Should Conservatives Support the Peace Candidate?

It has been our editorial position here at ConservativeBattleline.com that the stakes involved in the 2004 election were not all that high. We were wrong and now believe the re-election of George W. Bush is crucial. What has changed? Let us explain.

The last two months have made it clear, at least to us, that President Bush will do a better job in handling Iraq. The reason is counter-intuitive but nonetheless of critical importance. George Bush is more likely to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq and to do so more quickly than John Kerry. Sen. Kerry has had every opportunity, with everything to gain politically after setting his bona fides at his convention, to say that he would withdraw troops earlier. Except the unrealistic idea that the Europeans would fight for us, he has refused to give the slightest hint of disengagement anytime in the near future. George Bush has, as we will demonstrate.

Our earlier case that the election made little difference was based on five assumptions. Non-defense discretionary government spending has increased under President Bush by more than twice the average of the last two Democratic presidents, and a huge new entitlement was initiated while his recent predecessors created none at all. Conservatives simply could make no case for him in regard to unnecessary government spending. Second, even on social policy, where the president has been much sounder, everyone agrees that the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice is the most critical policy choice. Yet, here, Mr. Bush has made it known that he wants to appoint the first Hispanic to the court, his White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales -- who is not a conservative. Third, the GOP would likely hold on to at least a majority in one house of Congress and be able to block any mischief by a president John Kerry. Fourth, President Bush has already made the critical changes needed for the war on terror and it is inconceivable that Mr. Kerry would reverse those policies, if for no other reason than bureaucratic inertia and the political costs of doing so. Finally, it was reasoned that the two candidates' positions on Iraq, the final issue of importance, was indistinguishable.

Based on these facts, we argued, a rational conservative should conclude that it did not matter much who won. But now George Bush has told us he would be the more prudent president on Iraq, even if almost everyone has missed his signals. In the second debate, he complained that one of his cabinet officials misinformed him. Most thought he meant the former Treasury secretary. More likely, he referred to CIA Director George Tenent who, in response to probing question by his chief, told him it was a "slam dunk" there were weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda connections in Iraq. How could a deceived president not consider that worse than poor economic advice? Moreover, Mr. Bush admitted that he had incorrectly defined the war as a general one on terrorism rather than a war on ideological extremists. Finally, he said we could not win the war in Iraq in the conventional sense of winning. Of course, after political apoplexy by his campaign advisors, he retracted both later statements; but personal experience at the very top with three presidential candidates convinces yours truly he still believes what he said.

The facts on the ground support this view of what the president will do. He and his administration have made holding the Iraqi election in January 2005 their top priority. The secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said elections would be held even if a substantial part of the electorate could not safely cast a ballot. "Any implication that that place [Iraq] has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition forces I think would obviously be unwise." Of course, he made the obligatory backing-down statements but he said it and those who know him know he meant it. Secretary of State Colin Powell has not only said elections will be held on time, he has said if a newly elected government asked the U.S. to leave "we would leave." The most influential person in Iraq, the majority Shi’a Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has said every conversation with an American should end with, "When are you leaving Iraq"? Obviously, every Shi’a candidate will promise to ask us to leave at the earliest possible moment.

On top of this, conservative columnist Robert Novak reports that the U.S. military will demand more troops after the U.S. election and, "there is a strong feeling within” the Bush Administration “that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year, without ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement." Apparently, the Kurds would remain in an autonomous zone and the Shi'a majority would be allowed to control their previous Sunni oppressors. Even neo-conservative guru, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, is reportedly resigned to this. Novak believes that a President Kerry would "take the same escape route." We do not think so. Kerry would most likely be terrified at the political repercussions for "losing Iraq" and his party is the more congenial one for nation-building in any event. His likely advisors would probably tell him to tough it out for a while, as the older Democratic ones did in Vietnam. In 2000, on the other hand, candidate Bush said he was opposed to nation building in principle.

There is better authority than rumors for our belief. President Bush himself -- in a statement ignored by all the media -- said we would leave Iraq by December 2005 at his news conference of April 13, 2004, when he also supposedly went "off script." The president's maddening repetition of slogans can be rationally explained as the only politically possible tactic for a candidate who has already made up his mind to leave at the earliest reasonable moment. Those who are supporting the president in the hope he will build them a world empire to promote democracy will be in for a big letdown. The neoconservatives will be devastated and will probably return to the Democratic Party, as leader William Kristol has already threatened.

There are also a few key Senate elections that could make all of the difference in the world to conservatives. In the Senate a few courageous leaders can change everything. The nation is still suffering from the loss of Phil Gramm and Jesse Helms. Two possible replacements are running this year--Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Both are such straight shooters, they are in some political danger. The better President Bush does, the better they will do too, in their heavily Republican states. Their election alone should sway some of the 15 percent of conservatives (the polls that say there are only 3% undecided are only counting conservative Republicans but not conservative independents who are often more ideological) who still have not decided how to vote for president.

The 2004 election will make a great difference, contrary to our earlier expectations. But who could have known that the peace candidate in this election would turn out to be George W. Bush? He is, and every conservative who loves our fighting troops and wants them out of danger immediately after Iraqis gain control of their destiny following their election, must remember that when they vote. ConservativeBattleline.com has had as many or more reservations about Mr. Bush as anyone on the right, and they have been fully reported here. But an honorable peace must be the first priority for any philosophy based on respect for human life and freedom. We endorse George Bush for president.

Donald Devine, Editor.

Email the Editor