Election 2008: National Defense

Since the events of 9/11, no issue has earned more attention in political debate than that of national security. With the Iraq conflict well into its fifth year and with the ever-growing threat of terrorism both at home and abroad, it is for many the most crucial and deciding factor of the 2008 presidential elections.

“National security,” of course, is a blanket term—a catchall expression that almost universally encompasses our nation’s counter-terrorism and other military efforts, but may also at times include issues of immigration, drug trafficking, and financial crimes (cyber-crimes, for instance).

The Republican presidential candidates have, for the most part, taken similarly strong stances on national security. Candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are depending on their unabashedly resolute, perhaps even hawkish stances to drive them to victory. While others like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson have made defense a slightly less prevalent part of their platforms, the issue nonetheless remains an integral part of their campaigns. Only Ron Paul, a clear underdog for the nomination, has strayed from the common Republican message by speaking out against the Iraq War and current occupation (even more so than some Democratic candidates) and generally denouncing any military option for Iran.

With so much agreement on the issue, it is difficult for voters to choose their favorite candidate. However, this could be a good thing. After all, the general consensus among candidates is that the security of our nation’s citizens is paramount to its survival. What delineation does exist tends to appear in those more controversial topics. Interrogation methods, for example, provide fuel for debate (McCain has spoken out strongly against the use of torture and “enhanced interrogation techniques”). Concern over civil liberties also remains a hot issue. On the legality (and morality) of the Patriot Act, campaign stances range from the supportive (Giuliani), to the ambiguous (Huckabee), to the staunchly opposed (Paul).

Of perhaps any issue, voters should value the candidate’s experience over other considerations. In the realm of foreign policy (which has often, unfortunately, become synonymous with “national security”), composure, rationality, and level-headedness are far more valuable than any inflexible campaign promise or overarching political philosophy.

As conservatives, we value our liberties. We revere and uphold the Constitution as the law of the land. At the same time, we require a leader who is committed, above all else, to the protection our most fundamental rights—life, liberty, and happiness. These are the principles upon which our constitution rests; the natural rights of all human beings. Like Truman, Kennedy, and others, our next president will be faced with some of the most difficult decisions imaginable. It is the ability to make these tough choices—to balance our need for security with our right to freedom, to seek peace but prepare for war—that defines a truly great leader.