American

Crossposted at RedState.

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
- Sun Tzu

Patrick’s post today on de-gimmicking the conservative movement makes an excellent point. We need to choose our battles, find conservative policies with overwhelming public support, and vigorously advance them in non-ideological terms. The approach worked with the Contract for America in 1994, and it worked with Drill Here Drill Now last year. When we find conservative policies with overwhelming support and draw upon the American people to create change, it works very well.
 
President Obama's January 22nd executive order, which ordered the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, opened the door to such a winning 80/20 American issue. President Obama’s order will close the Guantanamo facility within one year of its signing and ordered an extensive revision of terrorist detainee policy which would determine where the Guantanamo detainees will go and what will happen to the detainees of the future. The executive order was a controversial document that has been assaulted from both the left and the right. However, most Americans overwhelmingly agree with conservatives on the key issue at hand and we should use this opportunity to advance sound national security policy, not gimmickry.
 
The Combatant vs. Criminal Battle and the Features of the Field
 
At its core, this is a struggle over whether terrorist detainees should be treated as civilian criminals or as combatant prisoners of war. Conservatives typically believe that terrorists should be treated as combatants, and liberals believe they should be treated as criminals.
 
This is a complex issue, and the major polls investigating the question can sometimes be misleading. For example, a recent ABC poll claimed that Americans supported trying detainees in civilian courts over releasing them to their home countries by a 2-1 margin. This may seem to demonstrate support for the terrorist-as-criminal position, but the question did not include the option of military tribunals.
 
Fortunately, when presented with the choice of providing detainees with civilian trials or using the military tribunal system, Americans strongly believe terrorist detainees should be treated as combatants, not criminals. In a January 27th Rasmussen poll, 69% said that terrorists should not be given all the rights of citizens, and 59% supported using military tribunals vs. 26% who supported using civilian trials to process detainee cases.
 
Furthermore, Americans do not want Guantanamo detainees (and presumably future detainees) transferred to the US, and certainly not in their own communities. A recent Opinion Dynamics poll reveals that 63% of all Americans, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, do not want prisoners from Guantanamo Bay moved to prisons in their community, and a 52-47% majority do not want them in the US at all.
 
It is important to note that Guantanamo Bay itself has a negative connotation in the minds of the public that puts downward pressure on polling regarding the central criminal vs. combatant debate. The Rasmussen poll did not mention Guantanamo Bay in its questions about military tribunals and measured a large 33-point terrorist-as-combatant majority, while the ABC poll measured support for ‘continuing to hold [detainees] at Guantanamo’ rather than military tribunals and returned a relatively small 53-42 majority in favor of the terrorist-as-criminal approach.
 
With this knowledge and the work of Frank Luntz in mind, it would be wise for those of us who hold the terrorist-as-combatant view to let the Guantanamo Bay facility close. We should instead focus on the future by pushing the Administration to adopt a forward-looking counterterrorism detainee policy that is based on the terrorist-as-combatant view held by most Americans when Guantanamo is out of the picture. Sixty-eight percent of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats, right-of-center terrorism experts Charles Stimson and James Jay Carafano, and even Newt Gingrich support the creation of a new set of clear international rules to set transparent guidelines for how countries can fight the War on Terror. If the process of creating these rules is transparent, the American people have the ability to provide their input into the process, and we have experts to publicly articulate the terrorist-as-combatant approach, the result would be a clearer, more stable system than what we have now which would ensure that dangerous combatants are not treated like fish in some catch-and-release system and allowed to return to the battlefield and kill again.  
 

Barack Obama’s victory has resulted in a lot of poorly reasoned commentary. There are many who, on the strength of two bad elections, declare the Republican party extinct and conservatism dead. Then there are those who declare that Obama’s 52-46 win (with every possible political wind behind him) a resounding mandate for Obama’s liberal policies. And there is a great deal of overblown praise of Obama’s seemingly limitless political savvy and leadership strength. But unquestionably, the most annoying meme is the idea that America has now, with Obama’s win, officially transcended racial divisions. This idea manages to be both obviously wrong and nauseatingly conceited.

Proponents of this view, which is found on both the left and right, see America’s acceptance of Barack Obama as a sign that we have finally moved past race, and that doing so is a major historical event and a convincing sign of American virtue. Norah Vincent wrote in the LA Times that “the world is actually proud of us too, and more than a little surprised. It didn't think we had it in us. To tell you the truth, neither did I”. Peggy Noonan gushed that “[Obama] confounded history to get [the presidency]. What a thing this is going to be to see. What luck to observe it.”

The fact that America has elected a black president is an exhibition of its relative color-blindness, at least compared to a generation ago, but is hardly historically significant and certainly not surprising.

Hollywood has shown black presidents for years. In “The Man”, James Earl Jones played a black president, as did Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact.” “24” character David Palmer was a very popular fictional black president, at least until he was assassinated (on the show, of course, not in real life).

And in real life, Colin Powell probably could have run for the presidency on either party’s ticket in 1996. He wasn’t guaranteed a victory, of course, but his impressive poll support was clear evidence that wide swathes of America were open to the idea of a black man running for president. For that matter, the intensely polarizing Jesse Jackson ran respectable presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988. Obama’s victory may be a victory for race relations—but it is about as surprising as hearing of a Catholic winning an election in Utah.

And not to rain on anyone’s parade, but the fact that a black man has become president of the United States is historically significant only if one takes a relentlessly Amerocentric view of history. Blacks were treated horribly in America—first as slaves, then under Jim Crow. But compared to other historical turnarounds, the liberation of black society isn’t particularly remarkable. Jews are now accepted in Germany. India’s people peacefully overthrew their British rulers and set up a fairly functioning democracy. Japan managed to check its imperialistic impulses and is now allies with the very nations it attempted to conquer seventy years ago. Black America has come a long way—but compared to the above examples, its story isn’t particularly extraordinary.

And even if one thinks it is comparable, it’s worth noting that America is still de facto segregated. Blacks are now allowed to vote, to send their children to school wherever they like, and to assemble without fear. Whites, at least the vast majority, no longer fear or worry about blacks. But it’s rare to see blacks and whites living together. Schools are mostly separated into white and black schools. White and black youth culture is different (though there is some crossover between the two cultures, whites tend to listen to pop or country music, whiles black seem to prefer hip-hop).

Black and whites don’t intermarry to any significant degree. When going to any young people’s hangout, whites and blacks usually stay apart.

(I can’t speak from personal experience, but it would be interesting to compare racial attitudes in America and a European country, such as England. According to some articles I’ve seen, racial attitudes over there are much more relaxed. That may be true—they couldn’t be much less relaxed than they are here—but I can’t think of any prominent European politicians, or any other influential characters, of color).   

Racist slurs are considered unacceptable, and any racial prejudice is the one sin that is considered unforgivable. White people, at least the ones I know, aren’t motivated by racial dislike—they simply don’t seem to know many black people. And the blacks I know are the same way—they don’t dislike whites, they simply don’t seem to have much in common with them.

I can’t say why the relationship between whites and blacks isn’t closer, except that I doubt it is solely due to racial tension. But our society is still effectively segregated today, and Americans might want to hold off the self-congratulations of their tolerance and sensitivity until it isn’t.
 

The Republican Party lost the election because They Allowed people like Governor Charlie Crisp to pick who the presidential candidate would be.  They Removed the rights of the voter to go to the polls and vote for who they wanted to support.  If the voters had been able to have their vote count in the primary then John McCain (sorry Mr. McCain) would not had been allowed through the front door.  The Republican Party had Hillary Clinton already picked, she was the demo They Wanted to run against.  They Thought, that the "Most of the Time Liberal, sometime conservative" McCain was the Decorated Grandpa they needed to run against her.  They Took away his rocking chair and they pushed him to go forward into the Abyss of Lies...McCain smiled all the way while calling everyone, “My Friend.”  I don’t want a friend in the White House who is going to take names, then kick bottoms.  I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO WILL KICK BOTTOMS FIRST THEN TAKE NAMES.  And by the way, I would had voted for Colin L. Powell if he had run for president...but I had doubts about him when he said his wife was afraid for him to run.  Now I think, I don’t  know for sure, but I wonder if the black panthers would had murdered him.  Powell showed his true color (true color has nothing to do with his skin color) by supporting a man who lies.  Powell is a raciest and a traitor and I wouldn’t pour water on his behind if it was on fire.

1. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama LIED, and, the Republican Party and McCain never pushed for him to keep his word at how he would raise money.  The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama’s Web Site contributions of who he Secretly Collected Money from is why a "liar, cheater, and thief" will be president.  The Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain are no better than the Democrats because of how the party conducted business, or did not conduct business.

2. The Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama and The Social Liberal Democrats was given the election on a Gold Platter given to them by the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain...In no way did Governor Sarah Palin have anything to do with it.

3. The 2008 SLIME Machine (Social Liberal Influential Media Election) Was a Historic Blessing in Disguise for all Patriot (red, yellow, black and white) Americans;  Because of the Republican Party, Governor Charlie Crisp and John McCain and McCain people, all of us Dull, Bible Carrying, Gun Owning, Game Hunter, Beer Drinking, Soda Drinking, High Class, Low Class, Middle Class, Rich, Poor and Always Helping Others, Loving Country, and Giving Thanks to GOD Patriots, discovered too late this time that the Social Liberal Barak Hussain Obama is a Liar and Social Liberal Raciest who wants to change America & the WORLD...he can have the world but he will never get America.  Patriots love America and they love Governor Sarah Palin.  Mr. Obama and other blacks and mulottos believe it is more important for them to be African than to be a plain dull American Patriot , Wow How Dull it is for him and other blacks and mulottos to be just a plain dull American.  He should be in the Melting Pot with all of us Colorful Dull American Patriots who loves God, Country, Guns, etc. and Governor Sarah Palin, and, don't forget we go by the plain old name of American.

From The Great State of Tennessee,
Dull American Patriot and Proud of It.
Oops,
American

Justice Is Blind and So Should Be the Color of Our Skin.  Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious in His Sight, Jesus Loves the Children of the World.

P.S.  Warning Notice:  Don’t forget, the Angelic Cunning Lucifer Union hates Blessings.

Why am I, along with many other Americans, against unbridled, illegal immigration?

To hear the pro-illegal pro-undocumented almost-citizen crowd tell it, I'm against those black brown  people of color who make up the majority of illegals.

Well, that's a flaming lie not quite correct.  I come from a long line of native Americans (by that term, I mean someone whose parents were born here).  But, as I was born in 1951, I knew many recently arrived immigrants.

And those were actual immigrants - people who filled out the paperwork, waited their turn, and, finally, arrived - ready to work.  The overwhelming majority of them became citizens, as soon as they qualified.  Even before that, they started learning the language - it was considered essential to being able to manage in the new country.  Most of them still used the former languages, in their homes.  With me, and others who were not able to speak that language, they switched to English - heavy accents, broken syntax, and all.  They did that, knowing their acceptance was enhanced by adopting the language and culture of their new land.

Their children were, like the rest of my friends, gung-ho (yes, I realize that's a Japanese phrase) Americans.  They seldom spoke the old tongue, except with grandparents.  They resisted dressing in the native costumes of their parents, rolled their eyes when parents started talking about "the old days" (not unlike American kids - we don't "get" that ancient history), and worked hard to fit into the new culture.

Parents were torn - on one hand, they wanted to pass on traditions.  On the other hand, they took pride in how well their children fit into the mainstream.

In general, immigrants brought a little of the Old World, and blended it into the New.  They liked to keep the same religion and foods, but added on new tastes, a little at a time.  By the time the 3rd generation came along, they had become just another American.

Not so today - too many immigrants feel that Americans are the ones who need to make the changes.  They expect that they will be able to keep their language intact, and pass it along, unchanged, to the next generation.  They want to keep ALL their heritage in place - including that part that directly contradicts the laws of America.  Hence, Americans are being called "narrow-minded" for not recognizing multiple marriages.  It must be racism to not celebrate the wonderful, women-friendly practices of polygamy, clitorectomy, and "honor" killings.

Further, immigrants too often feel that all government services should be theirs, by right.  They seem not to understand the concept of rights that are limited to citizens.  Funny, that - in their home countries, if I were the immigrant, I would have NO rights.