Thursday, February 23, 2006
Ports Contract: Dividing Conservatives, Uniting Liberals
The current administration is put into an awkward position when the original company is bought out by a company from the United Arab Emirates. To automatically cancel the contract on this basis alone would alienate an important, though imperfect, ally. And had the administration done this, the charge from many in the same camp would have been "xenophobia!" But I suspect that what motivates much of the criticism is the opportunity to appear stronger on terrorism than the Bush administration, while uniting against a common enemy: the Bush administration. Their alternative to warfare has been to secure our borders (with the exclusion of "undocumented workers" from Mexico and Central America, but that's another posting).
The division is demonstrated on the pages of techcentralstation. Lee Harris there http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206H expresses an understandable response of outrage to the administration's decision. James Glassman, publisher of that online journal, however, takes a free market approach. He points out that even a British or German company could be excluded on the same basis: both unintentionally harbored the 9/11 terrorists. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206H And wasn't Florida where they took flight lessons? Glassman's point about security remaining in American hands adds support to his argument. But I am still uncomfortable. Ann Coulter in her delightfully acerbic way comes down hard on the administration in her column: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21414
My question is: why isn't an American company given these contracts? I would suggest that the "American" company, though, be screened for those who demonstrate loyalty to the United State.
I remember back to the Clinton administration when the free market met political correctness. Even the readers I used for teaching freshman composition at the University of Georgia touted multiculturalism as a way to prepare students for the "global economy." I can't tell you how many times I saw that sentiment repeated banally on freshman essays. Parents and administrators at my son's elementary and middle schools encouraged parents to push their children to take Spanish-- to prepare for the job market. The bilingual signs at Wal-Mart demonstrate their prescience.
I suspect that the liberals would like to see a government agency take over the ports function, just as they want to keep the government in charge of education, health care, and just about everything else. Now imagine civil servants in a Hillary Clinton administration running this show. As exposes like Whittaker Chambers' Witness demonstrate, subversives often like to work for government agencies. Would the Ward Churchill intellectuals see this as an opportunity to further their goals of undermining the United States, and the entire West, which they have succeeded in brainwashing the youth into thinking of as oppressive, murderous, imperialist, etc.?
What if we did let an American company do the job? Might we not run into the same problem? Would extensive background checks--on either government employees or employees of an American company--invite charges of "McCarthyism" from the left? (Today's 'McCarthy-ite' charge: are you or have you ever criticized someone for having communist leanings? snicker, snicker, and unspoken: you hopeless, paranoid rube who doesn't even understand the difference between true Marxism as explicated in places of higher learning and vulgar Marxism.) Even American citizens, as we have seen, have been involved in terrorist operations.
Loyalty needs to be a determinant. Criticism and debate occur among patriots. But first we must have loyalty to the values of the West. We need to start at the beginning, at the those who educate children. I applaud David Horowitz for his book on the professors. But as he has stated, these are the most egregious examples. The campaign to undermine Western civilization must be halted. The intelligentsia in the most influential positions have devoted careers to questioning and undermining the values that most of middle America holds dear. We need those who are dedicated to upholding the values of the West in education and industry. But I suspect that that is not what the left really wants in terms of the ports contracts.
Ports deal goes deeper than the obvious issue. This could have easily passed thru with no controversy. However, for about the last 2 or 3 years, the WH has forgotten:
- What coordination with the GOP Leadership in Congress means
- how to get a handle on their own departments, which, at a minimum entails knowing what there departments are doing, when it comes to policy, major undertakings, or when in action is likely to cause political consequences.
- WH was blindsided by this (what else is new) and the reaction was the worst of any President since Carter.
Until the WH gets its act together, by not only planning these things with the Congressional leadership, but also getting its own administration on the same sheet of policy music...these idiocies will keep on happening.