PhotoDude.com

Wed. Sep 08, 2004

Done With The Parties

To the Two Parties: I’ll put this as simply as I can, as I know you’re very busy people this time of year. But now that both conventions are over, I thought I’d let you know how you were doing with this independent voter.

After watching the Republican Convention, I’ve become convinced John Kerry is a flip flopper with an exaggerated record as a war hero (at best; at worst, a liar). There’s no way such a man can be an effective leader in 2005-2008 (or be effective if nearly half of this country thinks he is such a man).

However, the Democratic side has convinced me that George Bush is a draft-avoiding incompetent (at best; at worst, a liar), and only out to help his life-long buddies in Big Business and Saudi Arabia. There’s no way such a man can be an effective leader in 2005-2008 (or be effective if nearly half of this country thinks he is such a man).

You’ve all been quite convincing. I bow down in both honor and stupefaction, and agree with your conclusions: the two candidates are unworthy of my vote. What other choice have you left me? I also recognize that the 15 electoral votes from Georgia are going into the Bush column, whether I vote Bush, vote Kerry, or vote Curly.

I think the only thing left for me to do is to alternately laugh maniacally and cry over the state of our nation. And the fact that I somehow feel … violated. But then I remember the wise words of H.L. Mencken, and begin to understand why I feel that way: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Once upon a time (a little over a month ago), I thought that after the two conventions, I would try and break down the issues of importance to me into three “essays,” and write about each of them independently as they relate to our choice of candidates. I’ve already written a draft of a couple thousand words on “Economy and the Budget” (didn’t feel like I needed to wait for convention noise to write that), and had a good outline in mind for at least a couple thousand words on the biggie, “National Security.”

I no longer see any point in wasting any more of my time on that (or your time). Or on the inevitable partisan bickering that would follow in comments. Those issues aren’t the primary focus of this election, it’s about the perceptions of two personalities and their alleged histories, and you’ve already made up your mind (or rather, ~95% of you have). And if you haven’t, there’s about a zillion other people who will be happy to try and help you see Their Light.

My Light is ugly and judgmental (turn back, if you have any sense). Because, to me, an election is first and foremost a judgement of the incumbent, and the effect his policies have had. If you feel the incumbent is doing an “adequate” job or better, then their opponent is essentially irrelevant. On that count, this election has been turned on its head, as the focus of the Republican Convention appeared to be about discrediting John Kerry, not talking about the President’s accomplishments against Al Qaeda (Osama still on the loose, Conventions under Orange alerts), in Iraq (Saddam toppled, “Mission Accomplished,” followed by 800 more dead soldiers, entire cities abandoned to militants, and continuing unrest), or on the economy (4 years of job losses, and overspending the budget by 20%!).

Regardless of the Conventions, that’s where I have to start, with Bush and the past 4 years. And I’d planned on expending several thousand words on that judgement. But I wanted to wait and hear what the President had to say in his acceptance speech, and what he told us about his agenda for a second term. And though I’m clearly out of synch with the majority view of the speech, I thought much of his “agenda” was a vague string of what I call “we will” statements. Examples culled from the acceptance speech:

We will confront the hard issues, threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security, before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

We have the public resources and the public will, even the bipartisan opportunities to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare.

We will give low-income Americans tax credits to buy the private health insurance they need and deserve.

We will transform today’s housing rental program to help hundreds of thousands of low-income families find stability and dignity in a home of their own.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

It’s a laundry list of things “we will” do that are usually quickly forgotten, or are rarely executed as “willed,” or the “we” falls apart (“I did my part, but the Republican Congress blocked me”). As was the case with most of the above examples. You see, I pulled them from Bush’s acceptance speech … in 2000. But here’s a small list from the 2004 speech, some of which sound familiar:

In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

We will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care. In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.

To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.

By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America.

OK, maybe some of those things will happen. I just didn’t find it either inspiring or reassuring. I’m not alone in that feeling:

Half a dozen undecided voters who gathered here to watch President Bush’s acceptance speech made it clear before he took the podium that they had serious doubts about his leadership and his political choices. After listening to 62 minutes of carefully crafted oratory, Christopher A. Jackson found himself leaning ever so slightly the president’s way.

But, then, after listing all that bothered him about the speech, Jackson announced that he still wasn’t sure. “I honestly don’t trust the guy,” said Jackson, 41, a businessman and registered independent.

Linda Wheatley, 59, a retired elementary school counselor, said she wished Bush would move beyond concepts to details. When he said his next administration would remake “fundamental systems” of government to make Americans “truly free to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams,” she asked in an aside, “Yeah, what does that mean?”

Paul Stanis, 22, felt just as unsure after the speech as before. “I thought he spoke really well. I just don’t know if I believe him,” said Stanis, a doctoral student at Washington University in St. Louis who changed his voter registration from his native Indiana to Missouri because the race is so close. “One speech isn’t going to sell me on a vote.”

Washington Post: Speech Fails to Sway These Undecideds

But when I was reading the 2000 speech, I wondered, what ever happened to this guy:

I believe true leadership is a process of addition, not an act of division. I will not attack a part of this country because I want to lead the whole of it.

I don’t have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

I don’t deserve all the credit, and I don’t attempt to take it. I work with Republicans and Democrats to get things done.

This is what I mean by compassionate conservatism. And on this ground, we will lead our nation.

Coming across those excerpts was particularly jarring after the brass knuckles beating various parties at the convention administered on Kerry and all Capital L Liberals (i.e., anyone who isn’t a Republican). Both Bush and Cheney spent much of the 2000 campaign calling for a return to a tone of “civility and respect,” but their 2004 convention made it clear that quaint quest is now just a distant memory. And the infamous Cheney response to Sen. Leahy earlier this year has trickled down to the blogosphere. We all willingly (if not gleefully) wallow in the mud our leaders lay out for us.

And, frankly, the conventions are what did me in. The Democrats passed down an edict to their keynote speakers to stay away from Bush bashing (Al Gore had to rewrite his speech because of it), but rather than use that opportunity to give us a three dimension portrayal of their candidate and platform, it was sadly one dimensional. I don’t feel like they made enough of an effort to tell us new things, but rather tried to reinforce the old. And, oddly enough, I’d already heard that John Kerry served in Vietnam, got wounded, won some medals, came home and protested, had some vet buddies who loved/hated him, etc. etc. I was left neither inspired nor informed.

And, hey, that whole “war hero” strategy worked out real freakin’ well, didn’t it? I think EduDude sums it up well: “In order for Kerry to win, he must do at least two things. First, he must define himself. He failed to do so at the convention and left the door open for the Republicans to do it for him. Second, he must be able to get people to actually show up at the polls. Kerry has the same problem that Dole had with Clinton. The Republicans just wanted Clinton gone and assumed the rest of the country felt the same. So they were sloppy in their selection of their nominee and the rest is history. The Democrats just want Bush gone and have committed the same error. Kerry is to easy to tag as inconsistent, unsure and liberal. Whether or not these tags are true, they are easy to make into 30 second ads.”

Very easy. Especially when everyone is playing so fast and loose with “truth.” Truth isn’t as important as peddling perceptions. The Republican Convention sealed that deal. And that’s what we’ll get for the next eight weeks. It will escalate a notch on 60 Minutes, as new “testimony” revives the “debate” about Bush’s service in the National Guard (and/or the new charge “George Jr sent out of Texas by father as a ‘drunken liability’”). The Media/Blogosphere Scrum will then claw that to shredded pulp for a week. Or three.

Until another chew toy comes along. Then much new growling will commence. Susan Estrich, who has seen this movie before (when she was with Dukakis in 1988), explains from her viewpoint what is coming:

To Michael Dukakis’ credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work—that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can’t just answer the charges. You can’t just say it ain’t so. You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we’re not mean enough. Dukakis wasn’t. I wasn’t. I don’t particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on. I’m not promising pretty.

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? [...] Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard.

Or could it be George Bush’s Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened?

Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That’s why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently.

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

Could be? Is there a drop of remaining doubt? As interminable as this campaign has seemed, we’ve merely seen the second of three acts. All the serious blood always happens in the third act. And we’re dealing with professionals who are surely saving their worst for last. You save the big stink bombs to drop near the end, when there’s no time to clear the air of the stench and repair the damage.

So. I believe I am now fully cynicized. I no longer think I can even save myself, so I sure as hell ain’t wastin’ time on trying to save you. You’re on your own.

I will make one stab at condensing my several thousand words into a paragraph or three, for anyone who might care. On social, economic, budgetary, environmental, and most all domestic issues, Bush’s actions and policies are opposed to what I believe. We might agree on 15-20% in those vast policy areas. But I was willing to consider putting that aside and make this a “One Issue Election” on the basis of national security, if there was a clear difference.

Remember me, Mr. “Judge the Incumbent?” On National Security, I judge two major failures. Firing offenses. You’ll have to read the linked articles to figure out the details, as I’ve been ranting about both of them for quite a while. One is the failure at Tora Bora nearly three years ago: “We had the cat bagged up, we failed to seal the bag for one reason or another, and now we’re chasing kittens all over the place.” (The Last Mile – January 2, 2002; How bin Laden got away – March 4, 2002; Delayed Reaction – April 16, 2002; Al Qaeda’s Mass Escape – August 13, 2002)

The other major failure is the handling of Post War Iraq, and the Bush administration’s failure was clear to me beginning one month after Saddam fell: “It’s surprising to me that such an image conscious administration didn’t clue in on the fact this Post-War era would be critical to the long term impressions of this war. And plan for it, in great detail. Because no matter how shiningly the military won the war, the lasting impression left by, oh, say, November 2004, will be based on how shiningly we handled post-War Iraq.” (Where Was The Plan? – May 19, 2003; Another Asks, Where Was The Plan? – June 26, 2003; Reassessing Commitment – August 24, 2003; A Commitment Crunch – September 4, 2003; A Commitment Crunch, Part Two – September 4, 2003; A Commitment Crunch, Part Three – September 5, 2003; Phase IV, AWOL – November 5, 2003; Blind Into Baghdad – January 15, 2004)

In both cases, I don’t judge them as missions that were failures from conception, like many do. They were both a failure to fully execute and exploit a clear tactical victory in order to achieve the larger strategic success: the capture of bin Laden and about 1,500 Al Qaeda at Tora Bora, or the successful restoration of safety and security to Iraq (and, hopefully, democracy).

Despite the post-war captures of the past couple of years, Al Qaeda is orders of magnitude stronger than it would have been if we’d gone that Last Mile at Tora Bora, and our armed forces are going to be tied down in Iraq in large numbers for the foreseeable future because we didn’t assert control in the way we should have in April of 2003 (and for ages afterwards). This is, in effect, a foreign policy straight jacket for the US. No one talks about it in public. But the Big Players around the world can easily see that our military is in no position to handle an outbreak of war in Korea, or anywhere that would require more than a couple of divisions of short term force. And this will be true for a long time.

Most critically, I believe that Bush has expended his capital, and would have little to draw on in the next crisis. We now live in a world where, no matter what Bush might want to do (or need to do for US security), there’s a significant percentage who will fight him tooth and nail, on general principles and knee jerk philosophy (call it Clinton Deja Vu). This is true domestically and internationally. Combined with that “straight jacket” above, I have sizable doubts whether such an administration will be able to meet the challenges of the next four years.

Because whoever gets elected, I believe they are going to face some serious challenges before 2009. Iran and North Korea, in particular. So when I read the Kerry/Edwards proposal for dealing with Iran (who “bluntly rejected” it and now say they have a uranium mine, completing a full internal nuclear loop) ... well, like I said, I can find no horse to ride in this race.

I became a One Issue Voter, and now can’t find anyone I deem worthy of that vote. Plus, I live in a Red state where my vote (either way) will have no impact on the coming Bush landslide. For me, it’s all an unfortunate crap shoot from here on out.

Oh, I will still go vote. There’s lots of state and local races and issues where I can have an impact. But for President? Whether I like it or not, I have to wait and see who you people elect, out there in the states still up for grabs. And I’ll still vent my spleen here about the race now and then (when the voices in my head demand release), but I’m no longer pretending I’m on the way to a “decision.”

In a lot of ways, it’s been made for me. By the composition of the state in which I live, and by the candidates and their parties with the negative and/or non-substantive courses they’ve plotted.

I told the parties after the 2000 election, “To the two major political parties, throw us a bone, man. Somebody that can generate some enthusiasm in the electorate. We did our dead level best not to elect either of these guys. Serve up some more of same next time, and we’ll do it again.”

Four years later, my request has been met in a most unusual way. This isn’t exactly the kind of “enthusiasm” I had in mind. These “parties” are really popular with a lot of people, who seem to be gleeful at developing events, but for me, they’ve been a complete bummer. And some of you may be having fun now, but I believe this nation is headed for the Mother of All Hangovers.