GregsOpinion.com

WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR BUSH

I endorsed Bush in 2000 but cannot do so again for three main reasons: a) his endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment (an unnecessary, massive over-reaction to a small and beneficial social change); b) his stunning expansion of government's power and spending (if a Democrat had this appalling fiscal record, no Republican would defend him); and c) his mismanagement of the war (the missing weapons of mass destruction, the under-staffed invasion, the lack of postwar planning, Abu Ghraib, the botching of the sieges of Fallujah and Najaf). Now leave aside (c) for a minute. Whenever I argue in defense of this decision on the basis of domestic issues I am greeted with derision on the part of many of Bush's supporters. Their argument? Essentially Cheney's. Whatever your disagreements with Bush domestically, they say, it's too dangerous to hand things over to an instinctual dove like Kerry. Actually, that's the nuanced version. The more common version is simply: Your gay rights will mean nothing if you're dead at the hands of Jihadists. Or: Even humungous deficits don't matter when you're toast. So suck it up and back Bush, you wimp.

I can see where these guys are coming from, and I don't want to sound like John Kerry, but it surely is a bit more complicated than that. Simply put, the blackmail is a bluff. Any president elected after September 11 will understand that defense of this country is the overwhelming priority--if only for his own political survival. The explicit differences between Bush and Kerry on this are not so glaring--or, more to the point, not so extreme that they can plausibly be described as making the difference between life and death, or victory and defeat. Both favor engagement in Afghanistan for a long time; both are committed to a transition of power in Iraq and elections next January; neither is urging war against Iran or North Korea--in fact, Kerry can seem more hawkish on North Korea than the president. Yes, there are clear differences in their approach to allies and troop numbers. But, again, this difference may be important but it is not dispositive in the short term. In other words, it is possible even for someone leaning toward Bush on national security to find his claim that he and only he can lead that war for the next four years a self-serving overreach.

Moreover, there is a connection between domestic issues and the war. Long-term deficits will cripple our ability to wage war across the globe as we may have to; and a deeply divided country--polarized by both sides for political gain--is not conducive to winning wars. And that leaves aside the many legitimate complaints pro-war advocates have made not about the decision to go to war itself, but about the unplanned, hapless, and increasingly desperate way in which it has been waged.

This is still a democracy; and one of its true merits is that people can assess whether their war leaders are wise, prudent, or need replacing. They can weigh domestic issues against foreign ones; and they can judge the likelihood of their imminent demise after deciding not to support George W. Bush. So, thanks for your concern, Mr. Vice President. But, after observing your administration closely for the past three and a half years, I think I'll take my chances.

I'm guessing that among Sully's three reasons, conservatives will see a) as being 99% of his rationale and lefties will see c) as being 99% of his rationale. I'm more inclined to think that if any of the points is warranted a bump, it may be b). Sullivan's point about the connection between domestic policy and war is well taken and seemingly something that so-called conservatives just don't get anymore. Fiscal responsibility? It's just a copout to not vote for a Bush bill with a shady cost prediction. Just vote for it and ignore the rabble-rouser who comes out next month saying he was pressured to not tell Congressional Dems the true cost. Also ignore any CBO projections about the costs ... those people just don't have good hearts. And when the costs are borne out and the deficit shown for what it is, just blame 9/11. If I had any doubts about this, all I'd have to do is read the commentary on this very site.

SIDENOTE: Oxblogger Josh Chavets has his own spin off of this as well, accepting a) and b), but leaving c) to be determined later. He makes some good points on Kerry in his take, and I think its worth reflecting on a good point that I thought was made on a recent Nightline episode taped in Iraq, with several soldiers being interviewed. Granted, it was a small sample of three soldiers Koppel was interviewing, but it struck me as evenhanded in the way they expressed both their concerns for Iraq and also their attentiveness to the debate back home. One soldier, not sure if he expressed his leanings, but seemed more for Bush - said his concern with Kerry's policy was that if it came to the point where either more troops were needed in Iraq or relief of troops (or rotation) were needed, would Kerry be queasy about doing so? It's a fair question due to the balancing act Kerry has to do with his anti-war/bring-em-home left as well as the responsible wing of the Democratic Party who suggests we finish the job and see to it that Iraq doesn't end up being something worse than it would be if we listen to the far left.

ADD-ON: Sullivan also points out a TNR peice that I'd missed ... one that does some snooping over at the libertarian Cato Institute and notes that think tank's votes may be somewhat divided this election. Not that it'll represent the biggest watershed event of the season, but its at least a little telling. Cato, you would sense, is a bit torn on Bush-as-deficit-dove vs. Bush-on-Ownership-Society ... but Cato has also been a bit at the forefront of a more isolationist stance regarding the Middle East. That said, Cato President Ed Crane has always been a bit of a flake, too. So go figure.