In the past I have stood against the general tide of liberal political thought to state that I felt George W. Bush was doing the right thing by stating his committment to stay in Iraq. I'm not sure I made it clear, but it is the action, not necessarily the motive, that I approve. My reasoning is that now we have done the previously unthinkable and started a war, we need to demonstrate the magnanimity history expects of victors and see that we clean up the mess we made.
But now that we have Saddam Hussein in hand, we should move to get out of the country with all deliberate haste. Why? Because our presence is the primary target of the current batch of insurgents. Our presence is why these militants are engaging in the otherwise stupid task of destroying their own contry's infrastructure. If we move out, there's a good chance the Iraqis can get on with the job of rebuilding. They're much better than we are at doing more with less anyway. That might hurt the vice-president's former company, but it should be big and strong enough to endure the strain.
But Bush still insists on "staying the course." Why? The answer, as well as the sensible alternatives, should be obvious. Ruthless and obnoxious as he was, Saddam Hussein had our support in the Middle East until he invaded Kuwait. That's because he ran a secular government in a part of the world saturated with the desire for Islamic republics. Christians, Jews, and members of other religions were free to worship in Hussein's Iraq. Such "infidel" activity would certainly be outlawed in an Islamic republic.
The very worst outcome (for the United States) of King George's war would be the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iraq. And Mr. Bush knows this. That's why he insists on keeping the U. S. military in the country against the clear wishes of the Iraqi public. It's also why he refuses to cede control of the country to the United Nations. U. N. administrators might be more kindly oriented toward the will of the people.
It becomes obvious that the Bush administration has itself in a very difficult position. One might argue, as the Democrats have, that the king's advisors didn't think this one through carefully ahead of time. But my guess is that they knew about this ahead of time. That's why they were so eager to start the war WITHOUT U. N. approval. Setting out against the wishes of the U. N. would give us leverage to keep the U. N. out when it came time to decide the nature of the new regime.
What American conservatives want in Iraq is an American-style capitalist republic (much like Israel). The tricky part is ahead. We have to get this republic established in a way that makes it look like it was the will of the people. Sensible and informed people the world over will know better, but we just might be able to sneak it by the bulk of the world's residents.
The war in Iraq has diverted attention from the political turmoil of this country. But if we turn away from page one to the Op Ed pages, our own divisions are brought into sharp focus. The vituperative commentary there demonstrates an unwillingness to find common ground, even in a "wartime" situation. This demonstrates the failure of George W.'s attempt to use war to unite the country. Just like Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rouse the American public to action in the "moral equivalent of war" in his day, King George has put our soldier boys' lives at risk for precious little social advantage. My guess is the threat is not real and present enough with the American public.
Why the sharp division and the cutting debate? The answer can be found in 1789 and earlier. We often hail our "founding fathers" for their great wisdom in laying the foundation for our republic. But that wisdom, like modern wisdom, had its limitations. Thomas Jefferson and colleagues could not find a way to assure the rights of all people without establishing confrontational institutions. Our justice system is the pinnacle of adversarial relationships in the service of equal rights.
With this kind of foundation it seems inevitable that divisions would only increase over time. Our institutions are not fundamentally cooperative, and only the presence of truly great statesmen has held the country together.
Today the dividing lines are quite confusing. On one side we have those pushing toward a religious republic right here in the United States, allying themselves with an administration opposed to the establishment of a religious republic overseas. All denials to the contrary, September 11, 2001 marked the start of a new crusade, a new battle between Christianity and Islam.
The committment of Christianity to this "holy" war is still in question, but the intent of many Muslims to the eventual world-wide rule of Islam is not. Hey, there's no room for compromise when you're right! So we have the absurdity of an administration seeking to prevent the establishment of religious rule in another country, tearing away at the barriers against such rule in our own country.
The "issue du jour" in this domestic spat is gay "marriage." The one benefit of this twist in the ongoing "family values" debate is that it has forced conservatives to 'fess up to a pivotal truth. Marriage is about children. Divorce isn't wrong because Exodus 20:14 or Matthew 19:3-9 condemn it, but because of the effect it has on children. That "family values" conservatives haven't done more to alleviate the plight of single-parent families demonstrates their shaky committment to true family values. Their approach has been to force single mothers to work to support their families, rather than helping them stay home with their children.
But back to the main point. The issue of gay marriage is truly one of equal rights. The concept of same-sex coupling condoned by the state so outrages people they lose sight of the real issue. We have a tax code (and other laws) that provide tangible benefits to "married" people. A truly secular republic cannot deny special treatment to a group of people based on a primarily religious prejudice.
Here's the point conservatives in America are missing. They're so sure they're right they can't see their way clear to allow other people to be wrong. The point of religious morality is to provide lifestyle guidance to the adherent. But these people seem to think it their right, no, their moral obligation to force their lifestyle restrictions on everybody else.
For example, there is NO law forcing anyone to have an abortion. If you believe abortion is wrong you should never have an abortion or, if, like me, you're a male, you should be sure you never put a woman in a position where she might consider abortion an option. If you think gay relationships are wrong, never have sex with someone of the same gender. But there are laws prohibiting people from having abortions, and there are laws against homosexual intercourse (recently struck down), and there is a major government bureaucracy involved in deciding who can and who can't marry.
That's not to say that the left hasn't stepped over the line too. Some people have misinterpreted court rulings against sponsored prayer in school to say that prayer of any kind is not permissible, and have even gone so far as to prohibit children from privately saying grace in the cafeteria. That just provides ammunition for the proponents of school-sponsored prayer.
The left has also gone on a vendetta against publicly-sponsored religious displays. Now I agree that it would be inappropriate for the government at any level to spend money on a creche or other overtly Christian display. On the issue of the ten commandments, however, the water becomes muddier. Some claim that the ten commandments are the basis for modern law. The same could be said of the Code of Hammurabi, of course. And it is true that the three major monotheistic religions recognize the ten commandments.
But what about non-monotheistic religions -- which ARE represented among the citizens of the United States? And what about the fact that some ninety-nine percent of Christians openly break one of the ten commandments every week? Which brings up an important point. My decidedly minority approach to Christianity makes me more tolerant of other people's right to be different. One of the greatnesses of this nation is it's committment to protecting minorities from the tyrrany of outright democracy.
To try to stay on my point, the left may be merely providing fuel for their enemies' war machines to oppose existing religious symbols. It's one thing to oppose the expenditure of public money to erect such a display, and entirely another to force the expenditure of tax funds to take them down. We neither can nor should ban all public display of religious symbols. We just must make sure that public funds are not used and that public institutions, such as courthouses, are not turned into symbolic pulpits for the majority religion. In this case I make a broad categorization to classify monotheism as the majority religion in the United States.
In the spirit of useful compromise might I suggest a solution to the gay marriage issue. Clearly, a majority of Americans oppose government recognition of homosexual relationships. Maybe the best approach would be to take down the institution of government-issued marriage licences, which have their foundation in racial prejudice. Instead, marriage would again become a church institution, and the churches would be free to regcognize or not recognize non-traditional domestic unions.
The rub would come when we had to dismantle government preferences for marriage. Under such a system the government could not provide or withdraw benefits on the basis of marital status. Then truly family-friendly policies could take their place; policies that recognize the importance of a stay-at-home parent until children are at least 10 years old, policies that allow parents to decide the age at which their children begin formal education, policies that provide tax breaks (if we decide to give them at all) on the basis of the number of children being supported, regardless of the formal arrangments behind that support.
In this scenario churches would be free to promote their view of marriage and family to all their members. They would also remain free, under the first amendment, to express their opinions publicly. But that freedom comes at a price. They must also allow people with opposing viewpoints to express them through speech and lifestyle. People who believe birth control to be an important part of an advancing society would be free to provide their services to all who desire them just so long as they don't like China, force them on people opposed to their use.
Before we have another war between the fundamentalist South and the largely agnostic North over whether we ought to be one nation or two, we need to find ways to reconcile the sides. Ways that will stick. One would think that the supreme court ruling of 1972 would have decided the issue of public control of abortion. But the right refuses to sit down and let the decision stand. The left hasn't done much better in that respect. Hope for this republic lies in the ascendancy of a truly great statesman; and the idealogue currently in the White House is imminently disqualified.