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.
(13 votes, average: 2.15 out of 5)
Loading ...
Qualtere fired the first shot with this article, and straight-up ended the war with this one: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/
Elliot,
You are the precisely the greatest danger America faces.
Libertarians are tearing apart the very fabric of American conservatism. You love to parade as intellectuals and great ideologues but in the midst of it- you just don’t get it. You don’t understand it.
You are not a patriot. You are not a freedom-loving person- you are just a leftist under the banner of freedom hidden in the right-wing spectrum of politics.
It’s high time all the conservative institutions and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Leadership Institute get rid of the anti-war libertarians. They are the antithesis of everything that makes America great. Too much of the Washington conservative movement has been overrun by you libertarian leftists. You aren’t social conservatives. It’s time to break up the big love-in. Reagan conservatives, not libertarian softies.
Qualtere was on the money. America is good, and better than the rest. It’s that simple. We are the light of the democracy in the world- and the first people to come to any country or people’s assistance when they need us. We have everything to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of.
We want good, proud conservatives, not half-arsed, limpdick, unpatriotic, happy-go-lucky, I want to be free to smoke-my-weed libertarians like you.
Grow a set.
It’s easy for you to say we should do whatever it takes to “win” in Afghanistan. That’s very brave of you to stand up and sacrifice other people’s sons, daughers, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and daughters to uphold your view of conservative and American pride. What will be more shameful, pulling out of Afghanistan with a public declaration that we will no longer waste American resources rebuilding a corrupt country outside of our national interest? Or leaving when because the United States is broke, with thousands more dead brave Americans having made the ultimate sacrifice? Why ignore the tragic lesson of Vietnam? Why ignore the fact that this same insane foreign policy had us funnelling billions to Saddam Hussein Osama Bin Laden not that long ago?
Our country is broke, and our failed foreign policy is much to blame. Your emotionally charged argument is one that I would have wholeheartedly supported until I was awoken from my neocon slumber by Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, we can no longer affort to ignore the history of blowback and the reality of our fiscal insolvency.
Tom, we’ve started a discussion on your article if you’d care to join in: http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy
Sir-
I am a soldier. An infantryman, no less. I am also a member of the “9/11 generation” and saw and see it as my duty, when there is war, to fight. But your phrase, here-
“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.”
Is more than a little irritating, as is your entire article. I fight not because I believe we must, or because the enemy “hates our freedom,” so on and so forth. I fight because, for the Republic to become what it was and ought to be, it must survive. I fight because I am willing, and able, and could not ask someone to go in my stead, as you seem so proudly able. Sir, if you believe so strongly in these wars, then your place is in the ranks. Any less is dereliction of duty. Wars do not fight themselves, and your ridiculous assertion that you merely chose “a vocation on the home front” are insulting. There is no home front in these wars. This is not World War Two. This is not a war to determine the future of the western world. This is an attempt to kill a tactic, to fight an idea. Are we helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Should we be, at the expense of our own? I don’t know, and without history shedding light on our present and recent past, I likely won’t. But I digress.
You claim to be for liberty and small government, and yet your self-proclaimed idol did little to advance either, and did quite a bit to the detriment of both. I fight, sir, that liberty may be reborn, and live on. When we sacrifice our ideals on the altar of defending them, we have already lost.
A hawk you are, and nothing more. It is said that old men start wars, and young men fight them; you fly in the face of this maxim, a young men willing to start them without the decency to fight them. To those of you reading this who don’t see “national security” as the one thing in this world worth having, I beg you. See the sacrifices made, and make them worthwhile. Fight for liberty, for the rights of the individual, fight for the Republic. Not on the battlefield- I, and those with me, are here to fight for the body of the United States. There is a far more important battle raging for its soul. Fight for the Country the founders envisioned. If we continue down the path we’re on, we’ll have power, and little else. Liberty is everything. As Patrick Henry is claimed to have said, I know not what course others may take- but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
A libertarian response to this article on behalf of Young Americans for Liberty –
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/eagles-we-were-eagles-we-will-be-again
Dude… we are not the 9/11 generation. That’s sic that you would even think that. Get over your trauma. We have better, more positive things to associate our generation with. One for instance is the Ron Paul Revolution.
Listen, cousin, in a debate, one needs to rebut the other person’s main points if one wants to win the argument. If you’re serious about urging conservatives to support an interventionist foreign policy abroad, you’re going to have to: 1) explain away why the ‘old right’ conservatives like Taft, Eisenhower etc. warned about the ‘military industrial complex’ 2) explain how we’re going to afford this perpetual war in the midst of the worst financial crisis in years 3) explain how intervening in the affairs of other countries/toppling governments actually ‘doesn’t’ come back to bite us 4) explain how a ‘preemptive, undeclared’ war is constitutional and ‘doesn’t’ set the precedent for future abuses 5) explain why its okay for us to occupy them, but not okay for them to occupy us 6) explain how a ‘war on terror’ can ever truly be won 7) explain why sanctions and tough talk ‘doesn’t’ actually make the Iranians ‘more’ likely to pursue nuclear weapons
explain why the new front is Pakistan, when the war was only supposed to stay in Iraq 9) explain how focusing abroad ‘doesn’t’ make us more vulnerable at home (Colonel Hasan ring a bell?) 10) explain why Vietnam was a success
The onus is on you, cousin, not me. History is riddled with examples of how war-mongering led to overextended nations and economic collapse.
If you can do that, then I’ll take you seriously.