The left has opposed any policy that would strengthen our national security.

Not even a quick, successful war in Iraq has silenced President Bush’s critics. His diplomacy has been called everything from “bungling” to “stupid” and as weapons of mass destruction elude coalition forces, the legitimacy of a war already won with remarkable success still comes into question. But upon closer inspection, the president’s foreign policy is typical of strong conservative leaders and is exactly what America needs.

Bush’s policies fight to preserve as well as strengthen the national security of the United States. This affords his liberal opponents the opportunity to paint him as a warmonger with no domestic agenda, who disregards the average American. This is a delusion. Bush’s policies bolster national security and sustain U.S. power, producing benefits for all Americans. While liberals mock our “dumb” president and his “half-baked” policies, they are perfectly apt to ignore national security in an effort to pander to their constituency.

Whether liberal or conservative, most would agree that the United States enjoys a unipolar international system. This paradigm took on new dimensions when President Bush decided to snub the United Nations by withdrawing, prior to its scheduled vote, the Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq. His message was clear: The international community would not undermine the sovereignty and security of the United States.

Liberals across the country, pundits and politicians alike, were appalled. They could not believe that America, the strongest and most revered nation in the world, had just exercised its sovereign rights in an effort to sustain its national security.

The liberal view was not new. The left’s anti-war cries were common examples of liberal opposition to any policy that strengthens national security. Such policies proposed by the president illustrate his devotion to America. In less than three years, Bush has established the Department of Homeland Security, made efforts to strengthen the military, suggested drilling for oil in Alaska, captured many terrorist leaders and removed from power a corrupt dictator hostile to American interests. Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic, clearly have U.S. security interests in mind. What about the left’s agenda?

Liberals seek to downsize our military, weakening the forces that protect and procure freedom in America and throughout the world. Intelligence services like the CIA, which are especially important in a perpetual, global war against terrorism, are next on the left’s chopping block. Liberals even opposed Bush’s plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by industrializing only .01 percent, or 2,000 acres, of a refuge in Alaska, a plan supported by the states own politicians.

While liberals in the United States denounce efforts aimed at national security, they fail to offer their own policies. From communist infiltration throughout the world and within our own government, to the debacle that was Vietnam, the left’s foreign policy is treacherous to America. The Clinton/Gore administration continued the trend with a well-documented lack of effort to maintain our country’s security. Although the left’s poor handling of national security is a serious threat to America, it is understandable.

Liberal leaders like to think of themselves as champions of common, average people, whom rich conservatives tend to forget. It is these Americans whose interests liberals flaunt. Predictably, national security is not one of those interests. But the constituency is not to blame; the burden to protect our country falls upon the shoulders of our elected officials.

For liberals, it is a tough burden to bear. Once elected, they have little choice but to pander to their voters, which is the hallmark of their ideology. That is why the liberal agenda concerns itself with issues like prescription drug plans for seniors, welfare, affirmative action, pro-choice policies and the environment. That is why President Clinton worried more about homosexuals in the military than the military’s role in securing our country. If the left aggressively pursued issues favorable to national security, they wouldn’t have time to address the issues of people responsible for their election. It is a sad and dangerous revelation, but liberals sacrifice the power and security of America to sustain the power and security of their ideology.

It is a frightening prospect that the national security of America will depend largely on party politics. Common sense suggests that any person or party capable of election should have a strong desire to uphold only the highest standards of national security. For upholding these standards, President Bush is criticized. For failing to uphold any standards and ignoring national security altogether, liberals are called champions of the people – the very people they fail to protect.

Brian Klonoski is a sophomore at Colby College, majoring in government. His family lives in Auburn.

Copy the Story Link