Right is better than extreme right
Published on February 16, 2004 By O G San In Politics
So it seems that the die is cast; the next president of the United States will be George W Bush or John F Kerry. When the choice is presented in these stark terms, it’s a no-brainer for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. All hail President Kerry! However, that’s exactly the problem. The only good thing about John Kerry is not what he is but what he isn’t. He isn’t George W. Bush.

The Democrats have gone, so we’re told, for “electability”. Once again they’ve chosen a middle-aged white man to represent them in a presidential election. And not just any old white man. Kerry happens to be a very rich white man both by birth and marriage. As a former Yalee and a Skull and Boner, the senator comes from the same blue-blood set as Bush. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as such; after all a white man greets me every day when I look in the mirror. The problem is that there’s nothing in Kerry’s background to elicit any excitement. His election will not be announced by the smashing of any glass ceilings. He won’t be the first (insert marginalised group here) president.

His background isn’t his fault but his policies certainly are. Of the nine democratic candidates, Kerry is the most right-wing. He makes Dick Gephardt look like a dangerous radical. Kerry is pro-NAFTA, pro-PATRIOT Act and pro-Iraq war. He’s part of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the Clintonite wing of the party which took over in the 1980s. He and his fellow travellers in the DLC don’t believe in mobilising the poor and the downtrodden to come out and vote. For them it’s best to just be Republican Lite and hope that enough “swing voters” will go Democrat because they’re scared of John Ashcroft.

Bushies are bang on target when they mock Kerry for attacking “special interests”. The senator is playing the same corrupt game as the president – selling influence for money. It just happens that Dubya is better at this game than Kerry. Should he win the White House, Kerry will reward his big campaign contributors and to hell with the common good.

Why then should anybody vote for Kerry? Isn’t it better to have the real thing? Not quite. A choice between right and extreme right is still a choice. In some key areas having Kerry, or indeed any Democrat, in the White House will make a difference. In particular, a change of president could be vital in two areas: foreign policy and abortion.

When it comes to foreign policy Kerry is all at sea. As I’ve discussed in a previous blog, Kerry voted for war on the basis that he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US. This makes him either a liar or a fool. It certainly makes him easy meat for Bush. Any attack by Kerry on Bush about Iraq will fall flat because the man form Mass is guilty by association. He had the chance to take a stand in 2002 and he bottled it.

Nevertheless there is still a world of difference between starting a war (as Bush did) and not trying to stop a war (as Kerry did). For all that Kerry’s vote for war was despicable, had he been president the war would never have happened. If Bush gets another four years then more war seems almost certain. Such is his administration’s grandiose ambitions and bullying posture that conflict with Syria, Iran or North Korea looks inevitable.

If Kerry were elected then the prospects of further aggressive wars would diminish considerably. The world would be a much safer place if Cheney, Wolfowitz et al were removed from power and sent to join their friends in the hysterical neocon think-tanks. Who knows, with Rumsfeld gone from the Pentagon, the US might start to talk to its allies rather than insult them.

On the domestic front the future of legal abortion might rest on the result of November’s election. The right, having done everything to undercut Roe .v. Wade in the past twenty years, stands on the brink of final victory. A change in the personnel of the Supreme Court could lead to an end to a woman’s right to choose. If Bush gets a second term it’s unthinkable that he would nominate anyone but a strong pro-lifer to the bench. Likewise if Kerry wins it seems certain that he would nominate a pro-choice judge.

As I said, there’s nothing about Kerry’s background or policies which fills me with enthusiasm. All I can say is that, under his watch, America would drift rightwards a little slower.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 16, 2004
...and you support Kerry.....why?

You say "it’s a no-brainer for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan". I guess I have no brain because I don't see what is compelling about Kerry.

Perhaps you could actually...you know...explain why it's a no brainer. Apparently, a lot of Americans are to the right of "Genghis Khan".

Besides raising my taxes and likely to return to the Clinton model of putting our heads in the sands while terrorists attack us, what exactly does Kerry bring to the table?
on Feb 16, 2004
The Genghis Khan remark was a jibe, you know, a joke. Dubya has a way to go before he's invaded as many countries as the man from Mongolia.

It's a no brainer to anyone on the left/liberals/progressives that Kerry, for all that he's not much better than Bush, he is at least a little better. You obviously aren't going to vote for Kerry, I think that's clear.
on Feb 16, 2004
Well written. Compelling arguments for someone on the fence that cares about freedom of reproductive choice (safe bet *most* women), and is concerned about the war machine.

I think these arguments will resonate with the middle, I personally know several republicans that have decided to "switch" - grudgingly. The most telling opinion poll numbers in this respect are "Definitely vote against Bush": 43% this month up from 33% a month ago. Wow.
on Feb 16, 2004

The Genghis Khan remark was a jibe, you know, a joke. Dubya has a way to go before he's invaded as many countries as the man from Mongolia.

Or even Clinton. That is why it's hard to take the left seriously. Under Clinton, it seems like we were sending troops somewhere or bombing someone every other day.

Bush has directed military action into precisely two countries: Iraq and Afghanistan.  Clinton, btw, attacked both countries along with several others. There is nothing progressive about today's left wing.

on Feb 16, 2004
I would like to know the magic mirror you looked into that told you that we would not have gone to war if Kerry had been president. I don't think you can say that with any amount of credibility since Kerry has been all over the place about his stance on that subject. Ah, isn't it nice to play armchair quarter back and say, "If I were president I would/wouldn't have done _____" Now that a couple of years have passed since 9/11, people seem to have such clear opinions. Things seemed much different at the time.

How proud the democrats must be to be running on the "He's not Bush" soap box. Sure, he isn't Bush but it isn't very clear what he is. Not a compelling case for me since I don't believe in change for change sake.
on Feb 16, 2004

For all that Kerry’s vote for war was despicable, had he been president the war would never have happened. If Bush gets another four years then more war seems almost certain.

I can see it now. September 11, 2001, four airliners head towards the targets when suddenly, the terrorists say "Oh wait a second, it's a Democrat in office. President Kerry. Let's just call this whole thing off..."

Or maybe you think that if Kerry were President, a magical shield would have formed aroudn the twin towers and the Pentagon.

We were attacked. The US didn't start this war.

on Feb 17, 2004
"We were attacked. The US didn't start this war."

Who attacked you? It wasn't Saddam, even Dubya admits that now.

"I would like to know the magic mirror you looked into that told you that we would not have gone to war if Kerry had been president."

The war against Iraq was undoubtedly a war of choice. The neocons had been pushing for war since well before 9-11:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Kerry refused to vote against war coz he thought it would be popular. But that's quite different from actively pushing for war which is what Bush was doing RELENTLESSLY from about mid-2002 onwards. With Kerry in the White House, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been pushing for war in Iraq.
on Feb 17, 2004
Oh, so it is okay that Kerry doesn't seem to have any real convictions. He does things because they are popular. Great. Yeah, you're right, that is different than being relentless about something you believe in. How can you tell what Kerry believes in?

BTW, I don't see how investigating circumstances of partial birth abortion is trying to over turn Roe V Wade. I, as a woman, would like to know why partial birth abortions are performed. President Bush isn't exactly on the verge of taking away a woman's right to have an abortion. The majority of people still believe in a woman's rights over her body. If you think the stink over gay marriage is anything to talk about, just try taking away abortion rights.

So, the way I see it, Kerry doesn't have the strong convictions to do what is needed in time of war and no president is going to be successful in taking away abortion rights. The real determination will be how many people will vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush. That is really all he has going for him.
on Feb 17, 2004

"We were attacked. The US didn't start this war."

Who attacked you? It wasn't Saddam, even Dubya admits that now.

Bush never claimed Iraq attacked us. Islamo Facism is our enemy that has been attacking us for nearly a decade. Iraq is just one piece in a larger puzzle.  Similarly, in World War II the United States had to invade French North Africa as part of its larger war agaisnt the Axis.

"I would like to know the magic mirror you looked into that told you that we would not have gone to war if Kerry had been president."

The war against Iraq was undoubtedly a war of choice. The neocons had been pushing for war since well before 9-11:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Sure was. We "neocons", being more up to date on the real world knew that Saddam was a threat that woudl eventually have to be removed. After 9/11, it became clear that he definitely had to go to a majority of Americans as well. Our options were realistically to either let him stay in power and let him build up and have to deal with him later at greater cost or to take care of the problem now.  The Kay report makes it pretty clear what Saddam's intentions were -- once sanctions were lifted, he was going to go all out.  The only negative thing that Kay report had for the Bush admin. is that Saddam didn't have the stock piles HE and his generals thought he had.

Kerry refused to vote against war coz he thought it would be popular. But that's quite different from actively pushing for war which is what Bush was doing RELENTLESSLY from about mid-2002 onwards. With Kerry in the White House, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been pushing for war in Iraq.

We were already in a war. But yea, the difference between the two is that one has principles, the other doen't. Bush did what he said he'd do. With the support of the majority of Americans. He did what democracies are supposed to do. 

I agree that if Kerry were in the white house Saddam woudl still be in power, trying to get sanctions lifted so that he could buidl up his 4WMD programs, continue to send money to terrorists in the West Bank, provide safe haven for Al Queda operatives, torture and murder his people in the thousands.  Oh yea, that would have been much better...

on Feb 17, 2004
Jill (if I may use first name terms), as far as abortion goes, I wasn't referring to anything Bush has done in his first term. I'm referring to what he could do in his second if he gets the chance to nominate a supreme court justice or two.

"The real determination will be how many people will vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush. That is really all he has going for him."

I pretty much agree with you, I'm no great fan of Kerry. In some areas, like the ones I outlined, having a Dem in the White House will make some difference. In other areas it won't make any difference.

Brad,

"Similarly, in World War II the United States had to invade French North Africa as part of its larger war agaisnt the Axis."

No, it's not similar at all. The Axis in WW2 was exactly that, an axis of powers working in concert. Saddam was not working with Al Qaida - they are diametrically opposed. One is a secular fascist the others are Islamist fascists. You can't link together two otherwise separate groups just because they both happen to worship the same god which is basically what you're doing.


on Feb 17, 2004

Solving the problem of Islamofascism requires changing the Middle East. Iraq was/is part of that strategy.

The Axis powers, btw, in WW2 had very limited cooperation.  Japan, for instance, was not at war with the Soviet Union. They all had their own agenda.

Here is a good article that explains this point of view pretty well: http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

 

 

on Feb 17, 2004
BTW, you didn't really address my point about Vichy France. What did attacking French North Africa have to do with Pearl Harbor? Critics at the time asked that very question.
on Feb 18, 2004
Just ran me eye over that link you sent. I feel like I want to go through it with a red pen (and I might do that later on). If Bush had tried to sell the war in these terms he would've failed miserably. It's a nakedly imperilaist document. Does the rest of America know what you neocons have planned? Endless war, more blood and treasure spent "chasing foreign monsters". The more you bomb people, the more they hate you. The more they hate you, the more defiant they will become. Is this really what you want? Do you actually WANT war? Some of your previous remarks make me think that you do, that you want constant confrontation between America and the Islamic world.

Anyway, back to the Second World War. The Axis was a formal alliance, they signed treaties. Vichy North Africa was a part of the Nazi empire. Hitler declared war on the US. Attacking Vichy North Africa was part of a wider war against an enemy which declared war on the US. Saddam's Iraq never declared war on the US, the opposite in fact. There was no alliance, formal or informal between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Your comparison just doesn't hold water.
on Feb 18, 2004
Quick interjection. Germany declared war on the United States after America declared war on Japan.

Cheers
on Feb 18, 2004

I want the situation in the midlde east settled.  No one wants war. But I feel it is a necessity to resolve the problem with islamofacism before it's American cities going up in nuclear flames from terrorists.

Vichy North Africa was not part of the Nazi Empire. That is one of the common misconceptions people have about World War II. It was French troops fighting and dying defending their territory.

Moreover, based on your rationale, war is never the answer because it causes people to hate us.  The Japanese don't hate us and I don't know of any countries we bombed more than them (Germany a close second). Heck, the Vietnamese don't send terrorists out after Americans. So your karma theory on bombing really doesn't have much weight to it.

I wish we could all hold hands and sing the song of peace together. But it's hard to do that when one group of people is intersted in exterminating every single American that lives.  If the US were truly a warmonger, we could eliminate the entire middle east in a few hours. But we're trying our best to muddle through with a solution that saves the most lives. Iraq was taken with relatively few casaulties on either side. Same for Afghanistan.  Saddam lost more people in individual battles with Iran than Iraq lost "resisting" the US "invasion".

It is the fundmantalist Islamofascists who want the confrontation with the West (how do we know that? Because they've stated as much).  We can either deal with them now while we have the overwhelming advantage. Or we can wait until they acquire WMD and inflict great harm on us. I would rather deal with the situation now.

I can't help but conclude that you're a classic appeaser. You would have been one of the ones to let Hitler take over much of Europe in the name of avoiding war. O G San, there are bad people out there. Very bad people. People who can't be reasoned with. And the only way they'll stop is if we force them to stop.

2 Pages1 2