Angst Watch 2004 – The Decision

Changed my mind again — or, rather, changed my mind about when I was going to post this. Yes, it’s the “Who Am I Going To Vote For President” post (may God have mercy on my soul). Read on if you have any interest (and a few minutes).

They say that a look of disgust, rejecting something foul and untasty, is a universal expression, hardwired into us, present in babies the world over. Our nose wrinkles up, blocking off the odor. Our mouth purses, rejecting insertion of the dubious item. Even our eyes drop to slits, not wanting to look at it.

Color me universal. I don’t like either of the major candidates enough to support them as our next president.

Margie, my sainted wife, refers to Bush as a “doofus.” It’s hard to argue with that assessment directly. He and his have committed some seriously doofussy acts over the past four years. I find most of his domestic policy wretched, his administration’s record with civil liberties to be mildly alarming (more in perception than reality, to be sure, but perceptions count in this sort of thing), and his execution of foreign policy to have been ham-handed and, in a number of cases, counter-productive.

This does not mean that I buy into the “Bush is out just to enrich his cronies, establish a Christian mullahcracy, and secure the Middle East for Halliburton” wingnuttiness. It means only what it means. Bush has, with a couple of exceptions, been a mediocre president.

My problem is that, in those exceptions, I think he’s done the right thing. And I’m not convinced that Gore (as the previous alternative) or Kerry (as the present choice) would have made the same decisions.

Foreign policy

I do believe that going into Afghanistan was the right idea. I think we should have gone in harder and longer, but we also went in as a sorta-coalition, and that tempered our actions some. I also think going into Iraq was the right decision, even with the current assessment of what conditions on the ground were in 2003. I don’t expect to convince anyone one way or the other here, and I don’t particularly care to argue it, but there it is. Afghanistan, Iraq, and I’d even throw in the multilateral approach with North Korea, were all productive, positive strategies of handling very bad situations, and Bush is the one responsible for them.

Of course, he’s also responsible, then, for places where those strategies were not executed particularly well. Without going into depth, there are aspects of Iraq, certainly, and Afghanistan as well, which could have been handled better, tactically. Some of that is 20/20 hindsight, some is stuff that could have been foreseen, but those flaws in execution, and an unwillingness to recognize them on Bush’s part, are a concern to me, especially as we look forward to the next chapters of those sagas.

And while I don’t think France, Germany, Russia or China would ever have been willing members of a coalition against Iraq, regardless of the evidence or reality, the Bush Administration definitely fumbled the PR game with them (and with the domestic audience as well). Convinced that what they were doing was right, dammit, in this as in so many other areas the Administration simply bulled its way forward, secretively, unwilling to lay the groundwork for support for fear of having to argue about it each step of the way. There are times when that is, in fact, the right thing to do, when decisive action is needed, and you go back and pick up the pieces afterward. Arguably Iraq was one of those cases (and, arguably, its a case that Bush went as far as he ever did in laying a groundwork). But it’s the standard — indeed, sole — MO for the Bushies, and it only lends aid and comfort to opposition and enemies.

Regardless, my big concern with this vote is that it will be painted (one way or the other) as a huge all-or-nothing referendum on Bush’s policies (just listen to Clinton chortle that, with Kerry’s election, the US will be the “come-back kid” as an example of that). A vote against Bush will be seen, not as a nuanced (heh) rejection of certain aspects of our policy and its execution, but as a wholesale rejection of dealing with enemies abroad by more than trying to forge a compromise mildly irked UN rebuke at them. I honestly think we would be, as a nation and world, worse off, had Bush not pursued the course he did abroad. But I also think we could be even better off, had it been handled better, with less of a fortress mentality from the White House, and in the way he’s approached it he’s expended way too much political capital at home and overseas, making his long-term effectiveness in the next four years questionable.

So if I vote for Bush, I end up supporting policy execution I don’t like. If I vote for Kerry, I end up condemning a bunch of policy decisions I support.

Domestic policy

And then there’s the domestic front.

Unfortunately, I don’t fall cleanly into either of the big/small government camps. I think that privatizing of some functions makes sense, e.g., to some degree, tying social security into investment accounts is probably the best way to “fix” its problems. I tend to think that lower taxes are a good thing, too, and were probably the best course to take dealing with the recession; at any rate, I find the class warfare (and pandering to the “middle class”) from both parties in the area of tax policy to be disgusting.

Alas, I don’t have a good choice as to a candidate to get spending and the deficit under control — Bush, by his record, and Kerry, by his promises to roll back the tax cuts for “the rich” and spend that money about twenty times over in different programs, show that neither is going to restrain that particular problem.

And, by the same token, I think there are areas where the federal government needs to be spending more, or more wisely/effectively. I’m conflicted on many levels over the best course to take with national health care policy, but I suspect it’s going to take some profound restructuring of our system to make it “work” right (and some substantial costs, both in money and in how we think of health care entitlement). I believe we need to be spending federal money priming the pump for private investments toward alternative energy sources (while bearing in mind that “energy independence” is not something that anyone can wave their hand and make happen in 5, or even 15, years).

Unfortunately, Bush will never do more than a piecemeal patch here or there as a political sop, and Kerry isn’t much better, rhetoric aside (and bearing in mind the political/fiscal realities). So not much of a choice there, either, though philosophically (in terms of bullet points on policy papers), I probably side more with Kerry than with Bush on a lot of these things.

Religion? I am not one who thinks that Bush is intentionally driving us toward a theocracy — nor, conversely, that Kerry’s win will mean the Bible will be banned. There are aspects of Bush’s openness to bringing in “faith-based” organizations that I approve of, and other aspects that worry me (both for society and for the organizations themselves), but it’s been a useful, ongoing conversation. That said, Bush has probably, net, done more harm to the idea of religion in the public arena than good; by reflexively pandering too much policy to the religious right, he’s reinforced the (in some cases just) paranoia of the rest of the nation.

The other, related major domestic issue has been civil liberties. The Bushies have not really been an order of magnitude worse than anyone else, especially given the circumstances of 9-11. They just continued trends that were already there (pushing for stuff that law enforcement and “homeland security” types have wanted for decades, sometimes with reason, sometimes rejected with reason). They’ve done it, though, in an awful fashion: in secret where possible; with smug, rigid righteousness where not (and with such awful PR sense as in coining the term “homeland security”), and in so doing have given the impression that, yes, they really are after a police state with John Ashcroft as the head of the secret police (picking Ashcroft has turned out to be another domestic gaffe — he’s both scary and ineffectual, which means there’s nothing to recommend him, save Bush’s renowned sense of loyalty to his staff).

Of course, it can (and should) be pointed out, we’ve avoided another major terrorist action on US soil since 9-11. Which means one or more of the following:

• Our homeland security efforts have been surprisingly successful, either in preventing such attacks (and then keeping them secret?) or in preventing such attacks from being seen as feasible.
• Our homeland security efforts have, by being overly zealous in various ways, managed to forestall such an attack (but at a high cost).
• The terrorists haven’t wanted to launch another attack. (That seems unlikely, for various reasons, not least of which is that I doubt there’s that strong of a centralized control over these guys.)
• Terrorist attacks take more time and effort than TV and movies and whistle-blowers make seem likely, and thus they haven’t been able to muster another 9-11 class attack — yet. (Then why not something smaller scale and, seemingly, easy to do. Hell, why not just car bombings? See previous point.)
• The whole thing was a big conspiracy by the Bushies. (Sh’yeah. If they were that good and ruthless, we’d be a police state already, and I couldn’t be writing this.)

Even here, the dichotomy of choices is not all that great. The Bushies have been overly aggressive viz civil liberties (and have torqued off some of their own supporters in doing so), but Kerry’s record in this (looking at his crime-fighting background) is not all that great, either. (Do you really think he’s going to push to repeal the PATRIOT Act, except, perhaps, in name, or to use as a club against Congress?) Expect the folks who’ve supported Bush on this stuff to return to their Clinton era muttering about black helicopters (and those who have opposed Bush’s homeland security measures to applaud Kerry’s clear-sighted efficiency in protecting us).

In a more specific religion/civil liberties policy area, I’m not particularly happy with either candidate’s stand on gay marriage. Bush takes the worst of it, proposing, fergoshsakes, a Constitutional amendment to set that bias in marble. Kerry, though opposing such an amendment, has been less than a bold leader in this area, falling back on “Let the states decide” (which, if it were Bush saying it, civil libertarians would be all up in arms about).

And then there are the creepy supporters

Beyond all that, and despite my general dislike for both gents, part what it comes down to is that I don’t want my vote to be seen as an endorsement of the rabid demonization of either candidate that’s gone on over the past year or so re Kerry, and the past three years re Bush. I think they’re both doofuses in their own ways, but neither is the Antichrist they are painted as. If I vote against Bush, it’s not a victory for the forces of Light and Goodness against a doltish dimwit religious knucklehead being manipulated by his corporate cronies and neo-con cabal into turning the US and the world into their capitalistic/Christian dominion. If I vote against Kerry, it’s also not a victory for the forces of Light and Goodness against a ultra-liberal weenie hippy traitor who wants to turn the country over to the UN and the eeevil secular humanists. If I vote for Bush, it’s not about giving Ann Coulter a reason to chortle with glee as she bites the heads off more puppies. If I vote for Kerry, it’s not because I want to see Michael Moore as the next Secretary of State.

If the question is, do I want on November 3rd to see Ann Coulter grinning ear to ear or Michael Moore, or whether I want to read the triumphalist screeds of the Freepers or the DUndergrounders, the answer is neither. I just don’t see a way around it (no matter how desperately I’ve tried). I’d give anything to avoid the inevitable “OUR GUY ROOLZ, YOUR GUY DROOLZ” capering and smugness that will occur, because the fact is there’s plenty of drool to go around, and the forced choice between Bush and Kerry is not some sort of contest between Manichean dualities. It’s like choosing whether to eat at that kinda dirty burrito place where you think you picked up that stomach problem last time, or at that Chinese place that had the good egg rolls but where you found that long, coarse hair in your noodles and the waitress was rude. Cue the disgusted face …

And there isn’t an alternative. Not voting isn’t an option. And even assuming there wasn’t a third party candidate out there who wasn’t a nut-job himself, casting a vote for such would be ducking the question as well. And, if things are as close as I fear they will be, it will be ducking the question and deciding it by doing so. Bleah.

The decision

All told, I think — at this writing, at least — that I will vote for Kerry. I support some of what Bush has done — some big things, and some strong support — but I’m not sure how effective he will be in following up on those things in the next four years (this is the opposite stand of those who oppose his reelection because they’re sure it will free him to take over ze vorld!). His “staying the course” is fine, but taken to extremes it represents blinders, which is just as dangerous as wishy-washiness. His unwillingness to take responsibility for anything that does go wrong, even in a “the buck stops here” way, is poor leadership as well — it’s perhaps understandable, given the way folks keep circling him like a sharks, waiting for a sign of weakness, but it’s still poor leadership, and dangerous leadership at that.

By the same token, I don’t think Kerry will swing things around that profoundly, since:

1. I don’t see him as all that diametrically opposed in a lot of general policy areas (no matter the campaign rhetoric, which enforces polarized positions, especially from the challenger).
2. I suspect he’ll be faced with a split (or unified opposition) Congress, and so will be limited in what he can do.
3. The situations he faces, especially abroad, aren’t going to magically change on 3 November, and he’s going to have to find a way to deal with them as they are, not as he’d like to wish them away or buck-pass to his international allies. I hope.

Of course, that Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative favors John Kerry might just be enough to change my mind. The Economist‘s regretful endorsement of Kerry is a lot closer to my own evaluation, as is Andrew Sullivan in TNR.

To be sure, I don’t like Kerry. He’s pompous, and he’s an opportunist. That he displayed physical courage when pushed into it three-plus decades ago is fine; that he’s elaborated upon those experiences, and has taken advantage of his Vietnam service over the years to play both the Bold War Protester and Brave Servant of His Country is somewhat less so. Kerry has basically stumbled into this candidacy, after a lackluster Senate career and a self-destructing set of Democratic opponents (Clark and Dean) in the primaries. He is a windbag of mediocrity, and is a contender only because he is Anyone But Bush. And that’s a real pity.

If he showed up at my doorstep, I’d ask him in. I’m polite enough to do that. But I wouldn’t go out of my way to invite him over for dinner. I wouldn’t for Dubya, either, though I’d be a scosh more inclined to, since he strikes me as a personable sort, one-on-one. But Kerry? Bombast is not charisma, which he demonstrates admirably.

Thus, this decision to support him (or, rather, to support him more than his opponent) irks me to no end. I’ve spent a fair number of keystrokes here defending one or another action of Bush’s (and opposing others, to be sure), and until about a month or two ago was fairly certain (60-40) I was going to vote for him, even if holding my nose a bit. I’ve enough of an ego to think that some folks will gain amusement by my backtracking (or “seeing the light”), and others will be irked or sadly disappointed, but there you go. I don’t know that I can say what single factor decided me, and I reject crediting the more virulent of the attacks on Everything Dubyesque that have grown more prevalent over that same time frame, but, bottom line, I presently think Kerry’s advantage of coming in fresh to various problems will outweigh the misgivings I have about some of the directions of his leadership (or lack thereof).

And, frankly, I’m looking forward to seeing some shuffling around in the chairs as folks change into/out of opposition to the White House. A lot of the rhetoric won’t change (nor should it, necessarily), but it will hopefully breathe a minor bit of fresh air into some of the debates (and keep some situations from being perpetually blamed on Bush, just as they were blamed on Clinton in the administration before). I don’t think I can stand another four years of Bush-haters hammering on the same topics (or, to a lesser degree, anti-Bush-haters doing the same).

Indeed, except for that last point (and that only rhetorically), I can live with either candidate winning. The Republic will survive another Bush term, or a (probably single) Kerry term. Different Bad Things will likely happen under either of their watches, but I don’t agree that this is The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes — and God help us if it is, because neither candidate is up to that challenge. And I can also respect someone who chooses differently from me — especially if they have their nose wrinkled in much the same way as I will.

And so it will be with that look of distaste on my face that I do whatever it is I do in the voting booth next Tuesday to vote for John Kerry. And, being a religious sort, I’ll throw in my prayers that I’m not making a mistake, and, more importantly, that whoever gets elected does a good job (better, at least, than my fears and misgivings) at serving the American people, and the world.