The Most Crucial Election in 50 Years?

Midterm elections aren't often as important as this one. On Tuesday we are not electing a president, but we are  making an historic choice ——  possibly a life—and—death choice. It is comparable to the election of Abraham Lincoln before the Civil War, and Harry Truman's victory over Henry Wallace in the 1940's.

If that sounds dramatic, ask yourself:

Do you believe the United States is at risk of an attack from terrorists? Are you concerned about the growing collection of madmen with nukes around the world? Do you think a forward defense is the only realistic way to protect ourselves? 

If so, you will vote one way.

On the other hand:

Do you believe that global warming is a greater danger than Islamic fascism over the coming years?  Do you think that Osama Bin Laden, if captured, should have the full rights of an American citizen in a criminal case? Do you believe that we are safe from attack because "only" 3,000 people were killed on 9/11?

If so, you will vote the other way.

Tomorrow's choice couldn't be clearer.

It is often said that our armed forces will not lose this war, but we can lose it here at home.  It's the voters who will decide. We'd better hope for the right decision.

The last public debate as important as this one was more than 50 years ago. In 1947 Harry S Truman promulgated the Truman Docrine —— the anti—Soviet containment policy of the Cold War. Although  he was a lifelong Democrat, the hard Left hated Truman with a passion for that. Henry Wallace, who came very close to inheriting FDR's presidency, was a vehement critic of the idea of breaking with Uncle Joe Stalin. Truman's Cold War policy became hotly controversial, and he lost a great deal of popularity.

The parallel with George W. Bush is startling.

The country was deeply divided in 1947 when it tried to decide if the Soviets were a threat, but the main division was within the Democratic Party. Today the split is partisan, with the Left tiptoeing very close to a hate—America line. It isn't any fun to see Bin Laden and al—Jazeera echoing Democrat talking points, but it certainly is happening. 

Islamists play on our internal divisions. That's exactly what Stalin did sixty years ago, through the medium of the CPUSA and its many fronts. Today, the idea of Left—wing front groups is alive and well: George Soros pays for several of them. We also see an increasing number of Islamist fronts around the country: ostensibly non—partisan "civic" organizations, Salafist mosques, "Middle Eastern Studies" programs at the universities, and even Soros' group intended to counter AIPAC.

One result of our internal division in the 1940s was the smuggling of nuclear secrets to the Soviets. The Manhattan Project leaked like a sieve because its scientists had a kind of lighthearted contempt for simple security precautions.

I see the same attitude in today's academics. According to some historians, Stalin was seriously considering a nuclear strike against the West, but died before giving the order in 1953. If Soviet spies had not stolen nuclear secrets from the US, that could never have happened. 

So our internal wrangles about national security are serious business.

The disastrous security practices of the Clinton years were not new either. Today, Chinese rockets launch much more reliably because the Clintons were unbelievably sloppy or corrupt in protecting our missile launching technology. What China knows today, North Korea and Iran may know tomorrow. The dangerous Clinton years simply repeated the national security disasters of the New Deal, when Harry Hopkins would sit down with KGB agents and explain FDR's private thinking.  No doubt Hopkins felt he was only contributing to peace. It's the same mindset.

Since the 1940's the Left has been the greatest source of division about national security. The Right has its battles, but it doesn't undermine our safety. Because more than 90 percent of our antique media writers vote Democrat, our security divisions are constantly broadcast to our enemies abroad: A dangerous business. It constantly undermines our friends, and strengthens those who wish us dead.

Life or death, anyone? We certainly hope it doesn't come to that. But would you bet on it?

Vote your conscience on Tuesday. A lot may depend on it.

James Lewis is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

Midterm elections aren't often as important as this one. On Tuesday we are not electing a president, but we are  making an historic choice ——  possibly a life—and—death choice. It is comparable to the election of Abraham Lincoln before the Civil War, and Harry Truman's victory over Henry Wallace in the 1940's.

If that sounds dramatic, ask yourself:

Do you believe the United States is at risk of an attack from terrorists? Are you concerned about the growing collection of madmen with nukes around the world? Do you think a forward defense is the only realistic way to protect ourselves? 

If so, you will vote one way.

On the other hand:

Do you believe that global warming is a greater danger than Islamic fascism over the coming years?  Do you think that Osama Bin Laden, if captured, should have the full rights of an American citizen in a criminal case? Do you believe that we are safe from attack because "only" 3,000 people were killed on 9/11?

If so, you will vote the other way.

Tomorrow's choice couldn't be clearer.

It is often said that our armed forces will not lose this war, but we can lose it here at home.  It's the voters who will decide. We'd better hope for the right decision.

The last public debate as important as this one was more than 50 years ago. In 1947 Harry S Truman promulgated the Truman Docrine —— the anti—Soviet containment policy of the Cold War. Although  he was a lifelong Democrat, the hard Left hated Truman with a passion for that. Henry Wallace, who came very close to inheriting FDR's presidency, was a vehement critic of the idea of breaking with Uncle Joe Stalin. Truman's Cold War policy became hotly controversial, and he lost a great deal of popularity.

The parallel with George W. Bush is startling.

The country was deeply divided in 1947 when it tried to decide if the Soviets were a threat, but the main division was within the Democratic Party. Today the split is partisan, with the Left tiptoeing very close to a hate—America line. It isn't any fun to see Bin Laden and al—Jazeera echoing Democrat talking points, but it certainly is happening. 

Islamists play on our internal divisions. That's exactly what Stalin did sixty years ago, through the medium of the CPUSA and its many fronts. Today, the idea of Left—wing front groups is alive and well: George Soros pays for several of them. We also see an increasing number of Islamist fronts around the country: ostensibly non—partisan "civic" organizations, Salafist mosques, "Middle Eastern Studies" programs at the universities, and even Soros' group intended to counter AIPAC.

One result of our internal division in the 1940s was the smuggling of nuclear secrets to the Soviets. The Manhattan Project leaked like a sieve because its scientists had a kind of lighthearted contempt for simple security precautions.

I see the same attitude in today's academics. According to some historians, Stalin was seriously considering a nuclear strike against the West, but died before giving the order in 1953. If Soviet spies had not stolen nuclear secrets from the US, that could never have happened. 

So our internal wrangles about national security are serious business.

The disastrous security practices of the Clinton years were not new either. Today, Chinese rockets launch much more reliably because the Clintons were unbelievably sloppy or corrupt in protecting our missile launching technology. What China knows today, North Korea and Iran may know tomorrow. The dangerous Clinton years simply repeated the national security disasters of the New Deal, when Harry Hopkins would sit down with KGB agents and explain FDR's private thinking.  No doubt Hopkins felt he was only contributing to peace. It's the same mindset.

Since the 1940's the Left has been the greatest source of division about national security. The Right has its battles, but it doesn't undermine our safety. Because more than 90 percent of our antique media writers vote Democrat, our security divisions are constantly broadcast to our enemies abroad: A dangerous business. It constantly undermines our friends, and strengthens those who wish us dead.

Life or death, anyone? We certainly hope it doesn't come to that. But would you bet on it?

Vote your conscience on Tuesday. A lot may depend on it.

James Lewis is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.