This is a new phenomenon. Presidents who lost the popular vote used to be a once-in-a-century rarity, but now seem likely to become commonplace. George Bush "won" the presidency in 2000 despite losing the election, and John Kerry came within an Ohio whisker of repeating the feat in 2004.
In the past half-century, the number of states in play in each election has halved, and the number of electoral votes up for grabs fallen to 180 (out of 538). However mediocre, a Republican can count on the Deep South and Midwest, and should he inch past the Democrat in a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania, he can win. It's a strange democracy where candidates need campaign in only a handful of states, but until we change the system, as we did for Senate elections a century ago, we're stuck with it.
Despite the wretched Bush presidency, which has done all it can to wreck the Republican Party, Democrats aren't home free. We cannot exclude ending up with Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or one of the others as president. So what are these gentlemen offering ... what trick can they conjure up to persuade Ohioans and Pennsylvanians and maybe Iowans and Floridians to forget the Bush years and cast the nation's lot again with the GOP?
Balanced budgets and strong alliances -- traditional Republican fare -- have become a mockery under Bush and his Republican Congress. Not likely Ohioans and the others will fall for that again. More tax cuts? But Bush's tax cuts created the fiscal mess we're in. And let's not even mention the dollar.
What of Iraq? A geo-strategic and moral blunder of historic proportions, Iraq is a millstone around every Republican neck. John McCain, a sensible man on most things who once was favored to succeed Bush, is as tainted by Iraq as Bush. How strange that these two men -- one a brave veteran of Vietnam and the other a war shirker -- have reached the same conclusion on Vietnam: that we should have sent more troops and fought on to Hanoi. Neither has grasped the primary lesson: the colonial era is over.
Deprived of traditional issues, Republicans have turned to the neo-conservatives, who gave us Iraq, for their new theme. They call it Islamofascism, and there is a competition among them to see who is its stoutest foe. Democrats, they claim, are soft on the thing they call Islamofascism.
Being soft on something or other has been a stalwart GOP theme for years. Harry Truman was soft on Bejing, Jimmy Carter soft on Moscow and Bill Clinton soft on Belgrade and Baghdad. But let's not forget that until Bush brought them out of the closet, neocons accused Republicans themselves of softism: Ronald Reagan was soft on the Soviet Union. His successor, George H.W. Bush, was soft on China and the Arabs.
For the neocons, few of whom ever saw military service, U.S. military power is the primary force for running the world. They see few political problems, especially in the Middle East, that can't be solved by force. A principal neocon goal is the use of U.S. power to protect Israel, a position that has brought them into confrontations with presidents, like Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, who saw U.S. interests in broader terms.
Islamofascism is as meaningless a term as "axis of evil," or "war on terrorism" -- other neological inventions that substitute slogans and fear for fact and reason. Who or what exactly is an Islamofascist? Al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban, Wahhabis, Salafists, Syrians, Iranians, Shiites, Sunnis, Pakistanis, all of the above? What about Turkey's PKK? One sees the problem: These groups and governments see Islam in different ways and none unites the principal characteristics of fascism -- power, industry, organization and desire for world conquest.
By hiring Norman Podhoretz, one of the original neocons, Rudy Giuliani has injected this absurd notion of Islamofascism into the presidential race. The other Republicans, led by Romney, have joined the chorus. They have Iran principally in their sights, an "Islamofascist" country that Podhoretz, and presumably Giuliani and the others, would have bombed long ago.
Iran's theocratic government is loathsome in Western eyes, but hardly bent on world conquest. Iran's desire for nuclear power, which dates to the time of the Shah, is understandable in a world of diminishing carbon fuels and rising oil prices, and it is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Last month Egypt indicated it, too, was going nuclear. Western nations would like to prevent Iran from converting its nuclear power program into bombs, and the burning question is how to do that -- whether to "war-war" or "jaw-jaw," in Churchill's formulation.
Whatever the neocons say, evidence from Iraq indicates that the bombing and occupying of large Islamic nations is a bad idea. It is costly, destructive and counter-productive. As we see from current events in Turkey and Pakistan, the debacle in Iraq already has marginalized U.S. influence in the region. Attacking Iran would have no international support, and though Bush will be soon gone, the debris of another war would complicate matters for his successor. Ground forces would also be needed, and the United States, thanks to Iraq, has none to spare.
Iraq and Iran, traditional enemies, once did a reasonable job of deterring each other, and Iran only has risen as Iraq has fallen. Republicans, still in thrall of the neocons, might like the idea of war against both, but for most of us the idea would be comical if not so deadly. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, such policy would create the amazing situation where these traditional enemies were joined together against the common invader: us.
James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Visit his website here. Submit a letter to the editor here.
Comments so far on this story:
1. Oh, brother wrote on November 7, 2007 9:28 PM:
"Study the subject beyond your knee jerk disdain for whatever Bush might do or has done before you bother us with a column on this again. Peace in our time, you probably think. And your readers who have any sense of history at all recognize the idiocy of your revisionism. Study, my boy. You embarrass yourself."
2. From Winston Churchill: wrote on November 7, 2007 9:28 PM:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
3. Edgar wrote on November 7, 2007 10:41 PM:
"It appears that after a suitable period to nurse his wounds following a barrage of attacks for his outspoken anti-semitic views published in VOSD, Mr. Goldsborough feels secure enough to ease back into political diatribe with this first attempt. He lays the groundwork for further scurrilous attacks against Israel and the Jews by testing the waters with oblique comments which certainly could not land him in such hot water again. Not all memories are that short, sir. Your next foray will be closely watched by a number of keen eyes who are not lightly disposed to letting neo-Hitlerite remarks pass unnoticed."
4. Joe wrote on November 7, 2007 11:00 PM:
"You sure can whine! I agree that the republican candidates are poor, but so are the democrat candidates. Also, are you really saying that there is no threat from fanatic muslims? Please acknowledge that the vast majority of current conflicts in the world are the result of fanatic muslims. Just because the president is a screw up, doesn't mean that there is no threat(very poor logic). Is there any war that you would call justified or should we start cowering immediately? It's not fear that can win it for the republicans, it's the whining from the left. Give people a plan for the future. Offer ideas instead of just complaining."
5. rrrr wrote on November 8, 2007 12:20 AM:
"I look forward to your column on the absurdity and futility of the war on drugs and the war on poverty."
6. Annoyed wrote on November 8, 2007 7:51 AM:
"Well, there you have it. I had no idea, really, that Islamofascism did not exist! And Jeepers, the president of Iran saying he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, and build nuclear weapons was just a coincidence! Silly normal brained me. And Bin Ladens latest video saying Americans need to convert, well I guess he didn't mean that. Nope, no world domination there. An d was the title of this "work" a mistake? Fetishism? Should the Iranian army invade and roll through the streets of San Diego, will Goldy be among the rabid throngs jumping and cheering, offering the soldiers chocolates and flowers? His rabid hatred of America makes me believe the answer is yes."
7. Sunset on Our Empire wrote on November 8, 2007 8:04 AM:
"What a pleasure to hear political discourse that does not follow the union trib's drum beat! Thank you!"
8. LCb wrote on November 8, 2007 8:20 AM:
"I'm not as disappointed in the candidate pool as I was a while back. I think John McCain is a good candidate, now that he's starting to re-emerge. Mike Huckabee would be a good candidate if he had a little more foreign policy experience."
9. In the Real World wrote on November 8, 2007 9:05 AM:
"This writer is living in Oz, and must have been on Gilligan's Island during 9/11 and the countless other Islamic terrorist attacks. Also, Iran's leaders have repeated there disdain for Isreal, the US and the western culture, and have indicated LOUDLY their desire to destroy all the above. If this writer had any real world understanding he would see the real dangers. Take a walk in the "real world" James, and get out of fairy tale land."
10. The Anti-Neocon wrote on November 8, 2007 9:34 AM:
"Don't let these mindless Bush goosesteppers bother you, Jim. We the Better People always point out that the GOPpers are soft, too. They're soft on freedom, for one; they're soft on civil liberty, on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Democracy and preservation of American ideals; they're soft on the environment, renewable energy--which is the root cause of our trouble in the mideast; they're soft on US sovreignty at home with their support of CAFTA; they're soft on cohesive reasoning---in short, they have a softness problem of major proportions and they're the kind who use the military as a kind of Viagra to shore up their inbred shortcomings. The American people need to make a choice: Be governed by a party accused of being "soft" or getting the real McCoy of Imperial Impotence in the form of the domestically abusive and criminally violent GOPpers and their quisling enablers."
11. Rolling Eyes in San Diego wrote on November 8, 2007 10:17 AM:
"The "war on terrorism" is "meaningless"? Iran's desire for nuclear power is "understandable"? I don't know what world Goldsborough is living in (or what kind of reefer he's smoking), but this is not an opinion piece-- it's drivel. My 5-year-old daughter is more grounded in reality than this guy."
12. Cheeky wrote on November 8, 2007 11:52 AM:
"JIMBO unintentionally hit the nail on the head: "desire for world conquest" is EXACTLY what Islam is all about. Read the Medina revelations that supercede the Mecca revelations in the Qur'an. Non-believers who will not willingly be taxed and submissive to Muslims must be killed. I repeat - MUST BE KILLED. That is exactly what Iran and Bin Laden have in mind. Iran has sent the warning to us. They will not be stopped at any cost. Americans (and the world) need to wake up and prevent this takeover, or life as we know it will cease to exist for our children and grandchildren."
13. Steve K wrote on November 8, 2007 2:45 PM:
"Do you scaredy-cats still feel safer, with the chicken hawks protecting you? Do you still have the duct tape and plastic sheets to protect yourselves from anthrax? Somehow, I don't fear Bin Laden or any other terrorists."
14. josil wrote on November 8, 2007 3:26 PM:
"Heee's baaack! the only Voice that is consistently anti-Bush and terrorist-friendly. He has now added the entire GOP to his enemies list."
15. Joe wrote on November 8, 2007 5:20 PM:
"I thought this was a discussion? What happened to the author and why does he not attempt to refute the reasonable counters to his arguments?"
16. matt wrote on November 8, 2007 5:36 PM:
"What the author seems to have forgotten is Islam already "conquered the world" (or what they felt was valuable) many years ago...and has since lost it. Much of the radicalism, that is expressed by terrorism, we are now witnessing is the result of a differnece of opinions between muslims on how to return to their "domination". As far as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is classic 4th generation warfare. We need to understand it is our enemy's goal to drag the occupations out to diminish the support of the US public. You can make your own assesments of what "victory" is, but to our enemies, every time the US pulls out, it is a victory to them (i.e. Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia just to name a few)."
17. D wrote on November 8, 2007 6:29 PM:
"Someone mentioned the "conservative U/T". The editorial page, yes. The paper in whole, nuh uh. Hugo Chavez for example. He says nasty things about America and the prez, and he's treated like starling, and pandered to with huge stories on the front page...anyone notice the photo on page A10 today? No story to go with it, just a few sentences mentioning 80,000 pro-democracy protesters, and the pro-Chavez gunmen firing at them. Yep, that U/T sure is conservative. As for James G, at least he's a little more subtle in his anti-semitism than that former VoSD "contributor" Keith Taylor. Scott Lewis, do you hire any "contributors" who don't hate Bush, Jews, and America?"
18. Don't worry about a thing wrote on November 8, 2007 8:01 PM:
"MOGADISHU, Somalia (CNN) -- An enraged crowd dragged the body of an Ethiopian soldier through the streets of Somalia's capital Thursday after gun battles with Islamic insurgents killed 19 people, witnesses reported. In a brutal echo of a 1993 battle involving Somali militias in which the bodies of U.S. troops were dragged through the streets, crowds Thursday shouted "God is great" as they pulled the bruised, bullet-riddled corpse through a dusty Mogadishu neighborhood. The body was bound hand and foot with wire and wrapped in a sheet of plastic when insurgents pulled it out of a car and left it with the crowd in the northern Mogadishu neighborhood of Suqa Holaha, witnesses reported."
19. Say, Steve K wrote on November 8, 2007 8:01 PM:
"Of course you don't fear Bin Laden or other terrorists. We've kicked their arses all over the globe, under George Bush. But I wonder, did you fear Bin Laden or other terrorists on September 10, 2001? No, you probably never thought about it, because you thought you didn't have to, just like now. Lucky for you there are grown ups around to do the heavy lifting in the world for you. Now get your head back in the sand before someone chops it off."
20. Edgar wrote on November 8, 2007 8:30 PM:
"Good point, D. I forgot about dear old, really old, Keith Taylor. Where is he now, anyway. Taylor was Julius Streicher to Goldsborough's George Lincoln Rockwell."
21. Ed wrote on November 8, 2007 10:02 PM:
"Please connect the dots for me on how the tax cuts created the "fiscal mess we're in"? It sounds like glib throw-away line to me. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to understand your logic. So I welcome your explanation."
22. Joe wrote on November 8, 2007 10:33 PM:
"The UT is no longer a conservative voice, it's a pro gay agenda / open border voice!"
23. JR wrote on November 9, 2007 2:47 AM:
"Wow. Bunch of chickenhawks rarin' to go at them pesky Muzzlimbs, eh? So why are you folks still here? And how do you explain the hundreds of millions of muslims world wide that haven't risen up, sword in hand, and hopped on the nearest plane, train, boat or camel and come over to cut the cowardly christians into mincemeat? Could it be that the majority of 'em aren't as bloodthirsty as we're told? To put it another way, would you be judged as some kind of 'Christian' by the ramblings of 'Let's-murder- Chavez-in-Venezuela' Pat Robertson? Fear is a terrible thing since it drains away all reason. I suggest to you posters to take a deep breath, turn off Fox, and get a life. The way too many of you are going, you'll wind up shoving strangers in ovens fome fine day. BTW, want to cripple the mideast? Buy a Prius."
24. Steve K wrote on November 9, 2007 8:43 AM:
"War on Terror--War on Poverty--War on drugs--Axis of Evil-Flip Flopper--Amnesty for illegal people--War on Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc, etc!! Are you fired up and inspired by all of these brilliant concepts? When I saw a film of Karl Rove from 1972--he was head of Young Republicans for Nixon. It became clear to me who has been running this country."
25. Edgar wrote on November 9, 2007 11:03 AM:
"Whatsamatter, JR? Give up on the losing Beach Booze battle and decide to direct your eloquence toward someone else?"
26. Annoyed wrote on November 9, 2007 3:07 PM:
"JR, did you hear of one Catholic who stood up in support of the pedophile priests? Did the Catholics keep their mouths shut, look the other way, refuse to condemn a fellow Catholic? Or did they roar out their disgust at the perversion that embarrassed them and insulted their faith? The answeres are pretty clear. Today, one quarter of AMERICAN Muslim men think suicide-bombing innocents is acceptable. And if they made a prius with towing capacity, torque, speed, and that didn't look like a silly little spaceship, i would get one."
27. JDMB wrote on November 9, 2007 5:40 PM:
"Edgar wrote on November 7, 2007 11:41 PM: "It appears that after a suitable period to nurse his wounds following a barrage of attacks for his outspoken anti-semitic views published in VOSD..."; I went back to the archives to see what Edgar is talking about, and couldn't find it; the only "antisemitic" commentary I know of from JOG was the one that got him fired from the UT: he said that Jewish voters would not back GWB in the election. And that's hardly antisemitic. I would appreciate some substantiation to the charge. Edgar wrote on November 9, 2007 12:03 PM: "Whatsamatter, JR? Give up on the losing Beach Booze battle and decide to direct your eloquence toward someone else?" To which I would respond "Whatsamatter, Edgar? Can't respond to the substance of JR's comment so you decide to change the subject entirely?""
28. JDMB wrote on November 9, 2007 5:50 PM:
"Oh, brother wrote on November 7, 2007 10:28 PM: "Study the subject beyond your knee jerk disdain for whatever Bush might do or has done before you bother us with a column on this again. Peace in our time, you probably think. And your readers who have any sense of history at all recognize the idiocy of your revisionism. Study, my boy. You embarrass yourself." You discard Goldsborough's statements without offering any substantiation or rebuttal: please tell us where James is mistaken."
29. JR wrote on November 9, 2007 9:04 PM:
"Edgar, you old codger, I'll never lose the beach ban, old son; I'll be one of the zillions having a clandestine brandy on the beach at sunset in spite of SDPD, Kevin Faulconer, Surfer Girl and the Business Improvement Districts hoping for higher property values. And as for this argument, you're obviously one of the many who bought wholesale what you've been told and haven't thought it through. Do you believe that all muslims are on the same page with terrorism? That every muslim nation is now an enemy? That we have to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? If you do, it makes you an extremist, too. Last thing we ought to do again is what we did the American-Japanese in WWII. As I said before, want to dry up the Arab world? Quit buying their oil. That is called a strategic blow."
30. Edgar wrote on November 10, 2007 10:00 AM:
"Hey, JR, this is good news about you and the beach booze ban. I hope you are frequently hit with $1,500 fines. Let me know when you get hit with your first one."
31. Oh, brother wrote on November 10, 2007 12:14 PM:
"JDMB, I don't get the space to detail his errors. But I don't need to. Most readers are at least of average intelligence and already know that my statement was true, and why it was true. If you don't, you should take the advice I gave him."
32. Be Afraid Be Silent wrote on November 14, 2007 11:31 PM:
""If ethnic cleansing can be defined as the forcible expulsion of residents from a region or territory to establish uniformity in an ethnically mixed population, and if the purpose of the expulsion is to evacuate the majority of the residents and secure the resources of the region for those left behind, then Israel has been ethnic cleansing for the past 60 years." - Israeli historian Ilan Pappe"
33. jad wrote on November 17, 2007 10:09 AM:
"According to this column, a Republican can only win the White House if exploits the inherently unfair and dangerous electoral voting system by tricking people in a couple of key states to vote for him. That is the real point of this column, the rest is a long winded supporting argument. A speed reading tip: whenever ones sees the word Neocon used more than twice in an article, you know the writer's agenda. Move over Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, we've got an unemployed former columnist trying to squeeze in."
34. JDMB (to Oh, brother) wrote on November 17, 2007 2:35 PM:
"Oh, brother, Please cite study material to refute these points: "Balanced budgets and strong alliances -- traditional Republican fare -- have become a mockery under Bush and his Republican Congress." "How strange that these two men ... have reached the same conclusion on Vietnam: that we should have sent more troops and fought on to Hanoi. Neither has grasped the primary lesson: the colonial era is over." "...neocons... see few political problems, especially in the Middle East, that can't be solved by force." "Iran's desire for nuclear power... is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... Western nations would like to prevent Iran from converting its nuclear power program into bombs, and the burning question is how to do that..." "Iraq and Iran, traditional enemies, once did a reasonable job of deterring each other, and Iran only has risen as Iraq has fallen." Thank you very much."
35. J.J. wrote on December 22, 2007 2:03 AM:
"I don't know what to admire the most between Goldsborough's supremely arrogant belittling of anything Republican, his denial of the reality of Islamic imperialism, or his typically leftist blinders on the fact that it is Israel that is under attack rather than the Palestinians. He most certainly lives in a parallel universe, and I wish he would stay there. The good people of San Diego should not be exposed to such drivel."
36. J.J. wrote on December 22, 2007 2:03 AM:
"I don't know what to admire the most between Goldsborough's supremely arrogant belittling of anything Republican, his denial of the reality of Islamic imperialism, or his typically leftist blinders on the fact that it is Israel that is under attack rather than the Palestinians. He most certainly lives in a parallel universe, and I wish he would stay there. The good people of San Diego should not be exposed to such drivel."
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
