I don't read it religiously, but I do check in on NRO's Kerry Spot, written by Jim Geraghty. This is something he posted recently, with stuff he copied from another blogger.



The Kerry Spot on National Review Online: "ELECTION ANALYSIS FROM THOMAS P. M. BARNETT [10/21 05:09 PM]



Until recently, I had only heard a little bit about Thomas P.M. Barnett, (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm) author of 'The Pentagon's New Map.' What little I had heard is that he's a smart guy.

I also understand he's a Kerry supporter. And today, he made a lengthy, detailed, and thought-provoking post on his blog explaining why he thinks Kerry is headed for a defeat.

[snipped]



Terrorists attack America on 9/11 and we have three essential choices for reply: hunker down in "homeland security," go out and kill them as fast as we can, or . . . think strategically about what the terrorists seek to achieve with this form of warfare and get there first. Bush's message of "spreading the power of liberty" (see "In Bush's Vision, a Mission To Spread the Power of Liberty," by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 21 October 2004, p. A1) answers-albeit simplistically-that strategic challenge: we seek to connect the Middle East to the Core faster than the Osamas and Zarqawis can disconnect it and by doing so, set it motion a long-term movement toward individual political liberty and-more importantly-economic opportunity-that is sadly lacking there. That is a happy ending, and it's one designed to make Americans feel better about themselves and our role in history, and you know what? That's awfully damn smart of the Republicans, because you never motivate anyone to sacrifice through shame and derision...

So, much to my dismay, Dems have let themselves be cornered into arguing only tactics (much like Anonymous's book, another in a long list of downer volumes designed to make Americans feel bad and stupid about the world-a winning tactic in motivating the public toward sacrifice if ever there was one), while the Republicans own the market on vision and happy endings...



I have said it before and I will say it again: the more optimistic candidate wins national elections, and despite the great mishandling of the Iraq occupation by this administration (yet another damning article today in the Times by Michael Gordon on page 1: "Debate Lingering on Decision To Dissolve the Iraqi Military"]), their mindless alienation of allies around the dial, and the growing sense of strategic despair both have created throughout far too much of the U.S. military, Bush and his campaign have managed to seize the high ground of both grand strategy and an optimistic vision of the future, leaving Kerry and the Dems to mutter about how "we'd do it better if we had the chance."







My reason for quoting is this: check the part I bolded. I have never quite understood the thinking of people like Mr. Barnett, who can so carefully analize in minute detail how clever someone is, when that person is speaking in broad terms. President Bush has a strategy for the Middle East. He's trying to 'Spread Liberty' as a way to counter terrorism. Mr. Barnett says how smart the Republicans are at pursuing this strategy because it works so well. But I see it as working well because it's the right way to do it. And it's the right way to do it because it most closely aligns with truth.



I see it in people from both sides, and usually from very smart people. They over analize motives, trying to dig out the id. But then they call Bush stupid and their brains implode from the contradiction. In reality, President Bush is not stupid, but he is not prone to detailed over-analysis. He states his strategies and expects his staff to make it happen. President Reagan did the same. And both had good results. Clinton and Carter were both micro-managers (Clinton when he wasn't ducking the job altogether), and neither could get a grip on the entirety of the problems... there's just too much detail. But by being a big picture, strategic thinker who trusts others to implement policy, things can get done.



Another problem I see here is in the criticism that the Bush administration is getting for the occupation of Iraq. Why is it going as badly as it is? I think it's in part the problem with translating philosophies from the optomistic President Bush down through the bureaucrats in the Pentagon and the State departments. Especially the State department. Those guys tend to be very liberal and so when President Bush says something in that Texas drawl, they run around trying to figure out what it means instead of just doing it.