Hawks We Are, Hawks We Must Remain

With CPAC 2010 now fully behind us, conservatism’s rising generation has some choosing to do. Specifically, on the matter of war and national security, will we be the hawks that we were born to be? Now is the time to make a lasting decision, and we better get it right.

After all, those of us who fall into the Generation Y or Millennial bracket—born under Reagan/Bush, came of age under Clinton/Bush II—bear a special responsibility. That which we stand for today will define what American conservatism represents tomorrow. Indeed, it was the young conservatives who lifted Barry Goldwater to the Republican presidential nomination back in 1964 who eventually took over the GOP, redefined America’s mainstream political right, and continue to run the movement today.

Of course, no two conservatives anywhere are wired exactly the same and that naturally extends to those of us in our 20s. But there are certain overarching differences among our lot in particular that are too deep to ignore or diminish. A few years ago it was thought that social issues would be the barrier that partitioned us into separate camps. That has not happened. Instead, it seems to be our dramatically conflicting views over U.S. foreign policy that have drawn a thick, undeniable line in the sand.

No better snapshot of this under-acknowledged 10,000-lb. elephant in the room could be seen than when isolationism’s leading icon Ron Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll for preferred 2012 presidential candidate. Almost immediately after the news broke, the pundit world fingered the conference’s overwhelming youth presence as the culprit behind the libertarian congressman’s surprise victory.

Never mind that only half of the mere 24 percent of CPAC attendees who actually remembered to vote in this year’s straw poll were under 25. And never mind that nobody seriously believes Ron Paul will ever see the White House let alone the Republican National Convention. What matters is that his brief moment of glory at CPAC gives young conservatives everywhere a reason (or perhaps an excuse) to ask ourselves, on the topic of foreign policy, the unnecessarily uncomfortable question of where we want to stand and who we want (and don’t want) to stand with us.

Our answers should lay in our generational identity.

We are the 9/11 generation.

We were born sometime in the ’80s—a period we know better through old films and theme parties than from actual memory, yet we’re still aware that a certain actor-turned-president is responsible for making the decade everything that the ’70s were not: harmonious, optimistic, and thriving.

We grew up through the roaring ’90s—a time of peace and prosperity that neither our parents nor grandparents ever knew. Occurring between the end of the Cold War and the arrival of Y2K, it was truly a holiday from history and we enjoyed every fruit it had to offer. The music was great, the movies were fun, the new cellular telephones were neat and the World Wide Web was even cooler. As much as we remember how easy that era was for us, we also remember how and why it ended.

It’s been almost a decade since 9/11. Many of us felt our first spark of political passion in the aftermath of the attacks because we saw something (or many things) that we deeply, personally admired in George W. Bush. Whether it was his character, his leadership, or that he was the guy who was going to send our warriors to rain down justice on our new enemies, we lined up behind him. He was not only our president, he was our avenger. We’d heard endless tales of the greatness that was Ronald Reagan, but we never actually knew him. Bush was different.

And so we rallied to the side of President Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement in the years that followed. Alas, the decade began feeling like the ’40s but soon seemed more like the ’60s: polarized, uncivil, and uncertain. We knew who was to blame.

But while our liberal Democratic adversaries remain our natural adversaries and thus painless to oppose, our libertarian cousins—supportive of the free market, sure, but viciously anti-war—are much more difficult to deal with. And so to those of us who earned our political stripes and scars during the first decade of this century particularly because of the events that followed September 2001, I pose these questions:

Do we want the American right (along with the entire nation) to forever remember 9/11 as a call to arms for the Good War of a new century, or should we forever regard it as a sad precursor to a national blunder abroad over which we hang our heads in shame?

Will we retell the story of Operation: Iraqi Freedom as one of courage and liberation, or will we opt to let Fahrenheit 9/11 do the talking?

And as the war in Afghanistan continues to be waged and its toll continues to rise, will we demand that America must win and that the bad guys must lose no matter what, or will we quietly tip toe away from the fight if it becomes a political liability and look the other way if our troops come home in defeat?

On every one of these questions, self-proclaimed conservatives of every age and background must choose the former. There are no two ways about it. Regrettably, I fear that most of the libertarians who cast their ballots for Ron Paul at CPAC would instinctively trend toward the latter.

To be sure, when I say “libertarian,” I don’t mean pro-free enterprise, pro-limited government conservatives. If I did, I’d be referring to half the country let alone every single Republican I know. Rather, I’m talking about capital-L “Libertarians”—the anti-government, anti-war, “we provoked 9/11,” “Lincoln was a tyrant,” conspiracy-minded squad of ideologues who’ve gotten louder, prouder, and increasingly self-righteous and more numerous over the past several years. Despite whatever similarities we might share with them (and some certainly do exist), we conservatives are still our own separate species.

A popular adage among conservatives in Washington is to “always add and multiply, never subtract and divide.” But when some differences are so severe that fundamental disagreements cannot be overcome, definitive distinctions need to be drawn. Can those who openly profess that Iran should be able to possess nuclear weapons really stand for very long on the same ship as those who squarely reject such as asinine notion? Of course not.

In the months, years, and election cycles that lay ahead, certain conflicts will be unavoidable. There may well arise the temptation for some conservatives to misread the 2009 backlash against Barack Obama as purely libertarian-rooted and thus to foolishly forget about the national security plank of our movement. The enormous CPAC spotlights given to the likes of Ron Paul and Glenn Beck were indicative of this.
In the face of anti-war libertarian dissidents, conservatives—especially the rising generation—must defend the issue that most sets us apart from them. And we must be vigilant. I urge my peers: if Ron Paul and his ilk do not speak for you, then speak up; if the Campaign for Liberty, which prides itself in youth representation, does not represent you, then say so; if you are not willing to toss aside your support for America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then stand up and defend them with the fullest of throats. You’ll be called a “warmonger” or a “neocon,” sure. But so what?

Of course, scores of young conservative are currently doing much more than debating America’s foreign policy behind the comfort of our borders; they’re fighting the wars of which we speak as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. But for those of us who’ve chosen a vocation on the home front, our support for them and their mission must be unambiguous and unwavering. It is time for conservatism’s 9/11 generation to fully embrace and defend the role that history has bestowed upon us and wear our hawk feathers more proudly than ever.

___________________

Tom Qualtere currently serves as research assistant to the president of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. This column was originally published at TheDailyCaller.com.

God Help The Haitian People

As is well-known by now, thousands of Haitians have died in a massive earthquake. There’s not much to say other than God help the people over there. See this link for President Obama’s statements on the disaster and a phone number for Americans who have family members in Haiti to check on them.

Also, see USA Today’s comprehensive list of organizations that are helping in Haiti. Also, see here for a site dedicated to the assistance of the Haitian people, and here for MSNBC’s list of assisting organizations. Donations, I’m certain, would be gratefully accepted.

GamePolitics goes “christian bashing”…ooo, look we can do it too.

In a dramatic :rolleyes: Internet moment, GamePolitics throws Christians under the bus as they attempt to highlight the “conservative christian” ties of mutual fund investment firm, The Timothy Plan, as negative.? This was obviously done after the author discovered the?firm put out a report advising their clients on video game content, including a warning on gay and lesbian content, and was miffed by this, and considered it “bashing”.

Anyone that wonders over to The Timothy Plan and spends 30 seconds looking at the site can obviously figure out that it adheres to a certain value set, and that last time I checked, in the United States people can think differently and have different value sets.?

There’s happens to be that they don’t think it’s a great idea for little kids to be playing games with massive amounts of violence, sex, and homosexual situations.? They aren’t doing anything different that the ESRB.? The ESRB is the groups logo you have plastered on your own website GamePolitics.?

So if GamePolitics supports the ESRB, and this group is essentially doing the same thing the ESRB and groups like WhatTheyPlay.com are doing, reviewing and rating games for content for parents of children who play video games, then what was the only difference?? The author was obviously miffed and took it personally that there was a content review of homosexual content.? There’s some fancy unbiased journalism.? Well done.

So in the process of throwing Christians under the bus by way of insinuating that they are “gay bashers” the author completely misses the whole point of what The Timothy Plan is trying to do.? While the reviews are completely hokey, yes, the point of the firm is to allow people to invest in mutual funds that aren’t umbrella corporations that have some sort of shady business or pornographic magazine under their belt that they would not want to be apart.? That’s fine, they are allowed to do this.? Not to mention they weren’t bothering anyone.? You seen a big shiny blinking Timothy Plan banner add anywhere?? I sure haven’t.? Didn’t get any literature in the mail either.? GamePolitics had to seek these guys out.? Laughable.

GamePolitics is a great site.? It is extremely informative and I read it every day.? That’s why it is on our blog roll.? Maybe it was a slow news day… I don’t know.? But this was a reach.? And even if you believe the reviews to be “gay bashing,” turning around and bashing Christians pretty much puts?the accusser?in the same meatspace as the doer of the deed.? Somebody needs to be checked.

-nick

Discuss in the forums

$1 Trillion. Yes, that’s a “T”.

Today, the Fed decided it would offer up $100 billion to buy up debt from Fannie, Freddie, Ginne, and hopefully me. (Grad school was expensive!)?? In addition, “The central bank also launched a $200 billion facility to support consumer finance, including student, auto, and credit card loans and loans backed by the federal Small Business Administration. This will lend to investors who hold securities backed by this debt.”

In addition to that Congress is expected to have a $500 billion stimulus package ready to go by the time President-elect Aitch (We called Bush “Dubya” so I’m just trying to get ready for Obama’s nick name.) gets to office.

In addition, we have a possible Detroit bailout, the addition of more funds to Citibank, and throw in a possible auto industry bailout and what do we have?? Well if all my additions are correct, $1 Trillion dollars deficit next year. ?Yes, like the title says, that has a “T”.? So they spent all the money they took from us in taxes and then the Fed is handing out freebies in the neighborhood of $1,000,000,000.? (Zeros are?for effect).

Look, I completely understand throwing someone a bone.? Maybe they left their wallet at home and need ten bucks to go get something to eat.? We didn’t agree to go into debt an additional ONE TRILLION DOLLARS though.? I mean, seriously?

-nick