Click on the links to go directly to a specific section, or you can just read through the whole article.
TerrorismTerrorism
One of the key points the Bush campaign and some of the 527’s that are supporting Bush have been trying to make is that Kerry does not have the backbone necessary to combat terrorism. The basic basis of their arguments is that Kerry appears to “flip-flop” on issues, an argument that appears to have some truth to it, until you really take a closer look at it.
The Bush campaign repeatedly assumes that the American public does not know how the government works. The most obvious example of this is when they blame just about anything that goes wrong on Democrats, despite the fact that Republicans have control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. These inconvenient facts make such arguments ridiculous. In making the case that Kerry flip-flops, the Bush campaign assumes (correctly, it appears) that most voters do not know how Congress works.
How Congress Works
In most cases, the Senate (and the House of Representatives) produce more than one (often several) version of a bill or law, each of which may be voted on by the Senate. This means that most Senators will vote for one version over another version, depending on which version they think is best. Sometimes one or more Senators will put in pork barrel items or other, non-related items in a bill. They do this hoping that the most Senators will either not notice the item or else that the Senate will vote for the bill anyways, because the primary purpose of the bill is a crucially important issue and the Senate wants to be seen as acting on it. Kerry has been choosey about which version of a bill he votes for. This is a sign of serious consideration on matters of importance, not of weakness or vacillation (flip-flopping).
As far having “backbone”, I really am amazed that Bush is trying to make this argument. Kerry served two tours in Vietnam and won several medals for his service there, even though he most likely could have gotten out of going. Neither Bush nor Cheney served in Vietnam. Bush served (at least some) time in the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Whether he actually fulfilled his requirement is a subject of much debate. Cheney got five deferments to keep from serving in Vietnam. Whether you believe the unsubstantiated claims by the Swift Boat Veterans 527 group (every single piece of documentary evidence supports Kerry’s version of events, including some documents signed off on by senior people in the Swift Boat Veterans group), Kerry did have the “backbone” to go over to Vietnam and serve. Neither Bush nor Cheney had this “backbone”. Bush’s “backbone” seems to be limited to sending other people and other people’s children, parents, spouses and friends off to fight wars, at least one of which, in retrospect, was probably unnecessary.
Backbone reveals itself in more than one way. There is the “blood and guts” backbone and then there is the principled backbone. The backbone that comes from understanding that the means to an end is important in and of itself. Kerry seems to have the backbone to use legal international means to achieve victory over terrorists. Bush apparently does not have this kind of backbone. I think that, in the long run, using the correct means to defeat terrorism will be more important than the will to sacrifice other people’s children, although I am sure both will be required.
One of the unfortunate things about the Iraq War is that, even though we are killing Islamic terrorists by the hundreds, it is clear that groups like al Qaida have been able to use the anger the war is understandably arousing to recruit thousands to their cause. Winning the war on terror will require winning the minds and hearts of Muslims. We can’t win all of their minds, but we need to alleviate their worst fears about the goals of the United States. The Iraq War confirmed these worst fears for many Muslims. In particular, it seemed to confirm that U.S. was interested in the Middle East’s oil. Never mind that the final cost of the Iraq War will far exceed anything we could have expected to gain from controlling all of Iraq’s oil exports for decades. The war still gives this impression. The fact that the War was executed without a U.N. resolution and against the popular will of the world only aggravates this impression.
The means to the end do matter. Most of the rest of the world know this. It forms the basis for most of the rest of the world’s opposition to the Bush administration’s foreign policy in the war on terror. This opposition has cost us cooperation from our usual allies and helped al Qaida recruit new members and allies.
Ironically enough, right now much of the rest of the world thinks the U.S. is the greatest threat to peace. And it is not just the Muslim world that thinks this. Once you think about it, this is actually understandable, if not probably justified. As Americans we know that we don’t want to “take over the world”. But to the rest of the world, we are the supreme economic, military and social superpower, and this is threatening to many people in other countries. Because of this, it is very important how we conduct ourselves. If we, in such a position of strength, do not abide by international laws, then why should anyone else?
It is equally ironic that the United States probably has more to lose, in terms of sheer dollars, by a breakdown in international law than any other country on Earth. The Afghan and Iraq Wars have shown the limits of superior technology. While technology can create lopsided casualty figures in the U.S.’s favor, it takes lots and lots of “boots on the ground” to create stability by force. While there are groups that will fight the will of the civilized world no matter what international norms are met by the U.S. and its allies, they will have a much harder time finding refuge among the general population if the force is widely viewed as legitimate. Working through the United Nations and other international organizations can provide legitimacy. This legitimacy in turn protects our troops, reduces the amount of time necessary to establish the rule of law in the chaotic regions of the world and reduces the resources necessary for the U.S. to shell out in order to succeed in the war on terror.
Kerry and Bush agree on many aspects in the war on terror, including:
1) standing together as Americans to show resolve against determined enemies;
2) coordinating intelligence resources;
3) protecting our borders; and
4) protecting critical domestic production facilities and infrastructure.
While Bush has moved forward on all of these fronts, he has also involved us in a war in Iraq whose justification now seems tenuous. This war has already diverted more than $120 billion in resources to Iraq, with much many more billions that will be needed to make sure we can eventually call Iraq a victory. Imagine what we could have done with $120 billion to better secure our own borders and critical production facilities and infrastructure and develop our human intelligence resources to combat terrorism.
Kerry is also focused on another key factor that is critical for the long term security of the United States: independence form Middle East oil. The countries that provide the primary recruiting grounds for terrorists permit this to go on because it helps keep their people focusing their anger outward, instead of at their own governments. As long as we are dependent on these countries for oil, we cannot make a credible threat to get them to stop their implicit support of terrorism. We have got to find alternatives to oil. This will be a long term project, but the stakes in terms of national security are so high we cannot afford to wait. Bush is too close to the oil industry to face this fact. Kerry is not.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy needs to be more than unilaterally exercising the U.S.’s military might and threatening to invade. Aside from a handful of one-on-one trade agreements, the only Bush foreign policy “successes” have been based on military might. Consider the following:
Does the blunt tool of military might seem to be working in American interests? The Bush administration has completely bankrupted its international credibility and squandered the goodwill towards the U.S. that existed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At this point, the only way to restore American credibility is a change in leadership. You have no doubt heard this if you have friends or business associates outside the U.S. or if you read any non-U.S. press or watch any non-U.S. media. No one outside the u.S. believes anything that comes out of this administration anymore.
The problem is not the entire rest of the world, folks, it’s us. And without international credibility, the U.S. must execute its foreign policy alone, which simultaneously makes it less likely to succeed and more expensive for American taxpayers. It’s like trying to run a race with leg irons on.
Kerry knows that the U.S. has more than military might in its arsenal. He will be able to re-establish American credibility abroad use this credibility to build true coalitions, strong international institutions to resolve differences and pursue American interests in more effective ways than the Bush administration has.
At this point I think it is impossible for the U.S. to re-establish our legitimacy to the rest of the world without a change in administrations. Right now, most people in other countries make a distinction between the actions of the Bush administration and the will of the American people. If we re-elect Bush, I think that distinction will vanish. I think this could be truly dangerous for Americans at home, and especially for Americans abroad.
The Economy
The immediate prospects for the economy are neither as terrible as MoveOn.org would have us believe nor as rosy as the Bush administration claims it is. Moderate economic growth and unemployment rates around five-and-a-half percent is not a robust recovery nor an ominous stagnation. Compared to the 1970’s or 1980’s, economic growth and unemployment are moderately good. But the more recent period of the 1990’s produced an unusually good economic climate, and the current level of economic growth and job growth just does not compare. Also, income disparity and poverty rates have also risen, which is of concern.
The economic factors that I find most concerning are the in the medium and long term. We have gone from record Federal budget surpluses to two consecutive record deficits, just as the baby boomer generation is at the cusp of starting to retire. As that huge swath of American society retires and lives ever longer, it will increase the demand on those of us in the work force. There are basically three ways to pay for the baby boomer retirement: (1) delay the age at which baby boomers can draw full social security benefits; (2) decrease social security benefits; or (3) increase taxes. The Bush administration would have you believe that giving tax cuts to rich people will cause all of this to go away, but it won’t.
Kerry’s plan is a good one, I think, for long-term growth. It consists of rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for those making over $200,000 per year. This does not mean “soaking the rich” with exorbitant tax rates. Under the Kerry plan, the top rates would go back to what they were during the Clinton years (between 36% and 39.4%, depending on just how rich the taxpayer is). This is quite low in comparison with other advanced countries. Kerry’s economic plan also calls for a small reduction in the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 33.25%) in order to discourage corporations from shuttling their profits to low tax havens overseas.
The Kerry plan also includes investment in education, training and research, in order to help Americans retain the high wage jobs that have been increasingly sourced overseas during the Bush administration to places like India, where wages are much lower.
If we do not invest in tomorrow, then, when tomorrow comes, we could face some really tough decisions about caring for the elderly, caring for the sick. Given the demographics of the baby boom generation and the fact that senior citizens are much more likely to vote than the rest of us, the most likely solution if we do not get our Federal budget deficit under control will be very high tax rates in the coming years. This will be one Bush mess we really will not be able to afford to clean up.
Back to TopThe Environment
The environment has become a major national issue for a number of reasons, including:
The End of Oil
We are facing the prospect of reaching the end our primary source of affordable fuel for transportation. World supplies of oil will not suddenly run out one day. Right now the United States accounts for about a quarter of total world oil consumption (25.4% in 2002). Demand for more and more oil will increase significantly over the next 30 years. Most of this increase will serve the needs of developing countries, and particularly those high growth countries on the brink of becoming industrialized nations, such as China and India. At the same time, it is becoming apparent that the primary region supplying oil, the Middle East, is rapidly depleting their reserves. What will happen over the next 20 or 30 years is that we will slowly deplete the easily accessible oil first. Then we must extract oils that is more difficult (and more expensive) to reach. As world consumption increases, prices will rise significantly.
What we have seen during the past year is not due to these factors to any significant degree. However, we will see it in the next decade or so. In order to avoid a crisis of catastrophic proportions, we must begin preparing for this certainty. It will take time to develop economically and environmentally viable alternatives. Then it will most likely take at least a decade to design and implement the infrastructure necessary to support these technologies.
National Security
And while the Middle East remains the primary supplier of oil for the U.S., this deprives us of any real leverage with governments in the region to combat terrorism. Dependency on Middle East oil has become a national security crisis.
Bush is so close to the oil industry, personally, financially and psychologically, that he has shown no inclination whatsoever to devote any significant resources to this problem.
Warming Up to Alternatives
Kerry’s energy plan (which was not developed in secret through consultation with oil companies) addresses this issue by investing three times as much as the Bush administration plan in developing hydrogen fuel technologies, implementing tax credits for automobile manufacturers to research and build advanced energy efficient vehicles. And Kerry’s plan will support real solutions-oriented research, not the biased ideologically-driven research that has made U.S.-based policy research the laughing stock of the world scientific community.
The environment is also becoming more and more important as it has become increasingly apparent that the Earth’s atmosphere is indeed warming up. Most honest meteorologists and other scientists agree that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, etc.) are a significant contributor to deterioration of the ozone layer and this global warming “greenhouse effect”. This greenhouse effect could have truly catastrophic effects on our quality of life for centuries to come, including rapid climate change, widespread coastal flooding (as the polar ice caps melt, which they are already doing) and rapidly rising skin cancer rates.
The Bush administration’s denial of global warming makes the U.S. the only major modern industrialized nation to not admit the reality of global warming. Ironically, the U.S. emits more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other country by far. This means that any reduction in greenhouse emissions that does not include the United States cannot be truly meaningful. And while the Bush administration and its oil company financiers are in power, this is not likely to happen. I guess the best piece of advice would be to buy stock in companies that produce sun screen!
I should probably make it clear that this section is about character, not personality. Sadly, people’s gut feelings about candidates often seem to be based more on personality than character. Having a nice personality is, well, nice. But the character of the President of the United States is far more important than whether he would be one of the first people you would invite to a barbeque at your house.
Both George W. Bush and John Kerry come from wealthy families. Being wealthy merely means that someone has a lot of money. Being wealthy also implies having access to opportunities (such as attending Yale) that are not readily available to those who are not wealthy. Being spoiled means that someone does not take responsibility and does not clean up his messes. This, I think, defines the difference between Bush and Kerry.
To the best of my knowledge, George Bush has never cleaned up any mess he has ever created. He has always had the connections to have someone with the resources to step in and sweep up his mess or sweep it under the rug. If you can think of any messes he has created and actually cleaned up, please let me know. I would genuinely like to hear about it.
When someone does not have to clean up his messes, he gets used to not having to explain himself, not having to admit mistakes and not apologizing. All of these are traits Bush has demonstrated repeatedly during his administration. Earlier this year, when Bush was asked during a press conference to identify any mistakes he had made during his Presidency so far, he stammered and did not come up with anything he considered a mistake. His silence on this speaks volumes. Either he truly was so out of touch with reality that he thinks he has not made a single mistake or else he did not think he should be held accountable for his actions and so did not have to answer such a question.
Kerry, on the other hand, while being raised in a wealthy home, had the backbone and sense of duty to serve his country in Vietnam. Every piece of documentary evidence backs up Kerry’s version of his service in Vietnam and contradicts the version being promoted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) . In fact, Larry Thurlow, one ofthe most prominent members of the SBVT group, got a bronze star for the exact incident for which Kerry earned his. Thurlow's medal citation included a specific mention of being “under constant enemy small arms fire”. That same recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry SBVT group. There are numerous other specific mentions of the incident from various documented sources at and immediately after the time of the incident. The SBVT are telling anything but the truth.
It has become increasingly apparent that the SBVT is a group of Vietnam veterans who are bitter at Kerry for his efforts to get the U.S. out of Vietnam after he returned from the war. While I understand that some veterans feel they were betrayed by Kerry’s anti-war efforts, I think Kerry’s determination to get the U.S. out of the Vietnam War is something he should be proud of, not ashamed of. Only a few years ago it seemed to me that there was widespread agreement that the Vietnam War was an unjustified bad war, despite the often brave and honorable actions of the individual soldiers in the war. If this is so, then Kerry’s standing up and helping us get out of the war is a good thing that probably saved American (and Vietnamese) lives from an unjustified and misguided war.
Despite what the Bush administration says, Kerry has done very little flip-flopping during his tenure in the Senate. In making the case that Kerry flip-flops, the Bush campaign assumes (correctly, it appears) that most voters do not know how Congress works.
How Congress Works
In most cases, the Senate (and the House of Representatives) produce more than one (often several) version of a bill or law, each of which may be voted on by the Senate. This means that most Senators will vote for one version over another version, depending on which version they think is best. Sometimes one or more Senators will put in pork barrel items or other, non-related items in a bill. They do this hoping that the most Senators will either not notice the item or else that the Senate will vote for the bill anyways, because the primary purpose of the bill is a crucially important issue and the Senate wants to be seen as acting on it. Kerry has been choosey about which version of a bill he votes for. This is a sign of serious consideration on matters of importance, not of weakness or vacillation (flip-flopping).
The fact that Kerry says he would still have voted to give the President the authority to wage the Iraq War is another illustration of how the Bush campaign is betting on the lack of knowledge many Americans have of the political process. Giving someone the authority to do something does not necessarily mean that you think that they should do it. If you give someone a copy of your car keys and give them the authority to drive your car, it does not mean that you want them to drive your car when they are drunk.
Kerry’s willingness to grant the President (the executive branch of the U.S. government) the authority to declare and wage (execute) war means that Kerry believes in having a strong Commander in Chief when the U.S. is in a crisis, even at the expense of Kerry’s own branch of government (Congress, the legislative branch). I think most Americans would agree with and even admire this willingness on Kerry’s part.
The way Bush used that authority shows something of Bush’s character. Bush took to the airwaves and implied all kinds of links between Saddam and al Qaida (of which there was no credible evidence) to get support for his war. Then he took the authority Congress granted him and proceeded to bypass all inconvenient international controls designed to prevent wars between nations. Then he bypassed our primary allies (NATO, which did not support the war). Then he went to war without any kind of serious analysis or plan of how to win the peace. This sounds to me like the driven, impulsive/compulsive behavior of an alcoholic (for which Bush, to his credit, received treatment). Only the intoxication in this case was vengeance and the power to execute it.
Bush’s dismissal of Kerry’s point that it was not the Iraq War Kerry opposed, but the way it was executed as trivia really shows Bush’s true colors. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of the government. It is his job to execute the policy that he, his advisors and Congress decide upon. This is Bush’s job! And he did it poorly. Just look at the situation in Iraq, which was preventable with good planning, and America’s bruised international reputation.