Along with most of the planet's population, I am not enthused by John Kerry. He is hardly an exciting politician, not the type whose rhetorical flights of fancy make the heart beat a little faster. What's more, on a ideologicla level, he would not have been my choice as Democratic presidential nominee (I much prefered that angry doctor from Vermont).
I have been critical of the man from Boston in the past, largely because I believe he voted for the Iraq war in late 2002 because he thought it would be popular. In this respect, Republicans are right to attack him as a flip-flopper. He should not, if he really believes what he says now, have voted to give the US president the right to use force.
Yet as polling day draws closer, perhaps inevitably, I find myself warming slightly to the him. I had an epiphany of sorts while watching the second debate. For me Kerry showed in that contest that, for all his failings, he is clearly preferable to the incumbet (hereafter refered to as, The Idiot).
The senator's answer to the question about abortion particularly impressed me. I liked the way he explained that, even though he was against abortion on religious grounds, as a legislator he had a duty to make law for everyone, whether or not they shared his religious beliefs. Good point, well made. He ended his thoughts on the subject with the words: "it's not that simple".
Immediately The Idiot was on his feet, telling us all that actually "it is that simple". On he went, explaining how Kerry's carefully thought out position on abortion was actually a prime example of the senator's flip-floppery and general slipperiness. For me, this exchange showed one man to be thoughtful and articulate; and the other to be simple-minded, regarding the Bible as a policy document.
It wasn't so much Kerry's policy position as his thoughtfulness which impressed me. Here at last, after four years of presidency by a man with a strikingly uncurious mind, was someone who might sit at his desk in The Oval Office and actually think. It doesn't seem too much to ask, that the man who leads the world's only superpower should be of above average intelligence.
It is truly sad that the US has been led for the last four years by a quite idiotic man, someone unable to handle press conferences, even with the docile White House press corps, without making an utter buffoon of himself. Say what you like about Kerry, but could you imagine him commiting a faux pas on the scale of The Idiot's crass "bring 'em on" jibe?
Yet The Idiot actually flaunts his lack of intellect, knowing that, depressingly, there are votes to be had in appearing not overly bright. He knows that some people prefer a dim-witted "average Joe" like him to a policy wonk like Kerry. But why this anti-intellectualism? Why the egg-head bashing?
Back to basics, folks: learning is good; thinking is good; speaking in coherent sentences is good. Lack of intelligence is not anything to be ashamed of, but it is certainly not something to be proud of either.
Because of this, I hope that the more intelliget man wins on November 4th. If John Kerry is to be America's next president, then I anticipate disagreeing with a lot of the decisions that he makes. But I will draw some comfort from the knowledge that he, unlike his predecessor, will have actually thought about these decisions before making them.