Centerfield

No longer "undecided"

I’m off the fence. It is not because I have had any divine inspiration. Rather, it is because time has run out. I really don’t want to vote for either of these guys but, as a relatively informed swing voter in a battleground state, I feel some civic duty to pick one of them and to attempt to articulate a justification for that pick.

I am going to vote for George W. Bush. For anyone who cares why, continue reading for my admittedly less than perfect rationale.

I consider myself to be a social liberal. I’m against most restrictions on abortion. I’m all for federally funded stem cell research. I don’t care if gay marriage is legalized.

I am also an environmentalist. I am adament that if it is recyclable, we recycle it. Some of my most memorable vacations have been camping trips in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, and Badlands National Parks, and canoe/backpacking trips into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. I would like to see the federal government make a serious re-commitment to our national parks and national forests. I also think that global warming is real and I am genuinely disturbed about the GOP's lack of seriousness about this issue.

Moving on to tax and spending issues, my main issue is the deficit. "Pay as you go" resonates with me.

If these issues were my top tier issues this year -- like they were in 1992, 1996 and 2000 -- I would vote for Kerry. But they are not.

I was a hawk in the 1980s, a strong supporter of Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union, and I think that approach was the decisive factor in the Cold War "victory." But by 1992, security issues receded for me and other issues moved ahead in my evaluation of candidates.

But 9/11 really was a transforming day for me, as my hawkish instincts returned and have predominated ever since. This year, I'm putting on my blinders and deciding my vote based only on national security issues.

These issues are no slam-dunk for Bush, at least with me. On the positive side, Bush was better than I ever thought he could be in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Within about 3 months of 9/11, the U.S. military and the CIA coordinated a rout of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that many experts thought was not possible, particularly in that time frame. Also, the absence of another homeland attack since, as well as decent economic performance despite 9/11 and a recession, must be recognized.

Nevertheless, Bush has been far, far from perfect, In 2002, he turned his attention to Iraq. At first, I hestitated and was unconvinced about the wisdom of such an endeavor. Why now, after 12 years? But I ultimately concluded (not based on any coherent argument from the Administration) that UN sanctions would collapse at some point and, if in the end Saddam had been allowed to get away with complete defiance of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire and multiple UN resolutions that required him to prove that he had destroyed all WMD, such an outcome could substantially impair US security in the long term (i.e, not necessarily "imminently").

Things in Iraq have not gone as advertised and, given the current state of events, I was willing to seriously consider a Democratic candidate who would continue the necessary fight, and perhaps even advance that fight through new ideas and new "credibility" but with a similar core instincts regarding the nature of the underlying threat.

In the end, after a full year of following as much as I could regarding Kerry's positions on these issues, I am less comfortable with the Kerry alternative. Put differently, Kerry didn’t make the sale with me.

I have identified at least four reasons for my inability to get comfortable with Kerry. First, Kerry has never explained in a manner that has made any sense to me why he voted against the Gulf War resolution in 1991 after Bush 41 had obtained the UN Security Council’s blessing. There was no doubt in my mind at the time (or now) that it was absolutely critical that the US respond aggressively to Saddam’s takeover of Kuwait. Apparently, there was doubt in Kerry’s mind. That bothers me to the extent that I have to trust his instincts in this new war.

Second, Kerry’s October 2003 vote against the $87 billion funding bill was, to me, inexcusable, and the Senate-speak that he only voted against because it was not tied to a rollback of tax-cuts doesn't work. That vote was a transparent attempt to have it both ways as he was trying to wrestle the nomination from Howard Dean. It may have been tactically wise at the time as he was trying to rally Atrios et al, but I lost confidence in him in that process.

Third (and as suggested by #2), although Kerry has said many things that, in isolation, sound reasonable to me, I have detected no consistency in his positions. I see Kerry the lawyer. One day he advocates one position. The next day he advocates a different, if not necessarily completely opposite, position. Because he is a good lawyer, he has advocated all positions with some effectiveness. But I am left with the impression that he is not genuinely committed to any of them.

Finally, Kerry's instincts -- recently confirmed for me -- appear to be just different than mine. As I was reading Matt Bai's article in the New York Times magazine on October 10, I didn't focus on the goal of reducing terrorism to a "nuisance" exchange. In fact, I actually agree with Kerry (and Michael Kinsley) on that point. But for me this quote confirmed that I just don't share his core instincts on this issue. (The article isn't available online anymore):

When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.''

With all of that said, I should note that I will not be genuinely upset if Kerry wins. Obviously, he would not surrender to al-Qaeda. Also, I don't think that he could get away with giving up in Iraq. And there may be something to the argument that it would give us a needed clean slate with disillusioned allies. In the end, I’m with Michael Totten: I favor Bush by the narrowest of margins. So I will vote for Bush with no enthusiasm and with the knowledge that my wife will cancel out my vote.

Posted by Todd Pearson at October 23, 2004 01:50 AM