February 13, 2006

Traditions...

Traditions serve an important function in politics. They are a sort of democracy that acts over time; they grow and solidify because people in the past have found them worth repeating, until they "stick." They codify wisdom gained over many lifetimes. Some go back to the time of George Washigton. If you ever encounter a tradition that seems to serve no apparent function, "Stop, Look and Listen" as they say, before you throw it on the trash!

Other bloggers have heaped deserved criticism on Al Gore's going to the home of the 9/11 hijackers and criticizing America's response to that brutal attack. It was a disgusting example of leftist anti-Americanism. And utterly wrong on the facts.

But it was also wrong for another reason—because he is flouting our traditions. One of those traditions is that our politicians do not criticize America on foreign soil. I'm sure you can think of several reasons why this is a good custom. One of them is that America is often trying to solve problems by negotiation and peaceful pressure, rather than force. And negotiations always work better if we present a united face.

This is in fact a particularly odious thing Gore has done, because Democrats usually present themselves as being so "peace-y," and superior to warmongering Republicans. But this undercutting of our negotiations with countries like Iran and North Korea in fact makes the use of military force more likely.

Another tradition is that former Presidents (and Vice Presidents) do not criticize the current President. Again, you can imagine the various reasons for this. The Clinton/Gore Administration had an easier time in everything they tried to do because Bush, Reagan and Ford all refrained from publicly criticizing them. (Private rebukes, by the way, are proper. After the Bay of Pigs, Ike publicly supported JFK, and privately told him he'd been a damn fool.)

Posted by John Weidner at February 13, 2006 09:19 AM
Comments

First, I agree 100% with your post - although I believe you'll find examples of the second tradition (former presidents not criticizing the current administration publicly) not being followed if you look closely - if nothing else, Buchanan made no secret of his disdain for Lincoln's policies; I'd bet there are a number of examples, though I don't have any handy, and certainly could be wrong. But the broader point is definitely true - besides which, is Buchanan is one's model, one ought to aim a touch higher.

That said, the factual issue that struck me the most was in his discussion of visas - "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake." He spoke these lines to Saudi's...the folks who allow NO way of becoming a naturalized citizen; the folks who allow NO tourism visas - just a Hajj or Umrah visa, to visit Jeddah, Mecca and Medina, and then ONLY if you're Muslim (you have to be from a Muslim country with a Muslim name - otherwise you need documentary proof certified by your mosque that you've converted); if you're non-Muslim, the only way in is for business, if you're sponsored by a company - and if you're actually going to work there, you need to show a copy of your signed contract, a police background check, a copy of your degrees or qualifications, and a medical exam. Oh, yeah, and if you've ever been to Israel, then fuck off, you ain't gettin' in.

And Al Gore had the balls to preach about how we handle visas? Amazing.

Posted by: Ethan Hahn at February 13, 2006 10:07 AM

Diplomacy has been described as the art of saying, "Nice doggie, nice doggie", while looking around for a big rock. The (often unspoken) possibility of force is a vital component of diplomacy. The peaceful negotiations sometimes depend on the knowledge that there is an "or else". Without that possibility enemies sufficiently fanatical have learned to call our bluff.

Posted by: Steve Lassey at February 13, 2006 11:10 AM
Weblog by John Weidner