In an article for Newsweek magazine entitled "The World According to John McCain", author Michael Hirsh ridicules McCain for calling the war on terror the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century". Hirsh writes - "he's indicated that anyone who disagrees with that premise - read Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton - is simply incompetent." Hirsh finds this to be an arrogant comment and believes it shows a flaw in McCain's character - his tendency to frame others as "wrong" on the issues.
I could not disagree with Hirsh more strongly. I believe the war on terror is by far the most important challenge facing the US at the moment. As McCain comments, "Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the most basic duty a president has - to protect the lives of the American people."
Why is this a hard concept? Terrorists want to kill us. Is that not more threatening than the temporary shape of the economy, immigration difficulties, or even the rising cost of health care? How can McCain's position be opposed by any rational, logical individual? Those who do not recognize this basic fact are clearly not prepared for the nation's highest office.
And since when is saying "I believe I am right and you are wrong" a sign of arrogance? I agree with him that any candidate that does not put national security first is not prepared to be president.
Anyone who disagrees with this view should spend more time explaining the basis for their disagreement and less time time attacking the character of those who hold the opposing view.
No comments:
Post a Comment