“AND THE WINNER IS…”

By Edwin Cooney

One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.

It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.

Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.

The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.

The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?

As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.

When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.

As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!

And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY