For whatever it’s worth, Steyn did confidently predict a Bush victory in his Spectator column of 29 October. “If Bush Goes, I go”.

The problem I am having with President Bush and the Republican Party is that they have abandoned traditional conservativism.

Under his presidency he has done much to further destroy traditional American conservatism especially when considering his views on immigration and as a result, the country is shifting even further to the left.

His conducting of the so called “war on terror” in Iraq is unlikely to result in a decisive victory over Islamism without a Sherman like approach. American troops are under constant threat of insurgent activity as they are not free to seek and destroy in enemy as an army must to emerge victorious.

Dresden or Hiroshima like military action is not possible in modern warfare under proportional use of force laws and does not apply to the new style of urban warfare which is a feature of the latest Islamist war on the West.

As such Immigration control and secure boarders make more sense than the placement of a hamstrung army on foreign soil which will only result in greater loss of life prolonged suffering and emboldening of the insurgent forces with the danger of the introduction of an Islamist government in the vacuum should we fail.

In that sense, Bush has introduced the very half measures he promised would not occur, yet is anybody really convinced that Kerry will do a better job now that Bush fired the first salvo of what promises to be an endless war against a middle ages type of enemy who has not forgotten Poitiers or Lepanto or Al Andulus?

Conversely, Kerry’s vision of American power is forfeiting America’s sovereignty to the UN which as everyone knows is populated by those very regimes and despots, anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Western entities that all seek the destruction, marginalization and cultural religious transformation of both America and indeed the rest of the world.

Additionally, obviously character is not a consideration in the liberal endorsement. Kerry simply cannot be trusted. His past performance as a naval officer leaves much to be desired. In a way, the old adage that time heals all wounds is aptly illustrated here. Kerry an anti-war protester while still an officer, a man whose anti=war efforts aided and abetted the enemy who to this day honors him in their formerly “War Crimes” museum for his role in supporting the anti war movement in America. His actions are said to have caused additional torture for naval aviators who were shot down over Viet Nam and were presented with Kerry’s statements to the American media. Additional suffering for his statements and actions was their punishment.

Look at his record in the senate, his stunning hypocrisy and turn coating on issues. Look at his conduct in this campaign which by the way is supported by the very Islamists he wants to oppose. Just like in Viet Nam, he is dividing America along party lines and not convincingly rejecting the endorsement of Bin Laden for example.

On and on, it should be clear to anyone that as bad as Bush is, he is not a man without scruples, without principles hell-bent like a crack addict in search of a fix to obtain the White House. In a sane America, the rejection of such an odious charlatan would be swift and certain. Yet those unseen forces which seek to perpetuate the same mentality of those policies that culminated in 9-11 are hiding behind the smiling face of leftist liberalism, behind whose mask hides a grotesque gargoyle waiting to transform America into a land of endless disunity and disruption in search of the Promised Land. That what the democrats excel in, not solutions but disruption. Both the democratic and republican party are becoming an enemy to the traditional Reaganisque conservatism that made America great.

Kerry as a serious candidate is a testament to the seriousness of the social condition in America. And liberalism, political correctness, multiculturalism and the silent majority remaining quit while their cultural heritage is being stolen from them are to blame.

There is a fact that needs to be endlessly repeated. The leftward march of our politics and culture continues unabated because Republicans of the Bush-Cheney stripe never stand up and oppose it. This is why many of us refuse to vote for Bush.

…I don’t want to support “conservatives” who fail to oppose the left (Auster).So, Mr. Auster, is supporting the left now the answer to opposing the left?

Miss Vail, the answer to people who fail to oppose the left is to oppose the left, and to oppose the people who fail to oppose the left. And that’s what I strive to do here.

I wonder what Roosevelt would do if Hitler were
endorcing his reelection campaign.

Bin Laden is the modern equavalent to Adolf Hitler and Islamism is a form of totalatarian ideology which resembles Nazism, yet Kerry’s silence on this seems to show he is not morally above rejecting any help to his election to the presidency.

Character matters. Kerry has none period.

Andrew, beautifully put.I’ll offer a simple explanation as to why this has all come to pass.When the Left ratcheted up its assault on Western culture in the early ‘90’s, mainstream Americans, the majority of whom I believe lean ever so slightly towards the right, didn’t take the time to educate their children concerning leftist falsehoods. As a result, ideas like “all cultures are equally good” took root and are now accepted by most young people as truth.
My children attended inner-city public schools, where traditional Western values were constantly under assault.I had more than one run-in with teachers and administrators over this.In the end, my protestations were ineffective and changed nothing, since the school system was packed to the hilt with leftists. I did however, make it clear to certain school officials that if my children were discriminated against due to my protestations, there would be hell to pay.
To counter this leftist assault, I drenched my children in the best of Western culture.They’re now clear-headed adults and in college. If you tried to convince them that an Eskimo whale-bone sculpture was as “good” or artistically equivalent to the Pieta, they’d laugh at you.If you tried to draw an equivalence between a tribal culture and Western-style democracy they’d pity you.
The only hope I see as far as turning things around lies in such education, but from what I’ve seen, most parents are too busy with selfish endeavors to address this.

So you’re disappointed in the Republican party and you can’t figure out why they don’t vigorously attack the left? I’ll tell you why. They’re salesmen. I’m not exagerating. The Republican party is dominated by big money, old money. Their fortunes depend on successfully selling the goods and services they offer this nation. Have you ever known a really great salesman? The one thing that distinguishes this person from his peers is his ability to get along with just about anyone. Because he wants to sell something to as many people as possible, he has to empathize with them. Getting sideways with potential customers is alien to his inner philosophy of “live and let live.” I believe Mr. Auster refers to this as Universalism. As long as the Republican party is made up primarily of business interests, these people will always compromise with the left because it is in their economic interest to do so. They are, in essence, being held hostage by people who threaten their property if they don’t go along. Do not look to these people for help. When we recall the deeds of our ancestors who pledged “our lives and our property,” we begin to understand the gulf that separates someone like John Hancock from George Bush…New Englanders both.

That’s an excellent comment by Mr. Griffin. As far back as Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Republican-type conservatives have been analyzed in terms of their “businessman” nature and outlook, which places utility and self-advancement over a belief in the Good. But I’ve never seen anyone describe this orientation the way Mr. Griffin has, as the desire to get along with people so as to maintain good business relations with them.

Republicans: standing astride history shouting “go slow enough to keep liberalism from self-destructing”.

I find it interesting how in political discussions people feel the need to associate with every aspect of given “position”. Many of those of us who understand the issues related preservation of our Western culture and sovereignty are opposing the Iraq war and Bush. I support the Irag war but will not vote for Bush. My reasons are the same as expressed by other commentators on this board. However, the Irag invasion was necessary to send a powerful message to the Islamic world (and other potential enemies) that there are consequences to attacking the US. When potential enemies ponder their next move under a Bush administration, they will not know for sure what the consequences will be. This also would apply to governments

With Kerry’s impending election this will all change. Our enemies know that Kerry has opposed use our buildup and use of power all of his career. How could he bring himself to use American power effectively. The certainty of war will be magnified many times. Under Reagan, we say a decline in the “export” of communism and third world revolutionary movements. Under Kerry, it will be the opposite. The Chinese, North Koreans, and Islamic fundamentalists will believe we no longer have the the will resist and will become emboldened. We will likely see attempts to overthrow the Saudi and other so called moderate governments. The supply of oil would be in jeopardy.

As far as the argument that a non-vote for Bush is a vote for Kerry, it should be considered that in a healthy society Kerry should about the same standing as Ralph Nadar. The choice should be between Bush, the liberal, and a true conservative such as Peroutka or Tancredo. I voted (absentee) my conscience and hope for a reorientation of the Repubican party. Without the will to oppose the left, the Republican party serves no purpose.

Given the extent of the geo-political disasters that the poster “RLNinCAL” thinks will result from a Kerry presidency (and his scenarios are a lot more horrific than anything that I have suggested), I’d be curious to know how he justifies not voting for the only candidate who can defeat Kerry.

Super that Matt has not abandoned us. We are very lucky.

RLNinCAL is right on target, and I shall attempt an explanation for our fearless leader, ad nauseum perhaps.

A Bush defeat will rid the Republican Party of its liberal leader and will allow a, hopefully, Republican Congress set a truly conservative agenda. Bush will squash most immigration reform, although Republicans seem to be bucking Bush on this issue; indeed, Bush’s point men shamefully lie that Bush is not for amnesty for aliens. It is fundamental to Bush, so to hope for immigration reform by Bush is fantasy.

Will we need to endure a shameless, opportunist and an over-rich, classless First Lady that will fling her messy hair and embarrass us at every opportunity? Yes. (I mean if you have been given money, for God’s sake be humble, sweet, and generous.)

Yet it seems Republicans are able to fight only if they the underdogs.

I hate that I am voting for the grotesque Kerry; but I think there is a good poosibility a Republican Congress will be effective. I hope I am wrong.

RLNinCAL is right on target, and I shall attempt an explanation for our fearless leader, ad nauseum perhaps.

A Bush defeat will rid the Republican Party of its liberal leader and will allow a, hopefully, Republican Congress set a truly conservative agenda. Bush will squash most immigration reform, although Republicans seem to be bucking Bush on this issue; indeed, Bush’s point men shamefully lie that Bush is not for amnesty for aliens. It is fundamental to Bush, so to hope for immigration reform by Bush is fantasy.

Will we need to endure a shameless, opportunist and an over-rich, classless First Lady that will fling her messy hair and embarrass us at every opportunity? Yes. (I mean if you have been given money, for God’s sake be humble, sweet, and generous.)

Yet it seems Republicans are able to fight only if they the underdogs.

I hate that I am voting for the grotesque Kerry; but I think there is a good poosibility a Republican Congress will be effective. I hope I am wrong.

I mean I hope I am wrong about Kerry and his cruded wife. I hope I am right a Republican Congress will be effective and will embrace an actual conservative.

So Mr. Auster and Bob Griffin think Republicans are “salesman,” yet American has been buying what the left has been selling for 40+ years. The difference of course is that the left was selling political ideas. Their primary sales-pitch insisted that Americans hold off on buying those goods and services from greedy Republicans. The irony is that conservatives look to the top for leadership while imbuing a belief in individual responsibility and sufficiency while a top-down centralized mentality is mainted by a Democratic Party with a vociferous and regularly militant grassroots. The change has to come from the conservative grassroots but reading this site one would get the impression that the fight was over and just trying to get along to sell the next widget was the only worthy goal.

I think Republicans and hence many conservatives are inclined to be nice and non-confrontation to fellow Americans because its natural and normal. It’s quite revealing when one realizes that those on the left have for decades been far more inclined to attack fellow Americans, i.e. Republicans/conservatives than America’s enemy. Conversely, Republicans/conservatives have for decades been far more congenial to fellow Americans i.e. the left while clearly defining our enemies. I think Republicans have a strong agenda but unfortunately it doesn’t conform to every traditional conservative position. What are you going to do about it other than claim the cause is lost. Who’s going to buy that message?

Was Reagan a Salesman?

“… reading this site one would get the impression that the fight was over and just trying to get along to sell the next widget was the only worthy goal.”

This is an overstatement of what was said. No one suggested that selling things is the only thing that Republicans are about. The “businessman” explanation of the Republican psychology was not intended to be reductive, it was not intended to say that this is all that Republicans are. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the Republican party today and historically has been largely formed by the belief in what is good for business, rather than in a belief in the Good or even (as we clearly see today in Republicans’ embrace of open borders) a belief in the nation. There is nothing inherently wrong in the ethos of the businessman, it contains important virtues that are of value to society, as even Plato indicated in his critical discussion of “Oligarchic” man (which which he really meant the commercial type of man). But the ethos of the businessman is limited, it doesn’t see the highest good for man and society. It is finally utilitarian rather than moral or religious or patriotric.

I am not convinced by the businessman analogy of the stereotypical “Big Biz” republican party.

Lets not forget that the Democrats have an image as being for the poor, yet their ranks are filled with millionaires who redistribute wealth through entitlement programs which do nothing more than keep people in the shackles of generational poverty.

So both are motivated by the bottom line. Questions of ethics and public responsibility no longer motivate the parties, only the Marxist observation that the capitalist will knowingly sell the rope to those who intend to hang him with it.

Free market capitalism is very much like liberalism in the sense that it can only function effectively when constrained by an illiberal moral framework. Without that framework, capitalism degenerates into a raw quest for power, which ends up as a controlled economy.

The law-abiding, patriotic business owner cannot compete with his opposite who employs illegal aliens, ignores securities laws, etc. Oligarchic man’s nature is no less corrupt than anyone else’s. John Adams’ famous quote applies to capitalism as well.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I am going wobbly about voting for Kerry, who was willing to defame his fellow soldiers and himself before our enemy while at war. What traitorous act will he be willing to perform next? Don’t people know he joined the swift boats to get out of combat and only later was it decided to send the boats inland? With Clinton, another traitor, we survived eight years as a nation but ended up with 9/11, Blackhawk Down, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing.

At least with our legislative branch we can pressure Bush to end his Vietnam. Maybe, as Mr. Auster has proposed, we can build a conservative Republican Party despite Bush; a charismatic leader will be needed even if Bush loses.

Anyone have any sage advice for me at this late stage?

I had very briefly toyed (not seriously) with the idea of voting for the Democratic candidate last January, after Bush’s immigration proposal. Then when Kerry emerged I knew I could never vote for him. I would never vote for an outright anti-American leftist like Kerry. For conservatives, the choice is either Bush or the Constitution Party, or perhaps a write-in for Tancredo.

My recommendation is the same as Mr. Auster’s. John O’Neill, one of the SwiftVets, has no love for Bush - he has called Bush an “empty suit.” But Mr. O’Neill loves his country more than he dislikes Bush. He knows that Kerry is a traitor who will lead the nation to ruin.

It’s down to either Bush or the CP.

Here’s a radical idea for Mr. Henri and others: Examine the available candidates and vote for the one with whom you agree the most. Voting for Kerry when you cannot stand him is like voting for Bush when you cannot stand him but consider him the lesser of two evils. Why not escape all this Machiavellian calculation and just vote for someone in good conscience?

Mr. Coleman writes:
“Why not escape all this Machiavellian calculation and just vote for someone in good conscience?”

Yes, or vote for no one in good conscience.

Here is Peroutka’s position on the Iraq war:

“As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.”

If he had disagreed with the war for prudential reasons, I could accept that and vote for him despite our disagreement on the war. But when he calls the war “illegal,” he is accusing me and the majority of Americans and the majority of conservatives of supporting something illegal. This shows an extraordinary lack of prudence on his part. Peroutka acts as if the sole reason we invaded Iraq was to spread democracy. He doesn’t even acknowledge America’s legitimate national security concerns in this war.

I know the war in Iraq is not the only issue. But it certainly has been the most important issue in the last couple of years. For Peroutka to deride as “illegal” what I considered under the circumstances a just war of national defense makes him unacceptable in my eyes. By Peroutka’s reasoning, if a rogue regime hostile to the U.S. were in possession of WMDs, or were believed to be in such possession and refused to reveal what it had, and if that regime were in contact with terrorist groups which might reasonably be expected to get a hold of those WMDS and attempt to deliver them to the U.S., we could do nothing about that until the terrorists had actually struck us.

Everyone says that the misnamed war on terrorism is the paramount issue of this campaign. By that token, I cannot support Peroutka.

So it’s back to Tancredo.

Thanks to Mr. Coleman for his advice to vote for the person we agree with. That (combined with the fact that Tancredo had asked people not to cast a write-in vote for him) spurred me to take a look again at Peroutka’s website. There is no way I would vote for someone—regardless of my agreement with him on other issues—who said the war I supported so strongly and thought was a necessary and just war of national defense was an “illegal” war. By the way, he doesn’t even justify his description of the war as illegal. He just throws the word out there. Which shows he hasn’t even thought about these issues. He just has a knee-jerk response of “Only wars in response to a direct attack on America are justified.” He evidently hasn’t even thought about the new facts of terrorism that we must deal with today in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

So, sayonara, Peroutka.

Peroutka is calling the war illegal because Bush didn’t obtain a formal declaration of war from Congress. I agree insofar as Bush SHOULD have asked Congress for the declaration - and not in the name of backing up a resolution from the corrupt and useless UN. (At least that’s what I heard him say in a radio interview.) The fact that he didn’t take the time to craft a statement for his website explaining why he thinks the war is illegal and not in our best interest is disturbing.

One thing about a formal declaration is that it would have forced a real debate about why we needed to fight the war and what we planned to do once Saddam was gone. The homegrown coalition of weasels on Capitol Hill haven’t followed the Constitution pertaining to war powers since 1941 - for purely political reasons as far as I can tell. It’s hugh time they did their job.

While not unimportant, I think that Peroutka is making much too big of a deal about this. Thus, as Mr. Auster mentioned, he ends up sounding like almost like a leftist (who call the war illegal for it’s lack of approval from the UN) and alienates many who might otherwise be willing to listen to his arguments. At this point I’m almost ready to write in Tancredo as well. Either that or walk in to the booth with a clothespin on my nose!

Carl,

This is going off on the side a bit into the declaration of war issue, but while I used to condemn the fact that Bush had not sought a declaration of war, I came to feel differently. The reason for my change of mind was that the complexity and timing of the situation we were in vis a vis Iraq made a declaration of war practically impossible. The question was, WHEN would this declaration of war been voted on? It couldn’t have been voted on in October 2002 when the Congress passed the war authorization, because it wasn’t definite at that time that we were going to war. Remember, the UN had passed Resolution 1441 in September giving Saddam H. one last chance. But in preparation for him not taking that last chance, and in order to push him into complying with the UN inspections, we already were moving troops to the Gulf region. But how could we move troops to the Gulf region without some kind of authorization of at least the possiblity that force might ultimately be used? We couldn’t have waited until March 2003 for a declaration of war, because what if the declaration were rejected at that point? We would have moved hundreds of thousands of men to the other side of the world and then we’d just have to move them back again. This would have been a disaster, making us a laughing stock and strengthening Hussein.

This was why I came to believe that the war authorization (not definitively declaring war, but giving the president authority to use force on his own discretion and his own timing) was, regretably, the only practicable and proper way to proceed in this case. The principle of a declaration of war—that Congress, not the president, has ultimate authority over matters of war and peace—was still preserved in that the Congress had to give its approval before the president could act.

While Mr. Peroutka is obviously against the war in Iraq from a pragmatic and also a moral standpoint (i.e. he feels it was a bad decision and htta war was not morally justified), his description of it as “illegal” appears to me to stem entirely from the fact that it was undeclared.
In otehr words, I don’t think he was arguing that the war you supported was illegal per se but that it was illegal because it had not gone through proper procedure.
Of course, you could argue, as you have, that wer had to do it the way we did it and that it obeyed the spirit of the Constitution. It seems to me that Mr. Peroutka would disagree with that, but this, it seems to me, and not the war itself is the poitn of contention as far as the “illegal” charge goes.

I agree that the war authorization of 10/02 most likely did address the war powers issue adequately. I do wonder if ‘going in sideways’ in this manner had the effect of ending the debate before it really started, even though it may indeed have been a practical necessity, as you mentioned. But with some paleoconservatives screaming that the whole business was to ‘make the world safe for Israel’, any serious debate about the war may have been DOA anyway.

Though I reluctantly support the war, I can see that there are legitimate, conservative reasons to oppose the war. Even so, why did Peroutka choose to focus upon this narrowt, strict interpretation of the war powers clause instead of articulating the prudential reasons for not entangling ourselves there in the first place? To many average mainstream conservatives the use of the term “illegal war” makes Peroutka look like a Michael Moore-style nutcase.

Kara Hopkins at The American Conservative has an interesting take, for anyone who hasn’t seen it:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover5.html

I respectfully disagree with Matt’s idea that it’s better not to vote at all. If you don’t vote, you are functionally playing the same role in the system as the tens of millions of people who are simply too lazy, ignorant, or uncaring to vote. If you don’t like the main choices, you can vote for a minor party or cast a write-in ballot for whomever you choose. That’s infinitely more meaningful than simply not voting. Which would be a more meaningful act for the (say) two million disaffected traditionalist conservatives in this country—simply to stay home and disappear into silence, as Matt proposes, or to cast two million write-in votes for Tom Tancredo, or Matt, or whomever?

The only valid reason I can see for not voting would be to express the idea that one doesn’t believe in popular elections based on equality of citizenship rights.

Speaking of which, Mr. Auster, where you live will your write-in vote be counted and tabulated in some manner?
10,000 people writing in “Tom Tancredo” may not have any more effectiveness than staying home if no one knows that 10,000 people did it.

I also wanted to say that I am disappointed by the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party this year. The candidates they fielded were not that impressive.

Mr. Jose, that’s a good question. In ‘96, when I voted for Howard Philips and the Constitution Party, and in 2000, when I voted for Buchanan, I don’t remember seeing any tabulation of the New York City or New York State vote that included those candidates. I assume they exist officially somewhere, but perhaps if the numbers are very small, the media don’t bother even publishing that information.

I guess this is what life is like when you’re an oppressive Euro-centric Christian male.

Life is even tougher when you’re an oppressive Eurocentric Jewish male who is also a legal immigrant that wants immigration restricted.

I agree, Mr. Girin, in today’s culture, that may seem like a tough row to hoe. :-) But not at all impossible. Samuel Gompers, a Jew born in England in 1850 who came to America at age 13 and became head of the American Federation of Labor, spoke out for immigration restrictions in the 1920s when it was a crucial national issue. You may have heard of Yeh Ling-Ling, a Chinese ethnic immigrant in California who is a restrictionist activist. I’m a Jew by background. And then there’s Stephen Steinlight. So being an immigrant, being a Jew, or even being a Jewish immigrant doesn’t stop one from speaking out against the madness of open borders.

If you follow the Consitution Party for long, the simple dismissal of the Iraq War as “illegal” is no surprise. That is their style, their perspective on the Constitution across a range of issues. Generally, they do not spend a lot of time debating the pragmatic objections to the welfare state; they just point out that there is no Constitutional authority for it. And so it goes for issue after issue.

I think that conservative jurisprudence should not be satisfied with fuzzy notions such as Congressional resolutions being a good substitute for a declaration of war. As for positioning troops and then risking a Congressional rejection of a declaration of war, why do we have separate branches of government? One purpose of having votes in Congress is to expose every congressman for what he is. Make them all go on the record, and see what happens to them at the next election. That possibility does not scare me a bit. As others have said, we might even have had a debate.

Why not a declaration of war against Afghanistan after they rejected our demand to turn over Osama? Is it not obvious that we will probably never see another declaration of war in our lifetimes, no matter what happens, because formal declarations have gone out of style and no one cares what the Constitution says any more?

Mr. Auster, I think we can agree that Mr. Griffin’s description of Republicans as “salesman” was not made with affection. And when Mr Griffin states that Republicans are made up of “primarily of business interests,” it gives the impression of painting with quite a broad brush. Especially, as Mr. Griffin so revealingly states,”[d]o not look to these people for help.” I agree, but Mr. Griffin sounds like a liberal in distress.

Isn’t the Republican Party dominated by the religious right? Wouldn’t they act as a counter-balance to the always chipper “salesman” and doesn’t the media have a splendid time in characterizing their bigoted and prejudicial ways?

I’m not persuaded by Mr. Coleman’s point on the need for a declaration of war on Iraq, since the reasons I gave earlier still seem dispositive to me. There was no way to do it before sending the troops, because we weren’t sure yet if we were going to fight; we were still hoping to threaten them into revealing all their WMDs and WMD information. The very nature of the situation required that the president have a certain flexibility. However, re Afghanistan, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t have declared war, since we were aiming at overthrowing that government, and (unlike with Iraq) there was no doubt that we were going to do so. Perhaps one reason might be that the international community didn’t recognize the Taliban regime as a legitimate government. They were more like a bunch of thugs who had taken over the country. So a declaration of war may not have seemed necessary or appropriate. Remember, going back to America’s first foreign war, President Jefferson didn’t ask for a declaration of war against the pirate kingdoms of Northern Africa. If Congress had to declare war every time U.S. forces used violence against a foreign power, we would have had to declare war about 200 times over the course of our history.

Let us also remember that the Constitution does not _require_ that the Congress declare war before the U.S. engage in military hostilities against a foreign power. It only says that “Congress shall declare war,” meaning, I suppose, that if there is a declaration of war, Congress shall do it, and no one else.

To Thor, obviously the Republican party consists of both of those groups.

The point is always raised that many small wars (and even a few large ones) have been fought without declarations of war in our history. I thought that we all learned long ago that “everyone is doing it” was not a valid justification in matters of morality and/or legality. How do I know that war should NOT have been declared against the Barbary States, or in all the other examples where there was not a sudden military response, but a rather deliberative military planning period?

Mr. Auster’s interpretation of the Constitution seems to amount to this: “It is possible for Congress to declare a war. It is not possible for the President to declare a war. It is possible, however, for a President to simply engage in a war and not declare it.” I have two questions in response to this. First, why would we even need a Congressional Resolution to act against Iraq, and where does Congress get the authority to pass a War Powers Act in the first place?

Second, given our knowledge of the intentions of the framers to limit each of the three branches of the national government, and balance each against the others, is it credible that the President has carte blanche to wage war as long as he does not “declare” war? Is that truly what the framers meant when they said that Congress shall have the power to declare war?

Mr. Coleman is demanding a stringent rule restricting the president where no such rule exists. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He, on his own authority, can send the army and navy wherever he wills and order them to do what he wants. His power is enormous. The Congress has the power to declare war. There is evidently an ambiguous area here between the President and the Congress in the Constitution itself. The president can do a lot, but with a large enough action, there is the expection that Congressional authorization is needed.

Mr. Coleman is not happy with ambiguity. He wants strict lines, with no deviations, and woe to him who transgresses. But that is neither the nature of the Constitution in this area nor the nature of 215 years of U.S. history under the Constitution. Are you really going to be upset that Congress didn’t declare war on the Barbary pirates, and in the scores of tiny to medium sized military exploits the army and navy engaged in over 200 years without a declaration of war?

I agree the country has gone too far, to the point where our political class doesn’t even think about the need for a declaration of war, or at least, to come up with good reasons for not issuing one when it would seem called for. But I think that Mr. Coleman also goes too far in wanting to impose a constitutional legalism that is not supported by our constitution or our history.

Thanks to all my thoughtful advisors. I have considered your arguments well.

I legally cannot write-in Tancredo, which I would do if given the chance. I cannot vote for a dangerous opportunist-traitor such as Kerry. To remain relevant, I must pull the lever for Bush, who cannot override a strong conservative legislature. I and the many other immigration reformers have greatly impeded the Left’s and Bush’s amnesty insanity. Bush can’t impose amnesty, but he will try to prevent Islam from killing us.

But please oh please don’t stop there. Take action to advance immigration reform with your legislators. They have the POWER to tell Bush to go fish. Indeed Bush has thus far been unable to remove the immigration restrictions recommended by the 9/11 Commission from H.R. 10 (now in a House-Senate conference committee). This piece of legislation has not yet been defeated thanks to my and many others’ calls and letters.

Victory is possible if one gets to FAIR’s Website (or other reform Websites) and joins the battle. If you are a pathologic procrastinator like me, take one small step at a time, as I must do (in addition to asking Jesus for help). For example: today say you will do something; tomorrow say you will find FAIR’s Website at http://www.fairus.org/; next day say you will think about it a little; next day try to find FAIR’s Website; next day or week connect to FAIR’s Website; next day call the President or someone on the committee considering the proposal, etc. The Republicans dropped Nixon like a stone when they saw it was in their best interests.

“The president can do a lot, but with a large enough action, there is the expection that Congressional authorization is needed.” Where does this fuzzy expectation even come from? If it comes from the declaration of war clause in the Constitution, we need to discuss the concept of “a large enough action” and somehow convince ourselves that Iraq does not qualify as “a large anough action”. Can anyone here interpret the Constitution, and the Iraq war, in such a manner?

I suggest a more sensible interpretation. Some military actions are skirmishes or battles, but not wars. They are too brief and too small in scale to be considered wars.

For example, when listing the wars in American history, most citizens would list the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, a collection of “Indian Wars”, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the current Afghan and Iraq wars. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the attempted hostage rescue in Iran, the Mayaguez incident off Cambodia, etc. Then there are the difficult cases in between: Grenada, Panama, etc., which were small and brief but involved regime change.

I think a very sane and reasonable interpretation of the Constitution is that a Congressional declaration of war is needed in the cases of war that I cited, and not needed in the small incidents I cited, and we can debate the gray area in between.

Based on the troop commitment, period of time involved, regime change, etc., I think it is hard for anyone to classify the current affairs in Afghanistan and Iraq as anything less than full-scale wars. They certainly compare in scope and difficulty with the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, don’t they? I would say they are more difficult and will be longer lasting and take greater military commitments, and neither of those old wars required permanent regime changes in the vanquished.

Given this historical perspective, I think the burden of proof is on anyone who argues that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t require declarations of war, that they are comparable to pirate skirmishes or one-time rescue operations or whatever.

I respect the thought process that Mr. Henri has gone through to reach his decision, though his decision is different from mine. Maybe I’m making myself irrelevant with my write-in for Tancredo. But it’s the only vote that seems meaningful to me.

I agree with Mr. Coleman’s general line of reasoning, though not with all his examples. Re Afghanistan, agreed. Re the Gulf War, that’s iffy, since we were not aiming at conquering Iraq but only driving it out of Kuwait. Also, the Gulf War, like the later Iraq war, involved a long period in which we had to have our troops in theater but had not yet decided to go to war, which would have made a war declaration practically impossible. With the Iraq war, Mr. Coleman still hasn’t answered the practical objections I’ve raised to a war declaration.

I did say I would write-in Terrific Tom if I could. So I am pleased by Mr. Auster’s decision.

“With the Iraq war, Mr. Coleman still hasn’t answered the practical objections I’ve raised to a war declaration.” Yes, I have, in my second paragraph of my 10:40 p.m. posting. I said, bring on the vote.

The concern about a feckless Congress pulling the rug out from under the troops after they are positioned seems far-fetched —- unless there is insufficient clarity about the war. In that case, having to ask for a declaration would be good. We could have a debate, and decide if we are declaring war to disarm Iraq and depose Saddam, or if we are declaring war to bring democracy to the Middle East. This could all be resolved in a debate over a declaration of war. The alternative is to have a War Powers Authorization that is viewed differently in these respects by different politicians in different branches of government, with no clarity at all. Thus, a congressman could vote in October, 2002, to authorize war because he thinks that we are primarily concerned with disarming Iraq, then start hearing about the democratization of the whole Middle East a few weeks after he casts his vote. Sounds like our present situation, actually.

The result of the debate would likely be a clear and specific declaration. It might not be what Bush and the neocons wanted. However, that does not mean that the Congress would have been likely to reject the declaration entirely after we had deployed troops under the prior resolution, gathered England, Australia, Poland, and 25 others into a coalition, given Saddam one last chance, gone to the U.N. with Colin Powell, etc. I cannot believe that this would happen.

It’s an interesting argument. The strongest part of it is the idea that the Congressional debate over the declaration would clarify what the scope and purpose of the war were intended to be. I agree that this is something to be much desired. However, I think in the real world it would be highly imprudent to send an army of 300,000 men and all their equipment across the world, place them in a position where they threaten a foreign power in the hope of getting that power to make concessions, and then, if the concessions are not forthcoming, AT THAT MOMENT request a declaration of war from the Congress. If the Congress votes the declaration down (which it came within a couple of votes of doing in the Gulf War war authorization debate in January 1991), then the United States has turned itself into a global laughingstock, an absurdity, humiliated, foolish, inept. The 300,000 troops and all their equipment would have to be packed up and brought home, and our enemy would have won a great victory over us. Again, this almost happened in January 1991.

So, while in principle the formal declaration of war is proper and preferable, I think we also need to recognize that there may be circumstances that would render the demand for a formal declaration dangerous and harmful to the country. I don’t see how responsible leaders could allow such a thing to happen—to send an army across the world, prepare them to fight a major war, give the enemy the final ultimatum, then then, after the enemy has rejected the ultimatum and our forces are primed to start the war, have them suddenly turn around and come home. This seems like an impossibility that no responsible national leader could allow to happen.

Mr. Henri, if it is not too personal, which state do you live in?
(I’m interested because of ballot access issues).

??`yn has gone out on a limb and made a precise prediction on his Web site, http://www.marksteyn.com/

“Steyn’s call: 
BUSH 315 KERRY 223
DASCHLE OUT IN SOUTH DAKOTA
GOP UP 2 IN THE SENATE, 5 IN THE HOUSE”

That began, “Update: Steyn…” The server troll chewed it up between “Preview” and “Post”.

Following the logic of Mr. Auster’s 12:47 AM posting, not only was it wise not to ask Congress for a declaration of war in 1991, but George H.W. Bush should not have asked for a resolution, either. We had already sent troops and planes to Saudi Arabia and pretty much announced our intentions to evict Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. So, we should have just attacked and not risked a vote in Congress, right?

Following that logic, each branch of government should just bypass the other branches when it is really risky to ask for the approval of that other branch.

Well, now that I’m thinking through this, it seems to me that Bush 43 did it better than Bush 41. Bush 43 got the authorization to use force before sending the troops to the Gulf. Bush 41 got the authorization to use force after the troops had been sent to the Gulf, gotten prepared for war, and were on the brink of launching Operation Desert Storm. If a couple of Senators had voted differently in January 1991, it would have been one hell of a mess.

Also, Mr. Coleman’s characterization of my position in his 7:14 a.m. comment is overwrought. That is clearly not what I have been saying.

Mr. JoseI live in Louisiana.

I think one of the salient points about the war powers discussion here is that Congress, political animals that they are, have willingly given much of their war power to the executive, in much the same manner that they have deferred to the courts and administrative bureaucracy on matters, like abortion, that should be dealt with legislatively. There are way too many members of Congress who wish to have a permanent position while delegating the responsibilities on important, politically charged issues (like going to war) - and thereby avoid accoutability before the electorate.

Bush 41 should not have been allowed to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Saudi without some sort of Congressional authorization - preferably a declaration of war. I agree that his son has been better at this.