« Osama bin unforgotten | Main | Norway? »
Kerry not Scary
For a good number of people, it's really not hard to figure out why to vote against Bush. For example, here are 100 reasons and Bush by the Numbers has more, just for a start. But some people seem to have greater trouble finding reasons to vote for Kerry (rather than simply against Bush). If you're among those, I suggest you watch “Going Upriver”, a short documentary about Kerry's service in Vietnam and his role in the anti-war movement when he returned to the U.s. The film is available to download from Internet Vets for Truth, or you should be able to find it at your local movie rental shop. I watched it last night and was extremely impressed with the courage Kerry showed both in going to Vietnam and in trying to end American involvement there. The film shows us a Kerry who was never really radical in any way. He went to Vietnam because he thought it was the right thing to do to serve his country. While there, he learned that wasn't necessarily so. He saw lots of senseless death. He came back to the U.S. and acted very reasonably and deliberately, and with restraint and caution, to convince U.S. people and leaders to end American involvement in Vietnam. Apart from “Going Upriver” and Kerry's Vietnam-related record, you'll find more reasons to vote for Kerry if you read the Rude Pundit's endorsement, and look at Kerry's long record of support for progressive issues. Of course, as Time wrote:Perhaps that's why the Kerry campaign has done such a poor job of using that record to Kerry's advantage. Other people have made important distinctions between the candidates' positions, and it's not hard to find summaries of where Kerry stands. In this comment thread on Three Years of Hell, someone named Martin argues that what defines Kerry is a continuous effort to do the right thing, even when it's unpopular:Friends and enemies alike can find in his 19 years and 6,500 votes in the Senate whatever they are looking for: bold words that suggest fresh ideas but a lack of follow-through that suggests political caution; shifting positions on education, welfare and affirmative action that show either a capacity for growth or an absence of core beliefs.
The rest of Martin's brief comments are worth reading as a concise list of reasons to vote for Kerry. As the Bush campaign points out, Kerry has a “liberal” record. Bush wants you to think that's a bad thing, but I'd encourage you to look past the label and the rhetoric. Kerry has shown good judgment, real concern for the environment, for the poor, for promoting peaceful and mutually beneficial solutions to both America's problems and those of the larger world. My read of Kerry's record shows someone who has always been drawn to big ideals, and who has had impressive successes and failures in pursuing those ideals. Kerry has spent his life working to make the world a safer, more peaceful, more fair and equal place for everyone. He's also frequently focused on the responsibilities of elected representatives to their people; time and again he's investigated and tried to end corruption, abuses of power, injustices perpetrated by leaders but paid for by the powerless. If you find that record objectionable, by all means, vote for someone else. But if that sounds more like the goals and values and priorities of the country you'd like to live in, vote for Kerry.
Posted October 31, 2004 09:54 AM | election 2004
I haven't been commenting much, but I want to tell you that I've been keeping up with your political entries and I have found them invaluable, both for your cogent thoughts and for the high-quality links that you routinely provide. So, thank you.
Posted by: Phil at October 31, 2004 01:54 PM
AI, as someone who very reluctantly sent in my absentee ballot marked for Kerry, let me raise two serious flaws with Kerry's candidacy:
No. 1, as far as I know, he has never reconciled his vote against Gulf War I with his vote for Gulf War II. Bush has mocked Kerry of late, for pointing out that Gulf War I satisfied the "global test," yet Kerry voted against that war. I hesitate to repeat anything that Bush uses, but I've been concerned about this matter long before Bush raised it, so I think I'm okay.
Here's the problem: when you consider the "nuance" behind his vote against Gulf War I, the stated reason was not any support of Saddam, but rather a belief that the Senate should not authorize military action with in essence a blank check, because there would be no further check on the President. That's not at all an unreasonable position.
The problem is, it's an even more valid position for Gulf War II! If Kerry was concerned that Bush 41 would go half-cocked and attack Iraq before exhausting all options, why would he give Bush 43 the opportunity to do the very same thing? Kerry says now that he wanted to give Bush leverage to force Saddam to comply, but he didn't expect Bush to use it without further consultation. But that reasoning would have made exact sense for Bush 41, yet Kerry rejected it.
Now, in all fairness, I suppose you could argue that 9/11 changed things. But, first, I've yet to hear Kerry say that. Second, if you say 9/11 changed things, such that the President needs more discretion to act without having to consult Congress again, well, I think it weakens his "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" theme.
No. 2, I'm constantly told by Kerry supporters that he'll be better on diplomacy than Bush will. Perhaps that's true, but I'm hardly optimistic that Kerry will actually be good. His constant belittling of allies ("the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced", "we're going it alone") without apologizing to them lead me to think that his actions may not irritate foreign leaders, but his words still may. I certainly hold out little hope that he'll actually get any new allies to help out in Iraq.
Despite all that, I voted for him. But I think he's a terrible candidate in so many ways, and while I'll be happy if/when he wins, my happiness will end at noon on January 20, 2005.
Posted by: Tung Yin at November 1, 2004 12:28 AM
Tung: I think the answer is the general refrain of '9/11 changed everything'. We now see avowed anti-nation builders engaging in nation building, and kerry changing his mind about authorizations for war.
Posted by: actus at November 1, 2004 01:32 AM
Phil: Thanks, it's always terrific to hear a kind word.
Professor Yin: Boy, do I hear you! You may not recall but I detested Kerry in the primaries and was thoroughly disgusted when he took the lead and basically sewed up the nomination so early. I've learned more about him since then and he's won a lot more respect from me, but I've also realized that it's either him or Bush, and in that choice there really is no choice -- it's Kerry or nothing. That said, I agree w/actus that Kerry's different votes on Iraq I and Iraq II can be chalked up to the whole post-9/11 thing. Unfortunately, I suspect the second vote also had a great deal to do w/political calculation; Kerry knew it was a bad idea, but was scared enough by the rhetoric coming from the administrationn about Saddam (and look back; they were threatening nuclear oblivion!), or knew the country was scared enough by that rhetoric that a vote against it would be impossible to explain. In hindsight, he should have stood up against that, but hey, he's far far from perfect. Not the best, just the best option in this moment.
Whoever gets elected, I plan to start working for a third party (probably the greens) and for either fixing (by making it proportional) or eliminating the electoral college. The two party system is producing nothing but mediocrity and failure. We can do much, much better.
Posted by: ambimb at November 1, 2004 07:26 AM
