It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Republican Transcendental Nonsense of “Terror” in 2008

-- By AdamGold? - 12 Feb 2008

Connection between Judicial and Political Nonsense

One of the biggest obstacles to the diminution of the use of transcendental nonsense in the legal world, is its current place of prominence in the political world. Cohen argues that useless words, or words that can not pay up in the currency of fact or actual experience, should be eradicated because they do not offer any concrete guidance for understanding the judicial system. It should come as no surprise then that the legal community utilizes such terms, including “due process” or “constructive” in ways which cannot be substantiated directly by facts of life. This is the case because the courts are the vehicles which interpret laws created and enforced by politicians. Thus, if the source of law is rampantly using transcendental nonsense, why should the courts be any different?

Terror and the Republican Candidates for 2008

“Terror” has been chiefly utilized by the Republican nominees during speeches, debates and campaign commercials. To say that, “the terrorists” are some aloof “Goldstein,” as in 1984, would not be correct. There are real people in the world who are really motivated to causing real destruction in the US with techniques commonly associated with terrorism as defined by common dictionaries. However, after reading Cohen’s article, I feel it would be interesting to discuss the ways in which “terror” is actually political transcendental nonsense. Just last week Mitt Romney ended his bow out speech with the sentiment that he must drop out of the race to prevent the terrorists from winning. However, does this statement, though logically insane, have a real-life factual basis? Common sense dictates NO. I will examine three possible factual underpinnings of this statement.

I. If a Democrat is elected in 2008, the Terrorists will win.

First, if a democrat is elected, the terrorists will win. I think the republicans largely confuse battling terrorism with battling terrorism in their way specifically. Clinton and Obama represent a call to soft power values where other nations are courted and not alienated. Wire taps are replaced with stronger social spending to help subvert unrest and implant better education and access to welfare programs. I believe this first logical conclusion is an implication of a desperate attempt to cling to an erroneous stereotype of the Republican party as a war time party. Both WWI and WWII were fought successfully under democrats. The Korean War was fought relatively unsuccessfully under a Democrat until a Republican was elected, not because he was a Republican, but because he was a war hero and ostensibly knew more about how to handle a nation’s military. The Vietnam War was fought equally poorly under both parties’ leadership. The first Gulf war was fought successfully under Republican leadership while the second Gulf War was, arguably, fought unsuccessfully under Republican leadership. Thus there is no real life correlation with the Democrats being weak war time presidents.

II. Terror is unrelated and external to US Policies

Second, terror is external to US policies and is unrelated to what the current Republican administration is doing to “stop” it. In other words, the Republicans want another 4 years to continue to protect the country from external enemies motivated to kill us because they hate our goodness. However, basic analysis would instruct the Republicans that the very policies they pronounce as vital for national safety are those that are most hazardous to national safety. In the wake of 9/11, Bin Laden explained that the US presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East generally, as well as oppressive economic imperialism were motivating factors for bringing down the Towers. It has been 8 years and the US has only increased its global military presence, especially in Iraq. Further the US still clings to the Davos agenda which continues to neglect third world debt forgiveness, currency flight, unemployment, and other dire economic issues around the world that had originally angered Bin laden. As a fervent patriot who wants to continually improve my country, it is plain to me that the US is not facing a completely external threat and must reevaluate its policies to address terrorism rather than isolate itself from common sense global repercussions of domestic policies. Thus, it does not follow that the Republicans can continue the same “successful” policies to continue to defend the US from an external threat through 2012.

III. Reublican Party Leadership is More Important than Individual Leadership

Third, the Republican party leadership is more important to fighting “terror” than individual leadership. Romney’s statement logically presumes that having a republican in the White House, even his despised rival John McCain? , would be a better choice than Clinton or Obama. This is premised on the flawed idea that the Republican party has some sort of power greater than the individuals who comprise it. In the US system, the party does not dominate politics at the executive level to the extent that parties in parliamentary systems do, despite what the framers may or may not have intended. The US did not persevere during WWII because a Democrat was in office; it persevered because FDR was a skilled leader. Similarly, the extenuating circumstances in Iraq right now surely cannot be blamed for poor Republican leadership. Rather, it can and should be blamed on poor strategic planning by the chief executive. The most important aspect for an entity in crisis is great leadership at the top. Just ask Bear Sterns investors about the consequences of poor executive leadership of former CEO James Cayne in the previous year’s sub prime meltdown. Romney would have been able to base his statement in real life facts if he attacked Clinton’s ability to make independent decisions in a crisis or Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. However, failing to acknowledge the importance of individual leadership, either in reference to the poor skills of Clinton or Obama or the strong skills of McCain? or Huckabee, demonstrates Romney’s use of meaningless nonsense in issuing his statement.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamGold?

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list