We Shoot Guns- Lots of Guns

So writes former Marine Marco Martinez, author of the new book Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero in a highly entertaining article for TownHall.com in which he asks the very valid question, "Why are conservatives and Republicans more likely to support the military than liberals and Democrats?"

As one might expect, Martinez provides an answer- a list of reasons why conservatives tend to be more supportive of the military than liberals. According to him, these reasons include,

1. The military sees a clear difference between good and evil.
2. Veterans view themselves as servants, not victims.
3. The military stresses hard work, self-discipline and personal responsibility.
4. Service members understand that freedom is not free.
5. The military shoots guns. Lots of guns.

Martinez then proceeds to illuminate each of his points with examples as to why conservatives find much more affinity with servicemen and servicewomen than liberals. As Martinez writes about the idea of good versus evil,

The minute you start thinking that there’s no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong, it’s virtually impossible to support an organization like the military. The military applies lethal force in the service of what our nation deems “good” and “right.” If you believe that nothing is black and white, and that everything is morally gray, it’s hard to choose sides.

Some liberals sort of remind me of that lyric from that old song that goes: “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

Marines don’t “disagree” with the enemy. We shoot to kill.

This is an idea that most liberals reflectively recoil from. They prefer to go to photo-opportunities with people like Kim Jong Il as Madeleine Albright did, or to sit down and hug evil dictators, as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter so love to do. Conservatives and military members, in contrast, prefer to eliminate the menace before it can eliminate us.

But Martinez' best line comes when he writes Reason Number 5, "The military shoots guns. Lots of guns." about conservatives' affinity for the Second Amendment. Martinez then says of his final point,

Okay, so I thought I’d lighten it up a bit. But I’m only half-joking. Conservatives support gun rights and the use of lethal force to protect innocent people. The military does, too. As I say, violence isn’t senseless. Senseless violence is senseless.

Yes, and this is the fundamental difference between consservatives and liberals, and the ehart of why conservatives are so much more likely to support the military. Conservatives, as Martinez writes, believe that it is appropriate to use force, inlcuding lethal force, to protect their principles and to protect those who are innocent. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believe that force is never justified, unless it is for something that has absolutely no relationship to their own interests. This is why liberals like to use the military as a glorified police force- something for which it was never intended- and conservatives understand its true nature.

Until liberals can both understand and appreciate the need to use force in defence of one's peinciples, they will always lack in supporting a military that they can neither understand nor appreciate.

Deeds, Not Words

Liberals love to talk. They are the masters of words. Conservatives as a rule are not great talkers. They prefer deeds. This has been evident for some time.

Today, Eric at the Tygrrrr Express has posted a wonderful article about liberals' words versus conversatives' actions. While I find it difficult to improve on Eric's essay, I would like to point out the following:

Liberals like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter sat down with their opponents and talked. Once in a while, they are fortunate enough that their guests have plans that they can take credit for. This happened to Carter when he hosted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin. They signed a treaty. Carter provided a location.

Conservatives on the other hand, are not usually great talkers, with Ronald Rreagan begin the rare exception. Conservatives prefer to act, not talk. When Kim Il Sung, backed by Red china, invaded South Korea in 1952, Harry Truman did not talk- he acted. the result is a free South Korea. When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, he faced a deadly enemy in the Soviet Union. He realized that they could not possibly compete with us, and we proceeded to win the Cold War. tTe result was a free Eastern Europe and an end to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, George H.W. Bush acted- he sent the United States military to dislodge Hussein. The result was a free Kuwait. When George W. Bush saw that Iraq was a problem in the global war on radical Islam we are currently fighting, he also acted before the problem could get worse- he sent in the United States military. The result, if the Democrats and the Left fail to convince us of defeat, will ultimately be a free Iraq.

Liberals' plans for a better world seem to involve lots of Big Government and the lessening of actual choices for ordinary people like most of us- children of privilege like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards somehow seem to expect that their ideal State will leave their massive wealth somehow intact.

Conservatives' plans for a better country usually involve getting government out of people's pockets and allowing more personal choice. While many liberals are undoubtedly well-meaning people, they lack an understanding that we live in an imperfect world and the only way to ensure our own survival is to be strong enough to fight and win when our lifestyle and our culture are attacked. Talking to a Stalin, a Hitler and a Mao Tse-tung (or a Saddam Hussein, for that matter) never works unless the dictator is frightened enough to do as you ask. Only strength can dissuade would-be conquerors. Ask the men and women of Constantinople- their weakness and that of their allies allowed Islam to conquer one of the oldest Christian cities in the world, and turn the greatest church in Christiandom into a mosque.

Liberals keep talking, but it is conservatives who guarantee them the freedom to do so. Keep that in mind the next time a liberal starts talking about how we can make the world a better place.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Common Sense

I may have said this before, but Jerry Pournelle is a voice of real common sense in an increasingly nonsensical time. Back in February of this year, he wrote a commentary on liberalism that remains required reading for those of us who are avowed conservatives, libertarians and such.

Read the whole thing. If I have linked to this before, my apologies. However, I believe that it can never be read too many times. And there is much of interest on the rest of his site as well, including an amusing comment on the Great Illegal Walkout. Mr. Pournelle's report makes me wish the illegals would stage walkouts every day of the year.....

Hat tip to Mentok.

War and the American Left

The Left's view of the war on Iraq continues to confound me. Apart from the exceptionally clear-eyed Christopher Hitchens and a few others, the Left is simply in denial as to the nature of this conflict upon which we are currently engaged. Radioblogger has a wonderful exchange between Ron Reagan Jr and the afore-mentioned Mr. Hitchens. The execrable term "bitch-slap" defintely applies here, as Mr. Hitchens takes Ronnie to the proverbial woodshed for his lack of understanding and historical perspective.

However, the exchange proves little other than that most leftists are incapable of putting aside their fervent and damaging partisanship long enough to confront the threat that this country and indeed our civilization, face from the Islamists. I would provide a point of reference, however. In 1996, then-President Clinton launched missile strikes against Iraqi targets (as documented at the time by CNN) to punish Iraq for attacking the so-called Kurdish safe areas. The Republican response, voiced by then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, was praise for Clinton's action and a recommendation of even stronger military action. There was no chant comparable to the oft-repeated "Bush lied, people died" from the conservatives. The same was true in Somalia and even in Kosovo. Conservatives wondered how these operations advanced U.S. interests, and there were rumblings of worry regarding the percieved wasting of valuable resources on non-strategic objectives, but by and large the Right supported the actions, despite their misgivings. The same spirit is evidently not true of the Left- unless it is in power at the time.

Compare the differing reactions from the media on Clinton Administration warnings of Iraqi danger as opposed to how the same media organs reacted to Bush's essentially restating the same facts less that three years later. If the charges were true in 1998 when advanced by a Madeleine Albright, why were they less true in 2002 or 2003 when advanced by Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell? It seems to me that the answer is that it was a despised Republican making the arguments, not a beloved Democrat.

I would wish that the left today would show the patriotism that their forbears showed in Korea, World War II and even in Vietnam. However, I fear that the days of the Democratic Party as one of loyal opposition may be gone forever.