Freedom & Progress

Regular readers of this Blog are well aware of Freedom & Progress's disdain for polarized politics and slavery to dogma or pure ideology. This past election seemed to be the culmination of political polarization where neither Kerry nor Bush ever went against the so-called "base" of their respective parties and voiced an opinion that was genuinely their own.

Freedom & Progress generally believes that the majority of Americans are independent thinkers and reject false dichotomies in political discourse. The truth is that most individuals are conservative about some issues and liberal about other issues. There is nothing wrong with that. That is called, "thinking for oneself".

Michael Barone, in the latest U.S. News & World Report, argues that perhaps 2008 will signify a departure of the politics of polarization. In his piece, "An End to Polarization," Barone identifies the early emergence of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic frontrunner and either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani as the Republican frontrunner as evidence that the public is also growing tired a polarized election.

Barone accurately admits that it is way too early for a final call, as none of the three frontrunners are close to a nomination, However, it is telling that McCain's popularity stems from his seeming independence from the RNC, or that Hillary Clinton has not flinched in her support of the Iraq War. Indeed, perhaps the time has come for a realignment of the electorate.

Our friend, the Bull Moose, is also hoping for a centrist rising in 2008. While the term, "centrism" connotes "unprincipled" to many ideologues on both sides of the isle, Freedom & Progress contends that to the majority of free-thinkers in America, centrism may in fact represent independence and consistency.

Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, argues that the United States needs to adopt a new strategy in fighting the War in Iraq, specifically a strategy based in principles of counterinsurgency warfare. Mr. Krepinevich convincingly attributes the difficulties in prosecuting the Iraq War to a combination of a clear lack of post-war planning on the part of the Pentagon and Bush Administration, a cultural history of inter-tribal violent struggle within the Iraqi society and al-Qaeda's strategic decision to make Iraq the major theater in its war against the United States.

Mr. Krepinevich argues that the Coalition forces ought to abandon the current strategy of hunting down and killing pockets of insurgents, and replace it with what Krepinevich refers to as "oil-spot strategy":

Rather than focusing on killing insurgents, they should concentrate on providing security and opportunity to the Iraqi people, thereby denying insurgents the popular support they need. Since the U.S. and Iraqi armies cannot guarantee security to all of Iraq simultaneously, they should start by focusing on certain key areas and then, over time, broadening the effort -- hence the image of an expanding oil spot.

This counterinsurgency theory, of course, rejects the Rumsfeldian approach of a smaller, more mobile and tactile force of American military for the 21st Century. Freedom & Progress welcomes such rejection. It is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to step aside and allow new leadership and fresh thinking to prevail as the United States determines what course of action is best to decisively win the War in Iraq.

Indeed, a clear victory over the twin forces of the insurgency and al-Qaeda is the only clear objective for the Coalition forces in fighting the Iraq War. Moreover, victory is an objective necessary (though admittedly not sufficient) to further the American policy of bringing democracy as well as stability in the greater Middle East.

Thus, those who champion ending the War effort now, and admitting defeat, are misguided by their desire for peace. As Krepinevich concludes, "[T]he costs of such premature disengagement would likely be calamitous. The insurgency could morph into a bloody civil war, with the significant involvement of both Syria and Iran. Radical Islamists would see the U.S. departure as a victory, and the ensuing chaos would drive up oil prices."

Christopher Hitchens authored another compelling work making the moral case for the Iraq War. In this week's Weekly Standard, in an article titled, A War to Be Proud Of, Hitchens again enumerates the several failures of the progressive forces in international relations to prevent genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and several instances of pure dictatorial aggression throughout the 1990's. After such failures, Hitchens ponders, as Freedom & Progress often does, how any progressive-minded thinker can truly believe that America is a bigger threat to universal human rights than Saddam Hussein.

Hitchens also lists the many improvements in Iraq in the post-Hussein era and wonders aloud why the Bush Administration cannot make as compelling a case as he. Indeed, Freedom & Progress often wonders the same thing.

However, Mr. Hitchens brings it all home in the conclusion of his latest piece:

Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.

Thank you Mr. Hitchens, and like you, we here at Freedom & Progress will keep on fighting the good fight. Contributing what we can, in this war that we can be proud of.

Bill O'Reilly takes a lot of heat from both sides of the ideological spectrum. However, Mr. O'Reilly would be a fan of Freedom & Progress, (if someone told him about us), for we also reject those prone to extreme thinking. This is not to suggest that Mr. O'Reilly and Freedom & Progress are in agreement on every policy issue. Surely we are not. However, we both are able to spot blind dogma from miles away, even when such dogma holds itself out as informed opinion.

In Mr. O'Reilly's "Talking Points" of 24 August 2005, he enumerates a list of indicia that one is an extremist. While the list is surely not meant to be exhaustive, two points hit close to the heart of Freedom & Progress.

• And if you agree with everything President Bush has done, you're an extremist.

• And if you think everything he's done has been wrong, put a big 'E' on your forehead as well.

Freedom & Progress has never been able to comprehend how individuals, who hold themselves out as free-thinkers can agree with the President, no matter how inconsistent his actions are. Conversely, Freedom & Progress is perplexed at how other "free-thinkers" automatically dismiss Mr. Bush, no matter what he says or does.

For instance, during the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush specifically rejected the concept of "nation building" and/or using the United States' military for humanitarian reasons. During this time, Freedom & Progress disagreed with candidate Bush on this subject, as progress dictates that the advancement of freedom, human rights and the elimination of genocide are causes worth fighting for. At the build-up to the Iraq War, when President Bush invoked humanitarian objectives relative to the removal of Saddam Hussein, Freedom & Progress applauded the President for the courage to change his views, while others who backed previous humanitarian military missions opposed the President, simply because it was this President who advocated this new mission. On the other side of the aisle, many who were deficit hawks in the 1990's are absent from public criticism of the President for his great silence on the exploding deficits of today.

Freedom & Progress seeks out true free-thinking Americans to be bold enough to assert their independence from dogma and extremism. As Mr. O'Reilly opines, "[E]xtremists have a neurosis. They really don't want to hear anything other than the conclusion they've arrived at, no matter what the evidence suggests."

Be free to reach your own conclusions and form your own opinions. And if you can link this Mr. O'Reilly, please feel free to do so.

Freedom & Progress demands a common-sense approach to America's health care and health insurance concerns. It is a frightening position to live in this country without adequate health insurance. When one is un-or-under insured, it is likely that one does not receive adequate health-care. Progress demands that Americans receive preventative care. Preventative care involves yearly physical examinations, regular blood tests, and supplements (read: pharmaceuticals, vitamins, and natural remedies) to prevent health concerns our genes predispose us to. When one is adequately insured and thus receives adequate preventative care, one enjoys more freedom.

Freedom & Progress ponders, as Malcom Gladwell of the New Yorker does:

Do you think that people whose genes predispose them to depression or cancer, or whose poverty complicates asthma or diabetes, or who get hit by a drunk driver, or who have to keep their mouths closed because their teeth are rotting ought to bear a greater share of the costs of their health care than those of us who are lucky enough to escape such misfortunes? In the rest of the industrialized world, it is assumed that the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be. The reason the United States has forty-five million people without coverage is that its health-care policy is in the hands of people who disagree, and who regard health insurance not as the solution but as the problem.

As a matter of moral principle, all Americans should be afforded adequate health care. Thus, health insurance for all Americans would represent progress. As Americans enjoy more of their health, they will enjoy more freedom.

Ever since the beginning of the Iraq War, Freedom & Progress has been frighteningly in tune with Slate's Christopher Hitchens. While Freedom & Progress often disagrees with Mr. Hitchens in connection with a variety of other subjects, when it comes to identifying and advocating the moral authority of the War in Iraq, there is no disagreement whatsoever. The ousting of Saddam Hussein from power is nothing but a victory for all of human rights and human dignity. Regardless of the identity of the administration who chose to overthrow Hussein and his autocracy, the world, particularly the Muslim world is surely better off.

“It’s a matter of solidarity with the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to Saddam, and trying to turn American policy in their favor,” said Mr. Hitchens. “I’m on their side, win or lose …. I could never publish an article saying, ‘Come to think of it, we never should have done this,’ because I could never look them in the face …. So, no, I don’t have any second thoughts.”

Having experienced the frustration that naturally comes with wanting to maintain the Freedom &Progress Blog at the same time as having a full-time career, as well this author's utter hatred for inertia, Freedom & Progress today begins a new endeavor. Aside from periodically providing commentary on the issues facing the day and exploring ways to achieve both freedom and progress in confronting these issue, Freedom & Progress will provide a daily reading list of links to ideas that resonates or intrigues we here at Freedom & Progress. Our readers will be able to comment on what we link too, and Freedom & Progress will respond accordingly.

Freedom & Progress begs our readers' collective pardon for our long silence, but fear not, we have most certainly been paying attention.

Let us re-earn your faith.