[RAILhead]

An interetsing read from the Washington Times...

Reelect Bush, Faults And All

By George F. Will
Sunday, October 31, 2004; Page B07

"THEODORE! with all thy faults -- "
-- The New York Sun's 190
endorsement of Teddy Roosevelt

This column has expressed abundant skepticism about the grandiosity of George W. Bush's foreign policy. And about his passivity about spending (he has vetoed nothing), his enlargement of the welfare state (the prescription drug entitlement), his expansion of inappropriate federal responsibilities (concerning education from kindergarten through 12th-grade, through the No Child Left Behind Act) and his complicity in vandalizing the Constitution (he signed the McCain-Feingold bill, which rations political speech). Still, this column prefers Bush.

Reasonable people can question the feasibility of Bush's nation-building and democracy-spreading ambitions. However, having taken up that burden, America cannot prudently, or decently, put it down. The question is: Which candidate will most tenaciously and single-mindedly pursue victory? The answer is: Not John Kerry, who is multiple-minded about most matters.

Tuesday's winner will not start from scratch but from where we are now, standing with the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Back in Washington recently, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said those women were warned that Taliban remnants would attack polling places during the Oct. 9 elections. So the women performed the ritual bathing and said the prayers of those facing death. Then, rising at 3 a.m., they trekked an hour to wait in line for the polls to open at 7 a.m. In the province of Kunar an explosion 100 meters from a long line of waiting voters did not cause anyone to leave the line.

Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction. Surely not the man whose most important vote in his 20 Senate years opposed using force to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. Iraqi forces had crossed an international border to eradicate a sovereign nation, but Kerry does not regret voting to oppose the forceful reversal of this aggression.

However, his career is one of multiple tepid regrets. Carefully parsed, his rhetorical ambiguities, which seem designed to discourage deciphering, suggest that he regrets not only his vote for Justice Antonin Scalia but also votes for the 2002 Iraq resolution, for No Child Left Behind, for the Patriot Act.

When he intimates that medical marvels will quickly follow his termination of a nonexistent "ban" on stem cell research, his dishonesty exceeds even his philistinism. His synthetic alarm about possible conscription would cost him his reputation for honesty, had he one after warning seniors that Bush will cut Social Security benefits up to 45 percent.

Regarding entitlements, Kerry's campaign has been of breathtaking banality. Some great challenges arrive without preambles -- the Depression, Pearl Harbor, Sept. 11, 2001. Others are precisely predicted. One such is the baby boomers' coming retirement. America's economy cannot retain its dynamism during this demographic deluge if it must support the welfare state as currently configured.

But Kerry is dismally believable when he vows that nothing will be done about this during his presidency. He promises no increase in Social Security taxes and no cut in benefits, and he shows no interest in original thinking about other ameliorative measures.

He is even banal in the fright-mongering that is his substitute for thinking about the problem. It is fair for him to warn about substantial transition costs associated with Bush's plan to allow Americans to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in a few approved equities funds. But his more characteristic response is to cry "Enron!" By which he means either that American capitalism is too corrupt to invest in, or most Americans are too obtuse to competently invest, or both.

A defining difference between the candidates and their parties concerns Americans' aptitudes for navigating modern society and for setting social policy through representative institutions. Which brings us to the next president's role in shaping the federal judiciary.

Kerry is more than merely comfortable with liberalism's preference for achieving its aims through judicial fiats rather than political persuasion -- by litigation rather than legislation. That preference for change driven by activist judges rather than elected representatives expresses liberalism's condescension about the normal American's capacity for thriving without government tutelage.

Bush sometimes confuses certitude with certainty, but he understands that to govern is to choose, and that some choices must make one lonely. Kerry constantly calls to mind a three-time Democratic presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan: "The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later."

So this column's conclusion is: "GEORGE! with all thy faults."

I couldn't agree more, I don't think.

Maury

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I couldn't agree more, I don't think.

I agree with those two statements.

4-8 years of a "tepid" Kerry will be a quantum leap improvement over Bush.

[aberdeenwriter]

I had neither seen nor heard Will's endorsement. I figured he'd vote W, but this is a welcome confirmation. I enjoy his writing and sensibilities and I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

[Saad]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
I agree with those two statements.

4-8 years of a "tepid" Kerry will be a quantum leap improvement over Bush.

Really? Why would we dare contradict the Washington Times?

A man who changes his opinion to match the facts is not indecisive, he is bright.

[voodoo]

I couldn't agree more, I don't think.

Maury

You could agree more you think?

Those double negatives don't not always make me dizzy.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Saad:
A man who changes his opinion to match the facts is not indecisive, he is bright.

A man who changes his opinions to match those of other men, however, is quite indecisive.

[Saad]

Originally posted by Millennium:
A man who changes his opinions to match those of other men, however, is quite indecisive.

And one who refuses to acknowledge errors made in his name is foolish.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You could agree more you think?

Those double negatives don't not always make me dizzy.

Here's a dumbed-down "translation" for you voodoo:

I could not agree more, I do not think. Thus, I don't think that I could agree more if I wanted to.



Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Saad:
And one who refuses to acknowledge errors made in his name is foolish.

Error is relative, so try again.

Maury

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Saad:
And one who refuses to acknowledge errors made in his name is foolish.

True. Now, define "error".

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
I agree with those two statements.

In other words, he must not be thinking because he agrees?

Do you really think your side has a monopoly on rationality?

[boots]

I like George Will. I disagree with him often, but not as often as many here might think. I disagree with the way he characterizes Kerry (not that I'm a Kerry Fan-Boy) in this piece.

I do agree with his criticisms of Bush and Co., and I agree with the idea that Dem's aren't going to do much differently on those particular issues, but I disagree with his reason for discounting Kerry specifically.

[Timo]

Curious that George Will should invoke the brave voters of Afghanistan as standard-bearers for this election, when Bush so clearly sold out Afghanistan (and the finding of bin Laden) to pursue other goals.

From the "The Rise of bin Laden", by Ahmed Rashid, in the May 27th, 2004 issue of The New York Review of Books:

Ultimately, it has been the war in Iraq that has been mainly responsible for the failure of US attempts to capture bin Laden. Despite the horrific killings in New York and Washington on September 11, there is now (especially in view of the information in Woodward's recent Plan of Attack) more than enough evidence to prove that the Bush Administration began planning the invasion of Iraq even before the war in Afghanistan ended in December 2001. Afghanistan badly needed peacekeeping troops, adequate security for both leaders and local populations, and funding for rebuilding the country. All were neglected by the US. SImilarly neglected was the hunt for bin Laden. That many of his top leaders were arrested created the false impression that he and the cells of jihadists linked to him have fatally lost power. As events in Madrid and Iraq have shown, this was an illusion.

This adminstration has already failed with winning the peace in two theatres. The evidence is before us. The guys we got in power can't make it work: I say give the other guy a shot.

As for Will's other pot-shots at the Bush Alternative, he should use the same caustic eye when looking at his side of the aisle. That he doesn't, and wouldn't, and won't speaks volumes. Lame.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Timo:
Curious that George Will should invoke the brave voters of Afghanistan as standard-bearers for this election, when Bush so clearly sold out Afghanistan (and the finding of bin Laden) to pursue other goals.

From the "The Rise of bin Laden", by Ahmed Rashid, in the May 27th, 2004 issue of The New York Review of Books:

This adminstration has already failed with winning the peace in two theatres. The evidence is before us. The guys we got in power can't make it work: I say give the other guy a shot.

As for Will's other pot-shots at the Bush Alternative, he should use the same caustic eye when looking at his side of the aisle. That he doesn't, and wouldn't, and won't speaks volumes. Lame.

You're right -- Afganastan DIDN'T hold elections for the first time in their long history.
You're right -- women aren't becoming proper members of society and government.
You're right -- the Taliban hasn't been removed from power.

[Timo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You're right -- Afganastan DIDN'T hold elections for the first time in their long history.
You're right -- women aren't becoming proper members of society and government.
You're right -- the Taliban hasn't been removed from power.

Afghanistan is a big huge mess, because Bush didn't win the peace. We're all happy that there were elections, and that the Taliban was removed from power, but what is this administration doing about keeping it that way?

NOTHING. Look for yourself.

Oh, and

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You're right -- Afganastan DIDN'T hold elections for the first time in their long history.
You're right -- women aren't becoming proper members of society and government.
You're right -- the Taliban hasn't been removed from power.

*SMACKDOWN*

[Timo]

If that's a "smackdown" your team's in trouble.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Timo:
Afghanistan is a big huge mess, because Bush didn't win the peace.

It's up to the people of Afghanistan to earn their peace. All Bush can do (and did) is give them the chance.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Timo:
Afghanistan is a big huge mess, because Bush didn't win the peace. We're all happy that there were elections, and that the Taliban was removed from power, but what is this administration doing about keeping it that way?

NOTHING. Look for yourself.

Oh, and

You got your talking points, no? I LOVE the way you phrase your statement: "We're all happy that there were elections, and that the Taliban was removed from power" like doing either of those was some small, insignificant "job" we just popped-in and took care of.

And what would you have done differently? Stayed there and taken care of everything, commanding them how to run their newly freed country? What would you have done, if you were President?

Maury

[boots]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You got your talking points, no? I LOVE the way you phrase your statement: "We're all happy that there were elections, and that the Taliban was removed from power" like doing either of those was some small, insignificant "job" we just popped-in and took care of.

And what would you have done differently? Stayed there and taken care of everything, commanding them how to run their newly freed country? What would you have done, if you were President?

Maury

I don't know, maybe helped to secure more than just the capitol before we moved on? That would be a good idea. Or are we happy that the majority of the country still has a power structure made up of war-lords, and that the new government doesn't have the manpower or training to handle security for more than the capitol? If we don't leave the new government with stability, the system will collapse again. Same thing if we pull out of Iraq too soon.


[edit] But I don't see the alternative candidate as being able or willing to do this differently. So this isn't (for me) a critical electoral issue.