For whom should I vote? (part 2 of 2)
This is the second of two blog entries that I
will write, outlining the process by which I have decided for whom to vote come
November 2. In this entry, I will describe the arguments for and against
placing my vote for Sen. John F. Kerry
Someone who read my earlier blog entry on George
W. Bush and the arguments for and against voting for him, commented that I
didn't say much about Iraq. True enough, but I'm writing about someone who
opposed the invasion in the first place. I was honestly surprised by how
accurately I predicted how things would happen up until now. I predicted a
swift fall of Baghdad, followed by an insurgency that would become increasingly
hostile. I predicted difficulty in finding the fabled WMD's (although I admit
that their complete absence has been a little bit of a surprise. I predicted at
least one incident/scandal that would galvanize our opponents there.
And I predicted that, within five
years, the country would collapse into civil
war.
That Bush mishandled the situation
in Iraq is an understatement and he dragged us into an unnecessary and prolonged
military incursion.
Now. On to John
Forbes Kerry.
For more than two years
now, you could buy a bumper sticker for your car that reads "Anyone but Bush
'04." It wasn't long before several prominent (and several other not so
prominent) Democrats sought the right to be that "Anyone." In all, ten
different people declared their candidacy, seeking the Democratic nomination for
President (although Sen. Bob Graham dropped out before Gen. Wesley Clark
announced his intent to run.)
Before a
single vote was cast, I ranked all ten candidates from my favorite to least
favorite of all. Top on my list was former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, and
bottom on my list was Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman. John Kerry was third
on my list, behind Gov. Dean and Gen. Clark, and just ahead of Sen. John
Edwards.
Truth be told, Sen. Lieberman
was the only one who couldn't get me to vote for him against
Bush.
Still, in the year 2000 I cast my
vote not for a candidate, but rather against another. And I felt dirty about
it. This year, I didn't want to vote against Bush, but rather for someone else.
All of this begs the question: does
John Kerry deserve my vote as a candidate himself? I can answer that question
with a resounding 'yes.'
I was only
three years old when our pullout from Vietnam was complete. That said, if I
were of the appropriate age at the time, I probably would have been protesting
the war, burning my draft card, and otherwise trying to let the government know
that I felt that it was wrong for being there. This is not a statement of lack
of support for the troops. You can support the troops without supporting what
they're fighting for (something that appears lost on many conservatives even
today...)
As far as I'm concerned, John
Kerry's was the face of supporting the troops, but opposing what they were
fighting, since he was both. In any conflict, both sides will presumably
believe that they are right, without regard to who will emerge victorious. It
is wrong to take away the humanity of the opposition, even in times when we
struggle to identify the most basic of human traits. Nobody is evil, pure and
simple, no matter how much we might want to believe otherwise. A hand of
friendship to your enemy shows more strength and courage than a loaded gun or a
sword. To those Vietnam vets who perceive Kerry's statements and actions as
treasonous to your cause, the gooks you killed had just as much reason to kill
you as you had them. If you would be just willing to open your eyes, ears, and
hearts to them, you might even be able to learn
something.
But that's also the past.
Vietnam was a mistake, but one that we as a country needed to make. There is a
greater percentage of our presidents who were also war veterans than those who
were not. And a veteran who has seen the horrors and devastation that comes
from battle should be trusted a bit more than one who hasn't, when it comes to
committing our troops. George Herbert Walker Bush demonstrated this when he
assembled a true coalition of international forces to drive Iraq out of Kuwait
in January, 1991.
A president who did
not serve in wartime, such as Bill Clinton, was overly cautious in committing
our troops. Some feel he pulled out of Somalia too soon, but that is a sign of
his lack of war experience and his willingness to admit the
same.
So I do think John Kerry would
make a better commander-in-chief of our armed forces, because he knows what it's
like to be on the front lines.
But this
election is about more than just foreign policy. He has already indicated that
he would be willing to nominate members of the republican party to cabinet posts
and ambassadorships. The only Bush nominee whose views are more liberal than
his own is Colin Powell, and that's even questionable how much more liberal
Powell is, than Bush.
Kerry seeks
compromise, both internationally and domestically. Kerry has some interesting
proposals for reforming our health care industry, and it might be worth a try.
Ditto on education, fiscal responsibility, and fighting
crime.
We need a dealmaker. Someone
who understands nuance.
Anyone but Bush
'04? Yes.
Kerry '04? Most
definitely.
Posted: Mon - October 25, 2004 at 06:59 PM