The Return of Cathy -- and My Election Endorsement

Cathy returns, with some important and incisive comments and questions, to which I reply below:

I wanted to ask you about a conversation we had back in May. You had mentioned that General Clark(is that his name) was the man you wanted to win the nomination and you weren't a strong Kerry supporter. Here's my question, are you going to vote for Kerry because you are so against Bush or because you believe in Kerry and what he has to say or because Kerry is the Democratic choice? Also, have you ever voted for any Republican, if not do you think you ever could?

I ask these questions because I believe too many people vote strictly for their party and not for who they feel will make the best choice. I believe that the biggest problem our country faces now is the politics that goes on behind the scenes, the deal making that occurs. I'm not sure anyone can make decisions or choices based on what they feel is the best course for our country.

I worry that Kerry won't be able to make any decision without taking a poll to find out how the public will react and I worry that Bush will make decisions without having any concern for the long term effects on our country. To put it bluntly, I worry that it doesn't matter who I vote for, each candidate scares me for different reasons. I also feel the election process has turned into a three ring circus, are we even taken seriously in the world community? Whatever the outcome, I hope we have a clear majority for the winner.

Look forward to your insight,
Cathy

First, my thoughts on Bush, most of which readers of this blog will already know. But I will try to be brief and to the point.

To me, the most shameful moment of Bush presidency occured when he gave his famous "Bring 'em on!" remark. Remember? He was talking about terrorists and opposition fighters in Iraq. The macho-ness aside, what filled me with shame and rage was this: Weren't we supposed to be liberating the poor, oppressed people of Iraq? And here Bush is inviting foreign terrorists into their land to wage war and further decimate their country.

The whole idea that we can defeat terrorism by luring the bad guys into one place is not only insensitive to the Iraqi people, but stupid. Do you really think that more terrorists are not simultaneously planning to attack the U.S. and U.S. interests elsewhere? As every report has shown, the war in Iraq has created more terrorists worldwide, it has been Osama Bin Laden's recruiting dream come true. In every way, the war has made us less safe.

I remember waking up at 4 oclock one morning in April 2003 and seeing liberated Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad. I started dancing around the room myself, I was so elated. As I like to say, I am a sucker for freedom and democracy. But, apparently, sucker was the operative word here. The failure to commit enough troops to not only secure the weapons we knew were there, but to secure the country so that the Iraqis could begin to live better lives makes me wonder. It is too complex an issue to get into here -- the many reasons why the war was poorly planned from the beginning -- but there is no way around the conclusion that, whatever the reasons, the Commander-in-Chief failed miserably. And his flight-suit photo-op and premature announcement of "mission accomplished" sickens me as I read of young Americans and Iraqis killed every day.

My final indictment of Bush -- and I think this goes to the heart of so much of the rage against him, not only mine -- is that he has stolen September 11th from the American people. I was sitting in my office off Times Square on the morning of September 11th. I wondered briefly if Times Square could be next, but I was fortunate to have escaped any direct personal involvement. But after watching the attacks all morning on tv at my desk, I wandered the city, trying to figure out how I would get back to New Jersey, back home to my family. I took a ferry across the Hudson on the most beautiful September morning and watch the towers burn as we all sat silently in mourning. And I wandered the city over the next weeks, reading the posters covering every available fence space, especially in Union Square Park, as flyers appeared, desperately, and ultimately futilely, hoping for word of lost loved-ones. Those signs told the life stories of the people of New York and its suburbs, they told the stories of Americans who had been killed by a gang of murderous, fanatical thugs. And I ached for those people, and I raged at Bin Laden and his jihadist f*ckers.

And I believe Bush has stolen September 11th from me and from the American people who had not been so united in generations. He has used our unity and resolve to advance a radical agenda (and I haven't even mentioned the Patriot Act, energy policy, environmental policies, Halliburton and on and on) that rewards his cronies, restricts our rights, debases our democratic discourse, and weakens us in the world. I resent him for stealing American from us, and I fear what he and his people will do to us and the world with four more years. I fear for our democracy and I fear for our security. The Bush Administration has not made us safer, only more fearful.

So, on this level, I am an "anyone-but-Bush" supporter.

But, I am also impressed with John Kerry and believe he can be an excellent President. The man volunteered for the US military during the Vietnam War; he then volunteered to be sent overseas to Southeast Asia; he turned his boat around into enemy fire in order to rescue a fallen comrade. These actions demonstrate his courage and character. He returned home and spoke the truth about the war, again demonstrating his courage and character. I know many people are angry with him for "aiding the enemy" with his comments, but I don't accept that. First, a healthy democracy depends on courageous people speaking up. Second, he was right. Go read his testimony before the Senate. He does not indict individual soldiers; he condemns the political and military leaders who did not know what they were doing, who did not know how to win a war that could not be won, who were sending young American men to die because they couldn't figure out how to get out of the mess they had created. And, just like now, he is demanding that the men who sent our soldiers into battle be held accountable.

As for the credentials he brings to the office of the Presidency, I will quote Brad De Long's pithy summary:

Kerry's ability to work with open-minded Republicans like McCain, Lugar, and Hagel; Kerry's record as a deficit hawk working hard to strengthen the safety net; Kerry's issue advisors--Rubin, Altman, Tyson, and Blinder on Treasury issues, Bianchi and Thorpe on HHS issues, Beers and Holbrooke on security issues--are picked from those who have proved themselves highly competent and effective; Kerry's successes as a boss of prosecuting lawyers, as an investigator of BCCI and POWs, as a member of the Democratic senate caucus--these tell us who Kerry is: a Massachusetts liberal believing in fiscal prudence and an active government, understanding both soft and hard power, and personally brave--both in Vietnam and after, in his courage to say what he believed needed to be said about our war in Vietnam. He's one of the thousand or so people in America best-qualified to be president.

Kerry also has a far better understanding of the enemy we now face than Bush does. Look at the articles I posted a couple of days ago about Kerry's almost single-handed crusades against the links between international drug dealers, money launderers and terrorists. He has been aware of these links for nearly two decades now and has fought against entrenched interests (including Bushes and their financial associates). And he is right that the only way to defeat the jihadists is to kill the ones who are already committed, and to keep our policies from contributing to making new converts. And to do these things we must restore what Joseph Nye calls our "soft power" -- that is, our ability to lead the world through moral suasion backed up by moral policy. We have been called the "indispensable nation," and I think that is still true. And Kerry understands that, and nothing is more important to keeping that position than that we be respected in the world. People are fond of quoting Machiavelli to the effect that it is better to be feared than loved; but people leave out the next part of the quotation which says that to be hated is to court one's own downfall. While it may be comforting to see the world in black and white, the real world of international politics calls for a whole bunch of diplomacy, engagement, negotiation and all the ugly, sticky, and difficult work of leading an imperfect world. Kerry will bring in competant, experienced people in his administration, people who are prepared to engage with and change the real world, not enact an ideologically-based fantasy of the way the world should be.

I remember once, Cathy, I expressed my concern to you about President Bush's religious zealotry. You replied something to the effect that you, too, believed that God does His work in the world. But my problem with Bush is that he claims to KNOW what God wants, he seems to face no doubts about what God wants for him. That scares me. All the great religious leaders who left the world a better place than they found it have been wracked with doubt, with questioning -- about what God wants, about whether they are deserving, about their own faith, about whether they are living up to God's will. How can any man claim to know for certain God's will? Isn't that the same thing that motivates Osama Bin Laden's hateful nihilism?

Don't be fooled by the labels on Kerry -- liberal, flip-flopper, etc. And don't believe that Bush never goes by the polls or focus groups -- that is what all politicians do all the time. But look at how strong Kerry has seemed over the past months; he did not wilt under the barrage of lies from the Swifties; he did not stumble under the lights in the debates. He has been focused and resolute in his campaign strategy while every other Democrat was screaming "do this" or "do that". And because he has waged his campaign with such strength and resolve, because he has spoken to the American people with intelligence and, yes, maybe even "nuance," because he has shown himself to be eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief, the American people will resoundingly choose him tomorrow to be the 44th President of the United States.

And I can think of nothing better to happen to our country at this moment when we so desperately need a change of leadership.