Monday, November 01, 2004 :::
Is It Overheated In Here, Or Is It Just Me?In the 1996 Presidential election, I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne. In 2000 I wrote in Dave Barry. I vote in Massachusetts, which — even after Curt Schilling's endorsement of Bush — is not a swing state. But this time I plan to vote for George Bush. It's not because I want to cork leftist cry-holes by helping Bush in the popular vote. It's much more visceral than that.
I've long assumed I would write an election wrap-up shortly before the election. I expected it to aim for a Brooksian tone, something along the lines of "Bush and his backers see the world this way; Kerry and his backers see the world this other way; here's why Kerry, despite some good points, is the wrong way to go". I intended to write something measured, something which could conceivably convince a swing voter. Something with the humility to acknowledge that dozens of millions of Americans who are neither complete morons nor legally insane sincerely believe that Kerry would be preferable to Bush. But in recent weeks I've come to increasingly despise John Heisenberg Kerry; Senator Lightweight, who has good hair and nothing below it; and their whole entourage.
I've long had relatively rational reasons to support Bush over Kerry, starting with the war against the terrorists. Bush's foreign-policy has not been perfect, but the fundamental distinction between Bush's policy and Kerry's (so far as Kerry's can be ascertained) is that Bush is more willing to err on the side of agression and that Kerry is more willing to err on the side of appeasement.
I would love to live in Kerry's world. I would like to live in a world where the only reason French policy differs from American policy is that we haven't sufficiently made our case. Even more, I would love to live in a world where if we leave the bad guys alone, they'll leave us alone. But the French disagreed with us because they had financial interests in Iraq, and perhaps on — if you don't know this word, John Kerry, I'm not going to explain it to you — principle, not because Bush was "undiplomatic" to the eminently considerate Jacques "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet" Chirac. Likewise, most people will leave us alone if we leave them alone, but Islamist terrorists are not those people. Islamist terrorists will only leave us alone if either we adopt Sharia law or we kill them.
In point of fact, Osama considered our aversion to war an invitation to attack us, not a reason to leave us alone. In a sense, Kerry was one third correct when he called the Iraqi invasion "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" — we should have invaded in 1998, when Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire by kicking out the weapons inspectors. It is understandable that we did not, but it is not acceptable to maintain the same attitude after 9/11.
There's also the matter of integrity, to which I have alluded. If you want to believe that Bush's policies are designed with bad intent, I can not prove otherwise, but his decisions are consistent with each other, and they are consistent with his being a decent, intelligent man who is trying to keep us safe. John Kerry's positions over the last year have not been consistent with his record in the Senate, or his positions over the past year, or the statements of his hoped-for allies.
I think what pushed me over the edge was when they started making outlandish claims about Bush's plans. The suggestions that the economy is in terrible shape are par for the course. The suggestions that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster didn't break me. Even some full-on nuttery is not a surprise. And the constant monday-morning quarterbacking and wishful thinking have been hollow and incredible, but not surprising or enraging. What really gets to me is the suggestion that Bush will cut social security benefits, even though Bush has a clear plan which requires no such thing; the allegation that Bush will eliminate milk subsidies, which would be a good thing, but for which there is no evidence; and above all, the idiotic suggestion that the draft is a seriously contested issue. There are people trying to kill us, and Kerry wants to fight the election on an issue where both major candidates (mostly) agree with all minor candidates I can think of, all but two or three Congressmen (depending on Rangel's mood), and 99% of the American people.
I wish this had ended up being more about supporting Bush, and less about Kerry. My attitude toward Bush is actually more positive than negative. I do wish he'd hold the line more on spending. But I think he's pushing in the right direction on Social Security and taxes, and his foreign policy is broadly right, if a bit too State Department in the details.
I don't want you to think I'm letting him off the hook. He should not have signed McCain-Feingold. That huge monstrosity of a Medicare drug program was the wrong entitlement in the wrong place at the wrong time, and will cost more than the current official estimates, let alone what we were originally told it would cost. He should have found at least one small spending bill to veto, and some of the invasion of Iraq could have been handled better. But in all cases, John Kerry would have done worse, with poorer values, worse judgment, and more craven motivations. He is a horrible, horrible man, and his seed should be wiped from the earth.
::: posted by Steven at 11:07 PM