I am not voting against Bush. I am voting for Kerry.
There are plenty of reasons to vote against Bush, of course, and my opposition to him started early, before I had an inkling of who would run against him. It is no secret that I generally favor Democratic or Green positions over Republican or Libertarian. Look at the title of the blog -- it’s a description as much as a play on words. When Bush ran, I knew that his budget numbers did not add up, and I could tell that his foreign policy would be mistaken. The fact that he put his trust in a missile defense system and did not realize he value of the interventions in Bosnia showed me that he had an outdated and thus dangerous notion of how the world worked. His support for Social Security privatization showed me that he did not understand just how buffeted by the market working people could actually be. And then, of course, was his lack of character. He had failed at everything he had ever set his hand to, only to be bailed out by his daddy.
Then came the election. I remember very clearly the lies Baker told on his behalf, and the fraudulent voter purge that his brother undertook on his behalf, and the refusal to recount the entire state. Then came 9/11, and I had some hope. Despite his cowardly reaction on the day in question, when he did come back, he said the right things and made the initial correct moves. Then he started to divide. First was the PATRIOT Act, as direct an assault on American liberty as I had ever seen -- until he came up with the notion of enemy combatants. Bush created, out of thin air, an entire class of people that had no rights: Bush could order them whisked off the street and held forever, with no appeal and no recourse. And then, of course, came the disaster that is Iraq. While the initial mistake - -equating states with terrorism -- was obvious from his campaign in 2000, the colossal and inexcusable incompetence in the aftermath of the invasion is breathtaking to behold, and more than enough to justify voting against the man.
But I am not voting against Bush. I am voting for Kerry.
There are lots of reasons, some related to policy. Kerry's policies shows that he appreciates the role government can play in helping people have an equal chance to succeed. His call for ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and his tentative steps toward fair trade, show that he understands that whatever benefits free trade brings, it also brings pain that needs to be dealt with. His plan to have the government help defray the costs of catastrophic health insurance shows that he understands where the biggest challenge to a healthy middle class lies: the rising cost of health insurance. It also shows that he understands how vital health insurance is to a modern economy. Kerry's energy plans show an understanding of how vital energy independence is. His support for saving social security, again, shows that Kerry understands how such programs help working people deal with the unpredictable changes in the economy.
Similarly, Kerry's temperament is one I want in a president. Yes, Kerry has occasionally changed his mind on issues. That is a good thing. I want a President who considers all the relevant facts and who is capable of seeing and understanding more than one side of an argument. I want a President who can change course when the facts demand it, not one who buries his head in the sand and tries to get by on stubbornness and posturing. I am not impressed with posturing.
Just as important, Kerry understands, in way that the Republicans do not, that the world has changed, that trans-national terrorists are the real threat. He knows this in part because of his work in the Senate brining down BCCI.
And BCCI is one of a handful of issues that convinced me that Kerry has the potential to be a very good or even great President. Kerry's career is littered with issues like BCCI -- complex issues where the powers that be were aligned against him, and Kerry fought on anyway. Kerry came back form Vietnam convinced that his country's policies were wrong. He spent the next several years fighting those policies. The Nixon White House made him a special target, spending quite a bit of time and money to discredit him. It cost him at least one election, and he knew going in it would probably hurt him politically. He did it anyway -- and more than did it. His organization became one of the most effective anti-war and groups of the era. When Kerry did get to the Senate, his signature achievements there showed much the same pattern.
First, Kerry took on the Reagan administration over the Iran-Contra scandals. Kerry started his investigation in 1984, at the height of Reagan's popularity. He dedicated his own staff to the research, even sending some oversea to interview people involved. He gnawed away at the problem without the help of his own party and in the face of obstruction form the Reagan Administration. And he uncovered the truth. If the Democratic leadership had the courage Kerry had, the past twenty years would have been very different.
BCCI was much the same. Kerry and his staff, in the face of opposition from the Bushies and within his own party (remember that Clark Clifford, a prominent Democrat, was involved in the BCCI mess), worried at the problem and eventually brought to light enough information to close down the bank and deny terrorists one of their favorite sources of funding.
I don't think Kerry is perfect, and I don't have the bizarre hero-worship that too many Bush partisans seem to have developed. I don't believe in heroes. Most times in life there are no white knights, the cavalry does not come charging over the hill, and divine intervention fails to materialize. The Lord helps those who help themselves, and we save ourselves, as individuals and collectively. Which, after a fashion, describes Kerry. His policies give ordinary people the tools to make their own way in the world. At least thee times, Kerry and his staff took on the dirty work of righting a wrong. He could have sat back and let more experienced, more popular, or more powerful people lead the charge. He could have sat back and allowed more popular figure, more experienced politicians, more powerful people decide that the wrong did not need to be righted. He did not. Each time, he did what needed to be done, and let the "big" men, the heroes, catch up to him. I will proudly stand by that kind of man every time.
I am not voting against Bush. I am voting for John F. Kerry.
