A friend writes to chide us for Viewpoint's partiality to George Bush (See Get Tougher On Bush on the feedback page) and for our reluctance to be as critical of his shortcomings as we are of Senator Kerry's. His concern is well-taken, not only because he's a very bright, reasonable, and honest guy, and not only because he has written a very thoughtful piece, but also because he happens in this instance to be correct. Viewpoint has indeed been on Bush's side in the current campaign and we have withheld criticism of the President while trying to make the case that Senator Kerry lacks the most important qualities we want our president to possess.
It might be helpful to explain why we don't adopt a more neutral stance. My brother Bill and I started Viewpoint last May for several reasons. One was that we felt that our culture was becoming increasingly secularized, even to the point of being hostile toward the Christian faith. There is a widely accepted belief in the Western world to the effect that religion is outmoded and obsolete; that it is nothing but myth and superstition; that it lacks any credible epistemic basis and has nothing to say to modern man. We wanted to add our voice to those who believe that socially, culturally, and philosophically this belief is a grave mistake.
A second reason for starting our web log was that we were dismayed by the failure of the Mainstream Media (MSM) to present a balanced picture of the policy issues confronting our nation and the men who would lead us. We believe there is not only a deep-seated bias against George Bush in the MSM but, more than that, a profound antipathy, even hatred, for him.
Bill and I hoped that we could perhaps be a voice, albeit a small one, in our little corner of the world, that might offer a tiny dissent against the roar of the MSM megaphone. In order to do this we felt we had to concentrate on the positives about George Bush and his policies since his opponents in the MSM were already engaged in the business of denigrating them. We also felt that much of the criticism of the president was manifestly unfair, even dishonest, and that the only realistic alternative to Bush, John Kerry, is completely unsatisfactory.
It's not that we think President Bush is perfect. We don't, and in fact the last time we talked about it, Bill was not even prepared to vote for him. George Bush is wrong, as far as we're concerned, on spending and immigration, among other things. He can also be faulted, perhaps, for some aspects of the post-war in Iraq. Even so, there are three issues which trump everything else in this election: The war on terrorism (of which the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a subset), the appointment of federal judges and supreme court justices, and the economy. On the last, Bush's judgment on spending (and, for Bill, globalism) is questionable, but his opponent's is worse. On the first two issues there is simply no contest between the two candidates in either of our minds.
For this reason, Viewpoint has taken the position that it is imperative for the welfare of this nation and the future of our children that Bush be re-elected. Four more years of George Bush will not guarantee success in the three paramount matters mentioned in the previous paragraph, but we can't accept replacing him with a man who has spent twenty years in the Senate without having a single major accomplishment to his credit and whose votes, and the political company he keeps, are uniformly indicative of a man whose policies would be quite detrimental to the long-term good of this nation.
We're not neutral about this nor do we pretend to be. We have religious and political points of view which we believe are preferable to their opposites and we wish to use our humble little forum to advocate them. There will be time enough after the election to explain our disappointments with the president, but now is not the time. Too much is at stake.
