It's a a big blog disappointment to see Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Drezner jumping ship to support John Kerry. They are guys who support the war and know that only Bush would have prosecuted the thing so strongly. They both now fall under the magical spell that Kerry is going to solve all the problems that Bush didn't anticipate.
In Sullivan's case his support for Kerry is more rationalization because Bush supports the constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. You could talk Jesse Jackson out of Affirmative Action before Sullivan would be convinced that voters and not courts should decide this issue.
I don't read Drezner enough to know why he's lost his mind. A guy as smart as Drezner should know the difference between tough campaign rhetoric and the realities that Kerry will face when he takes office.
I still have doubts about Kerry. Massive, Herculean doubts. His plan to internationalize the Iraq conflict is a pipe dream. However, here's the one thing I am confident about -- a Kerry administration is likely to recognize, once the multilateral diplomacy fails, that it will actually have to come up with a viable alternative.
So Drezner is rationalizing his vote for Kerry in that Kerry will eventually decide that Bush's course was best.
Drezner should consier that a Democrat can only prosecute this war so much before he will tear his party apart. The 1-5% that Nader gets now could easily be 10-15% in the next election if Kerry were really out there killing terrorists. You cannot discount the hard core anti-war base of this party. Who doesn't remember that about 10% of Americans were against going into Afghanistan? You can probably add another 10% to that number that would refuse to go anywhere else.
Even if you give Kerry credit for believing all the things he says, he cannot remain politically viable actually doing so. His is the party of appeasement even if he personally has a chest of medals. Regardless of the campaign images we see, candidates do not lead political movements, political movements lead them. Bush 41 learned his lesson when he raised taxes in 1990 and had competition in the primaries by Pat Buchanan, and in the general election by Ross Perot.
Kerry is not being supported because he has a great vision. The people want him either because they hate Bush or are disappointed in how Iraq is turning out. Kerry is either going to disappoint those who take him at his word or the political movement that has led him. He can't please both groups and he'll have to settle for his own base.
You can hate what Bush stands for but at least you know what that is. You know his political movement actually supports his rhetoric. Kerry doesn't have that luxury. The political movement leading Kerry is opposed to Kerry's tough-guy talk. Something has to give. People who support the war on terror and vote for Kerry are voting for marketing and not realism.
UPDATE: Tim Cavanaugh has some harsher words than I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment