THE WANDERER, MAY 5, 2004

JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH

Demonstrating for Death

     On Sunday, April 25, perhaps as many as a million 
people gathered on the Washington Mall. It was billed as 
a demonstration for "choice," but it was also an 
anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Kerry event.

     One banner reportedly said, "Barbara Bush should 
have exercised choice." Nice, eh? The obvious, and ugly, 
meaning is that President Bush should have been aborted. 
But it's also a confession that "choice" means abortion. 
A woman who carries her child to term isn't "exercising 
choice."

     A more suitable banner for these peace-loving folk 
might have read: "Kill babies, not Arabs."


Was Bush Negligent?

     President Bush's critics argue that he was 
insufficiently vigilant before the 9/11 attacks and that 
he might have prevented them if he'd heeded intelligence 
warnings. Maybe so, but there is an obvious answer, and 
it's surprising that none of his conservative defenders 
have made it.

     With the enormous growth of the federal government 
over the past century, every president has been swamped 
with tasks. The few functions assigned to the government 
by the U.S. Constitution -- such as "the common defense 
of the United States" -- are now diluted, and inevitably 
demoted, among the thousands of unconstitutional 
functions that have been superadded to them.

     On September 11, 2003, Bush was supposed to be 
"managing the economy," administering countless programs, 
supervising the welfare state, enforcing thousands of 
federal regulations, protecting the environment, fighting 
racial discrimination, promoting public health, and so 
forth and so on. Of course Bush accepted all these as 
part of the job, but his liberal critics also demanded 
it. No Democrat was demanding that he give top priority 
to looking out for terrorist attacks.

     At the time, guarding against terrorism was only one 
among the stupendous hodgepodge of presidential duties 
under the rules both parties took for granted. On that 
fatal day it suddenly vaulted to the top of the list, and 
Bush is being judged harshly in hindsight. This charge is 
grossly unfair, especially coming from those who have 
done so much to overload the role of government in our 
lives.

     If Bush had been concentrating on defense as his 
essential and chief concern under the Constitution, he 
might conceivably have prevented the 9/11 horrors. But 
that's purely hypothetical. If he'd done that, he'd have 
gotten no credit for it, and the Democrats would have 
complained that his obsession with terrorism was causing 
him to neglect his duties to the orphan and the widow.

     The more inessential functions the state assumes, it 
has been said, the worse it will perform its essential 
ones. But neither of our major parties can define 
"essential" functions of government; both accept the 
sloppy notion that its purposes are boundless, that it 
has no limits, that it may and must keep multiplying its 
responsibilities and therefore its powers.

     In a word, this is insane. Imagine the look on James 
Madison's face in 1787 if someone had suggested to him 
that the new Constitution should empower the "general" 
government, as it was sometimes called, to save the whale 
or discourage teenage smoking.

     That government has now expanded to the point where 
it creates or aggravates most of the problems it is 
expected to solve. Bush is open to criticism on many 
grounds; as I wrote recently, he seems to have no sense 
of measure. It's only fair to add that hardly anyone else 
does either.

     That's why all our political arguments are so 
inconclusive and pointless: There are no longer rational 
criteria for settling them. So we are left with confusion 
and shouting matches.


Kerry's Secret Weapon

     "A lot of people don't really know who I am," John 
Kerry said recently. The trouble is that it doesn't seem 
to help when they do. The WASHINGTON POST has just done 
a long profile on the lighter, warmer side of Kerry, only 
to conclude, in effect, that it doesn't exist. The dark 
side of this moon is just as cold and rocky as the 
familiar side. Even when he pokes fun at himself, the 
jokes fall flat. Maybe he should try abortion gags. The 
guy has all the charisma of Mike Dukakis in a thong 
swimsuit.

     Twenty years ago, the press was full of loose 
allegations that Walter Mondale was actually a live wire, 
once you got to know him. But "Psst -- that Fritz is a 
real card, I'm telling you" didn't quite carry him to the 
White House. And after all, he was running against a 
matchless raconteur.

     Still, Kerry campaigns doggedly, in the belief that 
he can galvanize audiences by shouting about the economy. 
It isn't working. This is a man who can achieve monotony 
in a single sound bite. And if these are his highlights, 
what must the rest be like? It's fine to campaign 
doggedly, but when the crowd has to listen doggedly, 
you're in trouble.

     Quick: What's Kerry's message? I don't know either. 
First it was that he wasn't Howard Dean, which proved he 
was "electable," and now I guess it's that he isn't 
George W. Bush, which doesn't seem to be enhancing his 
electability much. He's also trying to assure us that he 
isn't just another Massachusetts liberal, but it's a 
little late for that. You can't very well deny what 
you've spent your whole career proving to the hilt.

     We've already reached that point in the campaign 
when the press discloses the candidate's "secret weapon": 
inevitably, his wife. Teresa Heinz Fortune Kerry is 
appearing on magazine covers, and she brings to her 
husband's race for the White House something it 
desperately needs: a personality. (And money, of course.)

     Unfortunately, Kerry seems to want to keep this 
secret weapon secret. She's fresh, outspoken, funny, 
spontaneous, and surprising. But there's the rub. Devout 
feminist though he is, Kerry has to worry about what 
Mrs. Kerry may say in public.

     NEWSWEEK quotes her: "I don't view abortion as just 
a nothing. It is stopping the process of life." She 
believes that "women, generally speaking, do not want to 
have abortions. With the exception of people who are 
mindless -- and there will always be mindless people of 
both sexes -- most women wouldn't want to."

     Not exactly the sort of stuff we were hearing on the 
Mall the other day. And the last thing a Democratic 
presidential hopeful needs is his own wife talking like 
some sort of *Catholic.*

     No wonder she makes the Kerry campaign nervous. 
They're afraid she might turn out to be George Bush's 
secret weapon.


"Nothing Wrong with That"

     The liberal Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has 
narrowly survived a primary challenge from Pat Toomey, a 
conservative Republican congressman. The aptly named 
Specter enjoyed the endorsement of our allegedly 
conservative president, who, sounding a bit embarrassed, 
allowed that the pro-abortion senator is "a little 
independent sometimes -- nothing wrong with that."

     We can't let little differences over killing the 
unborn get in the way of party loyalty, can we? After 
all, the Senate majority is at stake, and Specter is 
deemed more "electable" -- sound familiar? -- than 
Toomey.

                 +          +          +                  

     Even in an election year, SOBRAN'S will endeavor to 
find hope and humor. If you have not seen it yet, give my 
office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, 
or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New 
subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More 
details can be found at the Subscription page of my 
website, www.sobran.com.

     Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription 
for a priest, friend, or relative.
                                        --- Joseph Sobran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2004/w040506.shtml".

This column copyright (c) 2004 by THE WANDERER, 
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.

This column may not be published in print or Internet 
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER. 
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use 
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street, 
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.


"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are 
available by e-mail subscription. For details and 
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

This page copyright (c) 2004 by THE VERE COMPANY.