I'm going to gripe at a few things you said, and then talk about the bigger picture that your post actually addresses.
Quote:
|
Kerry's history suggests that he is willing to fight a war, then stand up against its principles and negatives, but this would be too much benefit of the doubt, so we'll assume he's waffling.
|
His history doesn't merely "suggest" this, and no "benefit of the doubt" is required. He DID go to Vietnam, DID serve heroicly and earn the silver star, and DID rise to prominence in the anti-war movement, and testify before congress.
His post-facto rationale is that he voted to authorize war at the president's discretion. The senate essentially abdicated its authority to declare war, and gave it to the president as it pertained to Iraq. Kerry claims that he didn't really want to see Iraq get invaded, but wanted to give the president the power to bluff credibly. The idea was that the imminent threat of American power would coax Saddam into some kind of compliance with UN Res. 1441, and avoid a war.
The "waffling" bit (particularly on Iraq) is a GOP talking point, and is repeated endlessly in the press. Sure, Kerry has an elaborate position on the war, but that doesn't mean it's an inconsistent one.
Quote:
|
Many Americans join Kerry in this waffle, however, and feel that continued preemptive war will only result in more terrorism and continual war, even as they supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
|
Your interpretation of the issue is unclear and incorrect. You are right about one thing though: "Many Americans ... feel that continued preemptive war will only result in ... continual war..."
First, nobody's really talking about "continued preemptive war." The Bush people aren't. The Kerry people aren't. Nobody is. The only people with any credibility at all who talked about ending the Iraq war (the only major preemptive war going on right now; remember, we're not talking about starting any others anytime soon) were some of the long shot Democratic candidates. So, more preemptive war is not on the table, and neither is ending Iraq. Both Bush and Kerry would "stay the course" as they like to say.
I'm thinking you draw on polls for this sentence (I hope). It's true that polls show most Americans support "ousting Saddam." Who wouldn't? It's also true that many people believe that in the long run, going to war every few years won't solve the problem of terrorism, and indeed might make it worse. A lot of people also think that going to
Iraq didn't reduce the overall terrorist threat America faces, and indeed might have made it larger.
The point is, there's no "waffling" going on here at all. People believe both that getting Saddam out was a good thing, and that the Iraq war has had some undesireable consequences for the war on terror.
Quote:
|
In other words, the folks who believe we're all gonna die any day now will vote for Bush to protect them, even though 9/11 happened while he was protecting them. The folks who believe America is trying to become "America the All Powerful" will vote for John Kerry to return us to a humbler state, even though his rise into power was forced largely by his ego, or lack of humility.
|
Bush = Strong on Terror, but failed to stop 9/11 versus Kerry = wants to stop American hegemony, but has a big ego. This is an interesting proposition, but I'm not sure it's true, and I'm not sure it tells us anything. Why is that? A much more plausible interpretation of Bush is that 9/11 happened, and he had an epiphany that terrorism was a major problem, and he jumped on it. If you recall, there really wasn't any association at all between Bush and fighting terrorism. One might even think his motivation to prevent another attack is greater than anyone else's could be, as 9/11 did happen on his watch, and his reaction to it has been to vow not to let it happen again.
Whether or not his efforts are likely to succeed is for another thread.
Second, the connection you draw between Kerry's personal ambition and his potential to pursue a muscular foreign policy isn't that clear. I don't think Kerry's "ego" will inspire him to invade other countries.
And finally:
Quote:
|
Additionally, those who claim Kerry doesn't have the international chops to handle the job are the same folks who voted for Bush, who had (reportedly) never left the USA of his own volition prior to his presidential run... and those who claim Bush is a power-grabber who stole the last election will support someone who would lie to his grandmother for a vote, likely.
|
The difference again, is context. If you recall, in 2000 national security wasn't a big issue. The issue was "keeping our prosperity going," and how to spend the surplus, and how to plan the future of our domestic policy. Iraq had been off the table for a good 2 years by then. There was a surplus, though we would later note that a depression was beginning in January 2001, after the election, but before Bush took office. The election was petty and superficial, imho. International policy wasn't on the table, so people didn't criticize Bush for being a governor.
I'm going to stop there on that last quote. This post is getting rather long.
You're attempting here to show that a lot of partisans are bound to be hypocrites in a lot of areas. Likely voter supports X, so he supports Kerry for supporting X, but Kerry actually only supports X sometimes, and other times he actually supports NOT X!
But is anyone here actually being "busted," so to speak?
I think not. Political views can be looked at in a number of ways. One is cultural, which says that association is more important than specific policy views. Particularly among non-independants, specific positions aren't often critical. Others might reply that policy positions DO matter. A lot of independants are single issue voters. A stand on health care, the environment, or protecting children from vulgarity might matter. On the other hand, a lot of voters decide based on personality, or on which candidate "seems to be trustworthy," or "is a good leader."
More likely still is that all of those views have some truth. Personally, I vote based largely on party and ideology. What kind of person Bush or Kerry happens to be doesn't really matter. As a voter, I'm not "in play" as they say. My mother is turned off by the Bush swagger. Though pundits mention his likeability, not everyone does.
I'll stop with this point: people who vote do so because of what they think will happen in the future, and vote based on an aggregate perception of a candidate based on a variety of factors. People get a feel for the kinds of things a president will do, and for the kind of person he is. One can look to how a voter feels about the war, and predict how they might vote with (I think) pretty good accuracy. If they are anti-war, and vote for a man (Kerry) who voted for the war in senate, are they hypocritical? I don't think so. Their position of the war doesn't exist in isolation, and positions on the war can be extremely complex. It fits into an individual zeitgeist that encompasses not only political views but other views as well. I don't think we should let this complexity deter us from analyzing voters, but we should also not be surprised when we find things that seem to indicate hypocrisy or internal inconsistency.