This past week I had occasion to take part in a press conference with Rev. Jesse Jackson after his speech at Cahn Auditorium. Rather than unleash the obligatory slew of anti-Jackson rhetoric that we on the Right love - especially at Jerry Falwell's swingin' cocktail parties - I'm going to try to answer some of the statements and arguments that Rev. Jackson made. Somebody has to.On Lula da Silva
While at this time it appears that Mr. da Silva is the front-runner in a runoff in Brazil, that doesn't lend any more credibility to his platform. "Lula," the nominee of the Workers Party, would be, according to Rev. Jackson, "the most credible and substantial democrat in the hemisphere" if elected. That, simply put, is untrue. Mr. da Silva has openly commended autocrats like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, darlings of the Left but still brutal despots. There is an assumption that because he runs for the "Worker's Party" that a da Silva presidency would help workers. In fact, reducing the Brazilian role in the global market, increasing taxes and regulation and anti-business legislation will, in the long run, do the common man far more harm than good. Moreover, if Jackson is looking for a good hemispheric neighbor, da Silva's words on atomic proliferation stand by themselves. On September 13 he said:
"It is not fair that developed countries, who have nuclear weapons technology, demand that others not have them or deactivate what they have. All of us developing countries are left holding a slingshot while they have atomic bombs."
Da Silva has criticized Brazil's compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He has also hinted loudly that he will default on the $200bn in loans currently outstanding for his country, which could prove the fatal blow to a nation whose currency was devalued 66 percent in a span of weeks. It also bodes poorly for Brazil's neighbors, but then, da Silva supports the FARC and various other pseudo-Marxist groups in South America, so his concern can't be for the community with which Rev. Jackson claims he wants to connect. This "credible and substantial democrat" would be little than a socialistic, anti-American nuclear-armed Chavez-ite. Exactly what Brazil needs, of course.
On President Bush
While usually relying upon innuendo to take shots at President Bush, Rev. Jackson would occasionally make clear attacks. Launching up the now-classic "stolen election" routine, Jackson called into question the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency and all of Bush's motivations. The Left, with its obsession with the 2000 Election, strikes me as similar to "that guy" at a party who had one good anecdote that elicited a big laugh the first time he told it, and so now repeats it ad nauseam. The Election of 2000 is over. Yes, I may be angry about the "Corrupt Bargain" of 1824 and I may still quietly fume over the original "stolen election" of "Rutherfraud" B. Hayes over Sam Tilden, but I try not to vent in public that much. Possession is 9/10 of the law, and George W. can tell you everything you need to know about possession. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats have so little in their arsenal to hurl at the President that they resort to red herrings. Jackson has done a good job of obfuscating so that his audiences don't actually know the substance of Bush v. Gore, so he harps on an issue that doesn't matter.
In addition to the obligatory "Bush is an idiot" quips, Jackson also evoked the powerful and hackneyed image of Bush as another Rightist imperialistic war-monger. (You can't be a conservative without being called an imperialist or war-monger at least once.)
In the classic sense, nothing Bush has done is imperialistic. We're not hoisting Old Glory over Baghdad and transforming Saddam's palaces into White Castles. The arguments about Iraq are to follow, but just one point here. Why is it that every American foreign policy move prompts cries of "imperialist!" and yet when the Chinese threaten to invade democratic Taiwan, protesters are as hard to find as Ted Kennedy's neck?
On Iraq
The vast majority of Rev. Jackson's speech concerned Iraq, and in various forms why the United States should not go to war. At one point he said that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, while later on he spoke of how Saddam gassed the Kurds. Got that? Iraq has no WMD, but the Kurds were gassed. We must be dealing with Saddam Houdini.
Iraq has WMD. They sponsor terrorism, openly. They threaten America and Israel. It represses its people. We are in a position to change this. If we happen to get some cheap oil out of it in the process, so be it. There's nothing wrong with realpolitik. Frankly, we get some oil, the Iraqi people get a real democracy and everyone goes home happy. Those who say "why Iraq, there are so many other autocratic regimes", the answer is for those despots to watch and learn. And take a number.
Overall, Jackson's speech was an outstanding oratorical display that skirted the hard truth about the issues of which he spoke. Style without substance, so to speak. Unfortunately, more and more American youths tend to find substance merely in style. The night did offer one candle in the dark. A student whose name was lost in the clamor stood up, asked the hard questions and squared off with Rev. Jackson. I still haven't found out his name, but that took a great deal of courage, at least for an imperialistic war-monger. That, however, is the kind of courage that keeps America great and, incidentally, gives this paper any circulation at all. Me? I read the Chron in the Pit at Bobb at 3am with no lights on.
Kudos to the nameless questioner. He Kept Hope Alive.
