For various reasons, I've made a conscious decision to scale back (read: eliminate) the political blogging from OMB. Nevertheless, the upcoming presidential election is the paramount public issue of the day and I might as well weigh in on it.
To me the election has become a choice not between voting
for Bush or
forKerry, but rather a choice of voting
against Bush or
against Kerry. I don't see much reason to be particularly enthusiastic about either of the two major-party candidates. Because the one job left exclusively to the executive branch is foreign policy, my vote is going to the candidate whose orientation toward foreign policy I can more easily understand, explain and justify: George Bush.
Really, my thinking can be divided into three parts: First, Bush isn't nearly as bad as he's alleged to be, second, that the mainstream of the Democratic party has completely lost me and third, that because of these two factors, it's much easier to trust the incumbent administration to fight the war on terror. (Which is to say I'll get to that foreign policy stuff at the end... so keep reading...)
Like I said, I just don't get Democrats anymore. So many of them seem to believe that George Bush is not only a bad president, but a complete affront to humanity. Even though I disagree with Bush on many issues, I neither share the level of rage nor understand it. In fact, the outrageous levels of hyperbole resorted to by some who hate Bush actually make me sympathize with the guy.
To a large degree, I think Bush has become a scapegoat for everything wrong with people's lives. I've heard him blamed for everything from the poor economy (nevermind the huge impact of the bursting of the tech bubble, corporate accounting scandals and 9/11) to expiration of the tax credits for purchasing hybrid cars (although the sunset provision was written in the original Energy Act of 1992, enacted by Bush I and which Bush II has
helped to prevent) to causing
concerns about worldwide dominance of the English language and American culture (although he really has little to do with that) and even
outbreaks of shingles! There are legitimate criticisms of Bush policies, but the type of knee-jerk reactions where anything bad must be Bush's fault are wrong.
Similarly, there has been a lot of controversy about the contents of the Patriot Act. Even though I'm not a Patriot Act scholar, I know that
its contents are poorly understood. Although even some controversial provisions
largely codified existing judicial decisions or gave
government terrorism investigators the same powers as private attorneys, it has been a convenient flashpoint for many to express whatever angst they might have about George Bush. Even
Joe Biden has stated that "The tide of criticism [against the Patriot Act] is both misinformed and overblown."
Thus, it goes without saying that I don't share the Democratic rage directed at Bush - a sentiment that extends way back before March of 2003 or
September 11. And by "rage," I mean... has anyone even noticed how far off the rocker the Democratic party has gone? Contrary to
popular opinion, George Bush is not Hitler. He's also not going to
eat your babies. I don't even think I can say anything about
this anti-war protester that she doesn't say with her protest banner - it's that shocking and appalling.
The Democratic cure for this anger seems to be
running over people you don't like with your car or working overtime to
deprive Americans of alternative voting options while
rooting for bad news out of Iraq and
riding the emotional high when you get what you're looking for. Guys... you're becoming exactly what you criticize Republicans for being...
Now I know that every group is going to have its radical fringe elements with crazy ideas that have no redeeming value. I'd like to think that as so many of these folks bubble to the surface it doesn't make an impact on my vote. Sadly, it's not just the fringe characters who have adopted this hatred. Party bigwigs such as Al Gore and Ted Kennedy have jumped on the bandwagon, respectively comparing
Republican bloggers and
Bush administration members to Nazi 'brown shirts' and
comparing US military forces to Saddam Hussein's henchmen.
So rabid are many Democrats that many seem to have reached the point where ideological purity has become a new requirement for party membership. If you're not 100% in agreement with the party platform, you must be on the wrong side. How else could Glenn Reynolds - a guy who openly supports liberal causes such as gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion rights be
regularly branded as a 'conservative?'
Jeff Jarvis
succinctly summarizes the problem: "That's the mistake my lifelong party is making: pushing orthodoxy over inclusion. That's no way to win elections, folks." Amen to that.
Democrats want my vote and they usually should have it. As has been pointed out to me, I very much fit the Democrats' demographic: atheist, environmentalist, educated person,
frisbee player! But I supported the war - a position completely at odds with that of the Democratic party. When Democrats regularly tell me that I'm wrong and label me as a 'conservative,' the message I get is that all that Democrats have to offer me is alienation and (perceived) ridicule. Fine... Democrats can keep telling me how I'm not one of them and that I'm stupid, wrong and evil. They can display how intolerant they are of opinions that may lead to a different conclusion than their own. They can keep pushing me away. I'll be alienated right over to the 'other side.' Is that what they want?? Indeed, that is no way to win elections.
Ironically, the Democratic foreign policy is centered around not alienating others, but yet they seem quite eager to do just that, not only by chastising voters like me on the home front, but also any other nations willing to work with George Bush and company. Thus far, John Kerry has managed to
insult Poland, have his daughter
tell the Australians that they shouldn't be working with the US, denigrate a handful of nations as being "coerced and bribed" and even calling the Iraqi government a
"puppet of the United States." Certainly, Kerry's message about the "fraudulent coalition" in Iraq won't be resonating too well
abroad or at home.
Between comments like these and calling the Iraq campaign the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time," it's hard to imagine how effectively a Kerry administration will be able to sell France on joining us, especially when the French seem preoccupied with
aligning themselves with terrorists,
working with the Chinese Navy to intimidate Taiwan,
taking kickbacks from brutal dictators that would make the folks at Enron blush and
generally regain world importance that was lost when France was no longer a fulcrum in the Cold War.
And let's be real here, as far as world opinion goes, most Democrats don't give a crap about Belgium, Belize or Bangladesh. They're not even worried about India, Thailand, Nigeria, or the Philippines - nations also under the gun from radical Islamism (who happen to have solid support for George Bush). Most disturbingly, they're not even worried about the
opinions of the
people of
Iraq, who have the most at stake (and also give solid support to George Bush... even the
ones whose families have been killed).
Because we don't have France (or other "traditonal allies," Germany (WWI, WWII) and Russia (Cold War)) on board, Democrats love to repeat the "fraudulent coalition" line, nevermind the
formal support of six of Europe's 8 (or 9, if you count Russia)
most populous nations, plus important Pacific nations such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. At the same time, we apparently should be
excluding these nations from talks with North Korea...
Even on other fronts, the Democratic campaign has suggested we should take from the world while giving back little.
Canadians aren't so excited about the Democratic plan to import drugs from their nation and John Edwards' campaign against outsourcing has raised red flags abroad, especially in India. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is apparently a winning strategy within our country but not on the global scale.
Like Ann Althouse, I waited and waited for the Democrats to say something good about the war on terror or foreign policy generally. I waited for a plan... It's easy to say another plan is wrong, it's something else to come up with an alternative. But the more I waited, the more disappointed and confused I became. All I got was that Kerry would have a summit. He apparently has nothing to propose at this summit, but rather will defer to other nations (read: France) to come up with a plan for US foreign policy. That's not even close to good enough for me, especially in light of all of the reckless criticism of our allies and otherwise conflicting positions vis-à-vis the rest of the world.
Much like
Cicero, I'd like to see Democrats evolve to the point where they're ready to act in America's best interests, regardless of what the Republicans say. Unfortunately, I have to agree with
Joe Katzman that I can't just put faith in them when they carry themselves the way they do. Quite frankly, if they would have said that everything George Bush has done abroad has been right and campaigned 100% on domestic issues, I'd probably vote for Kerry.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they've fudgingly chosen to take a reactive stance on the war on terror. They frequently define either as an overbroad, spiteful war against Muslims or too narrowly as war against al Qaeda. They do not want to see Iraq as part of the war on terror, so they chide it as a war that we chose almost randomly or for nefarious reasons (the potential for which would seem to trump any and all legitimate reasons). The Democratic position seems to be to get the bad guys after they attack. But nobody thinks getting OBL or al Qaeda will end the flow of jihadists into the terrorist movement. What I want to see is someone "turning off the spicket."
I suspect that many intelligent Democrats could integrate Iraq into the war on terror if they chose to, but their hatred for George Bush supersedes all other concerns. They don't vote for John Kerry because of who he is or what he stands for, they vote for him because of who he isn't.
For instance, Hammer yesterday expressed his concern that the Iraq campaign has been all about oil. I don't buy it... there are plenty of easier ways to make money than to become President and occupy another nation and there are oil-rich nations that would have been easier targets (hello, Venezuela!) But even if I did buy the argument, isn't oil a critical limiting factor in the war on terror? Aside from the fact that our society would grind to a halt without oil, as long as the Saudis had a major control over our oil supply, why should we expect them to go to the trouble of clamping down on their export of radical Wahhabism?
Most of George Bush's policies in the war on terror have been successful. The
Proliferation Security Initiative, a multinational coalition of 11 nations (*gasp!* including France and Germany!) played an integral part in dismantling Libya's nuclear program. He has setup the
Caspian Guard, a security project with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, nations that become more relevant-sounding when you see that they both border on Iran.
In Afghanistan, the Bush quickly got Pakistani cooperation (no small trick, considering the domestic opposition to working with the US), threw out the Taliban (despite predictions of a quagmire, a la the Russians in 1980) and other than a minor scuffle that quickly faded into the ether, the recent elections were
"just a success story."
There's still fighting going on, but nevertheless there is an abundance of
good news from Iraq. Early predictions of a quagmire and casualty figures
between 50,000 and 250,000 seem rather far off the mark right now. Even the disputed figures at
iraqbodycount.net would need to be tripled to reach the
low estimate. None of this to say that bad things don't happen in Iraq or that they don't deserve attention - clearly they do. But from everything I've heard from people on the ground over there, things are much better than the news would lead you to believe.
Bush has shown willingness to work with others when possible and forge new alliances, but also to not be entirely dependent upon any particular nation that might have an agenda contrary to the US one. Even if some of his choices restrict him from elaborating fully his war plan, at least I can make a case for how it might work.
None of this is to suggest that there aren't practical foreign policy advantages to a John Kerry presidency. He would have more political capital to work with and it might just
force France to send troops to Iraq, even though they don't want to. Nonetheless, without a clue as to what Kerry might actually do in office and going on his statements, I just can't envision a way that a Kerry administration would run foreign policy any better than Bush would. From the Bush side, I can elaborate a number of routes to success, even if the President himself cannot or will not. Therefore, he's getting my vote.
To the best of my knowledge, I don't personally know
anyone voting for Bush and I feel like a bit of an outcast, given that most of the people around me are well versed in the "Republicans are bad, Bush is pure evil" chorus. But
you never know when there's a Bush supporter
in your midst. In fact, there do seem to be plenty of
closeted Bush voters out there. Not I. Much like
Moxie, I'm out... not in the sense that I would put a
sign in my yard or
bumper sticker on my car... not amidst this
climate of
fear. (Although I am very tempted to see if I can replicate the results of
this experiment by wearing a Bush/Cheney shirt around Pittsburgh - a quite liberal city)
Besides, it's not like I don't have company. Plenty of people who would otherwise vote Democratic are crossing party lines this year explicitly because of foreign policy/the war on terrorism. Their ranks include
this liberal Jewish New Yorker,
Sarah Baxter,
Randy Kelly,
a host of others, including Ed Koch.
But at the same time, it's not all bad. I can be everyone's token "conservative friend," nevermind my support for a number of positions decidedly not conservative. Besides, if Bush and Cheney end up winning, it'll keep me from being shipped off to Guantanamo Bay or the electric chair with the rest of you Communist bastards.
