening Howard Dean?