Megan McArdle offers a thoughtful analysis of the presidential candidates and concludes that Bush is the lesser evil. If you’re into that kind of thing, go check it out. Here’s a teaser:
What about Kerry? He’s been on the wrong side of pretty much every foriegn policy issue he addressed before he began running for president, from nuclear freeze to the first Iraq war. He’s been a borderline incompetent as a senator. I like Joe Biden, who is advising him on foreign policy, but that’s about all he has going for him. His votes since 9/11 have been so coldly opportunistic that I, the ultimate political cynic, actually feel a little tinge of disgust. So though liberals keep telling me that 9/11 changed everything, I have no way of knowing whether they changed John Kerry. Columns telling me to listen to what he’s saying elicit only a hollow laugh, since John Kerry has already made it abundantly clear that he’ll say pretty much anything to get elected. Not that this is exactly surprising behaviour in a politician.
Does it matter? There’s a pretty compelling argument to be made that the Bush administration has screwed up so badly that it’s practically impossible that the Kerry team could be worse. I have two problems with this argument. The first is that the people who’ve been making it to me mostly hated Bush before Iraq, before 9/11, and indeed before he got the Republican Party’s 2000 nomination. Bush could have been running the greatest foreign policy since Machiavelli, and they would still be arguing for me to take Kerry’s prospects on blind faith. And second, I’m not sure it’s true. Pulling out of Iraq would be worse than leaving a blundering administration there, and as Mickey Kaus said of The Economist’s Kerry endorsement “it’s always a shaky moment in these non-peacenik endorsements when the writer tries to convince himself or herself that Kerry won’t bail out on Iraq prematurely, isn’t it? (Kerry has been ‘forthright about the need to win in Iraq,’ but do you trust him and if so why? Because Andrew Sullivan’s blogging will keep him honest?)” Still, the administration has screwed up in some major ways, leaving me wrestling with the question: how bad could Kerry be?
In the end, it comes down to how much risk the candidates will take. The Democratic policy on foriegn policy risk has been pretty much the same since McGovern: they won’t take any. They bug out at the first sign of casualties, and go in only when the foe is so tiny that we can smash them without committing ground troops.
The Republicans take risk. Bush took on a lot of it — and with it, the possibility that something could go wrong.
For me, the question is pretty simple: Kerry’s a pussy, Bush isn’t. I support Bush.
Uh, “Bush” is a synonym for “pussy.”
“Kerry” is a synonym for “wimp”.
What makes Kerry a “pussy”?
If you can’t tell by now, there aren’t enough words.
Yup.
Wonderful thinking.
Of course, any furthur words would probably continue the descent into name calling.
Kerry doesn’t want to attack the root causes of the terror problem, Kim he just wants to hold some big meetings and wave his hands around. When your nation is under attack by serious enemies, this isn’t a serious posture.
On the other hand, he could be faking…
Thanks for the serious comment.
What do you think are the “root causes” of terrorism?
Failed socialist economies and political oppression are the causes of terrorism, and the US is simply an innocent scapegoat.
That’s my opinion, but Bin Laden, Michael Moore, and John Kerry blame US support for Israel instead.
Take your pick.
What do you think of the terrorist’s own comments on economic & cultural imperialism as a root cause?
It’s blame-shifting.
Check to see if I understand your point. The root cause of terrorism is that thecountries that produce terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt) embrace socialism, which not only fails but permits the rise of oppressive governments. It is their own doing, yet they blame their own problems on a false conception of US economic & cultural imperialism.
If I understand your position correctly then, the root cause of terrorism cannot be be eliminated as such (since it is based on a blame-shifting delusion), only the terrorists themselves can eliminated.
My question is this: it’s one thing to eliminate existing terrorists, but how to prevent the making of future terrorists. How to break the revenge cycle?
What’s your opinion?
If I may jump in here — you break the cycle by promoting and building democracy, as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. People, even more than information, want to be free. We can help them do that. That’s why the vote in Iraq in January is so important. To place a democratically elected government, even if it’s flawed, in the heart of the Arabian peninsula, is strong juju.
Unfortunately the “you have to break some eggs to make an omlette” principle sort of comes in here. It’s the broken eggs that keep the revenge cycle going. There’s a sound principle in building democracy to root out terrorism, but we must remind ourselves that much time is needed when warfare is the primary tool. Time for the invasion/occupation atmosphere to subside. Time for the deaths of families to be forgotten. In the meantime the revenge cycle goes on. This is a concern.
The jihadis have broken a lot of American (and other nations’) eggs over the past two decades. And in this war, the revenge-minded will have to either suppress that notion and support democracy, or get killed.
That is to say, as long as we have a President and an electorate who understands the threat we face. We’ll see.
Might I suggest a indefinite period of American-backed martial law in Iraq (& any other countries that require invasion) until all terrorist impluses are suffocated.
That ain’t much of a democracy to me. And there’s no reason they (whoever “they” are) can’t take care of themselves, much as we do. We just help with the bootstrap.
Sheer fantasy, Scott.
Oh, well…if only I’d known this sooner. I won’t bother asking why.
When the government of Malaya asked the Brits for help in rooting out their commies in the 50s, they declared martial law for several years until the job was done, thereby avoiding a Vietnam scenario. The elected government of Iraq may find this necessary if they’re still facing terrorism come January, but it’s their call to make, not ours.