-Cavet Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> -Cui Bono- William F. Buckley, Jr. - ON THE RIGHT Friday, January 11, 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------ NEW HAMPSHIRE HEADLIGHTS The two presidential debates and their immediate aftermaths were fine, strenuous exercises in democratic practice. It was smart of C-SPAN and of Chris Matthews to move into the scene immediately, to question the candidates and to bring in the intimate, earnest questions of individual spectators, especially the very young, whose questions tend to be innocently earnest. They were bracing reminders of the value of television in such heady exercises as aspirant presidents are going through in New Hampshire. On the larger scene, we see in Gore and Bradley two very skillful debaters. They know keenly the uses of the bell. If a question is a little decomposing, why, rattle on until the two minutes are up and accept, with apparent regret, the constraints of time that kept you from developing your points more fully. But two questions, one of them having to do with gun control, the other with gays in the military, brought out interesting differences in character and approach. Gore, the Fabian; Bradley, the Bolshevik. What is the ideal, in the matter of gun control, as far as Gore is concerned? It is to get all handguns registered. But -- but -- he is not endorsing legislation to that effect because great endeavors are done a mile at a time, and what he wants now, he told the audience, is such lesser measures as outlawing assault weapons and Saturday Night specials. Not so for Bradley; he wants the instant realization of his vision. It is so also in the matter of gays, though with sophisticated differences. The two players believe that it is as manifestly correct that gays should move about within the military without any trace of difficulty, as it was true that American blacks should have been noiselessly integrated in the armed services. But now we saw a slighter difference in approach than in the matter of gun control. Gore would question candidates for senior positions in the military, a litmus-test, he all but acknowledged. If General Jones felt as President Gore feels about the matter, then General Jones would qualify to serve as a chief of staff. President Gore would question the general on these matters before deciding whether to promote him. A waste of time! -- President Bradley would simply say to General Jones: My position on gays in the military is total, seamless integration. And since I am the commander in chief, it is manifest that that will be the policy you implement. Moreover, Mr. Bradley knows the philosophical implications of his position. It is up to the leader, he says, to animate the ideals of the public -- this is what leadership consists in. Gore's position is one step removed from this. He believes that acquiescence is more gradually achieved. Leaving entirely to one side whether it is desirable that all guns should be registered or that gays belong in the military, the differences in political approach are relevant to a voter's decision in which direction -- Gore or Bradley -- to go in the Democratic contest. Abraham Lincoln's metamorphosis comes quickly to mind. Lincoln believed passionately in two propositions. The first was that slavery should be forbidden. The second, that self-government requires a consensus. It can be argued that Lincoln failed, inasmuch as what came wasn't a progressive consensus on the matter of full liberty for the slaves. Rather, the question was settled by a civil war. But Lincoln's philosophy survives the historical narrative. He truly believed that unless the majority of the citizens of the republic, expressing themselves through the mediating devices set up by the Constitution, reached a conclusion on so grave a question, temporizing was exactly the thing to do. Fight an extension of slavery in the territories, fight the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, fight the legislation that called for returning fugitive slaves -- but stop short of anything like an emancipation declaration. There are differences, obviously, between categorical behavior intended to free black Americans serving as slaves -- differences John Brown did not apprehend -- and insisting on the registration of all privately owned arms. On the matter of the gays, the relevant question surely is whether at a level beneath that of commander in chief, judgments should be solicited on the question of what is needed to induce high morale in the military. The argument that there is no difference in overcoming conventional sexual discrimination and overcoming conventional racial discrimination is not self-evident. Something else is at stake, and the exchanges among the six Republican candidates, no one of whom wished to go any further on the issue than the current arrangement, yield a clear national issue. And we have also some flavor of the political character of the two Democratic contenders DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
