And the Luke-warm Kerry Endorsements Are In

So both Dan Drezner and Dave Adesnik have endorsed John Kerry, mentioning that an important reason they are voting for Kerry over Bush is Bush's inability to admit mistakes or revise his beliefs in the face of new information that conflicts with his ideology. Obviously, for two academics (and an aspiring one myself), this appears to be a huge problem. Dan Drezner writes:

But in the end, I can't vote for a president who doesn't believe that what he believes might, just might, be wrong.

Dave Adesnik echoes Drezner's sentiment:

And like Dan, I believe that the heart of the problem is the closed-mindedness that prevents the Bush administration from adapting in response to its own failures.

In a later post, he says:

As a professional researcher, I think I simply find it almost impossible to trust someone whose thought process is apparently so different from my own.

But, is there a plausible explanation that might describe this in terms of the current political climate rather than some inherent defect in Bush's thought process? I think there is. While not getting Bush off the hook entirely, it does at least explain why he has acted the way he has. As the 9/11 Commission noted that Republican opposition to Clinton made it more difficult for the Clinton White House to deal with Al Qaeda in an effective and decisive manner, I believe that Democrats' vehement hatred for Bush immediately after the last election entrenched Bush to the point that he could not admit any mistake publicly and thus severely hampered his decision-making process.

It seems that since his election, Bush's critics have hated him to the core. It seems as though this was even worse than the Republicans' hatred for Clinton. The Democrats thought that Bush stole the election and they wanted to get him on anything. In this kind of climate, no matter what Bush did, they thought was wrong. If Bush said it was day, the People for the American Way would say it was night. If he said it was night, the NAACP would say it is day. As perfect examples, see the Senate Dems' stubborn opposition to Michael McConnell for the Circuit Court (who was endorsed by liberal legal academics like Akhil Amar) and their disgraceful smear campaigns against countless others like Linda Chavez, Charles Pickering, Peter Keisler, etc.

I can definitely imagine that if Bush had ever admitted a mistake, the Democrats would immediately pounce on it and say, "See, we told you he's incompetent." Count the number of times Kerry has quoted administration officials admitting some mistake on some policy issue. Take the firestorm after Bush imposed the steel tariff and the firestorm after he lifted it. The only motives attributed to Bush throughout the past four years would be either evil or stupidity. Who would admit mistakes in such a climate? A person will admit mistakes when he knows that those he is addressing don't think that he is either evil or a complete moron. The Democrats were never interested in helping Bush fix the mistakes he might admit to. They just wanted to harp on them (see Tora Bora, where Kerry has actually flip-flopped... in 2002, he declared that the strategy of using Afghan warlords was a good idea... when our goals were not achieved, he says that Bush made a mistake and now won't fess up).

In academia, if Dan Drezner writes an article that another academic disagrees with, the other academic doesn't respond in a journal saying, "That ape, Daniel Drezner is a disgrace to the University of Chicago. I cannot believe that that esteemed university would even consider him for any job." But in essence, this is the rhetoric coming from not just the extreme left, but mainstream Democratic groups and even members of the Senate. This is how, from day one of Bush's presidency, the Democrats have comported themselves. Imagine if Dave Adesnik in an academic discussion said, "Yes, I agree that my claim X about rebels in El Salvador was ill-founded," and a fellow researcher got up at a conference and said, "Aha! I knew it. Even he admits that what he said is totally wrong. This proves he's incompetent." I bet Dave will become much more entrenched (justifiably) next time he argues with the other researcher or makes a presentation at a conference.

Have other Presidents faced such fractious political climates? Of course. Ronald Reagan was considered crazy by many Democrats after his election. But when Reagan, Carter, Clinton, etc were elected, nearly everyone thought that their election was legitimate. The other side didn't feel cheated, as though something illegal went on to deny them power. After 2000, it was all different. The other side not only disagreed with Bush on ideological grounds, but also believed that he was an illegitimate president and used anything possible to oppose and embarass him.

Again, this doesn't get Bush off the hook. If he had demonstrated good leadership (say like Truman who had a sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stops Here"), he would have admitted when he made mistakes and figured out a way to fix them. But, it is also true that Kerry's Democratic Senatorial colleagues (and in some cases, Kerry himself) are very much responsible for this sorry state of affairs in American politics. They created a situation where Bush could not save face under any circumstance and made public pronouncements of Bush's illegitimacy.

UPDATE: Welcome Belgravia Dispatch readers. I completely agree with Greg Djerejian's comments that hopefully this time, the losing candidate will have more class than Gore did and not request a recount, thereby dividing an already-divided country. Yes, I hope so too. Though I don't think that it will happen. I am afraid Kerry's handlers aren't particularly scrupulous in this regard (they did it once in 2000!) and the Bushies will retaliate for last time and because they probably truly do think that the Dems have been engaging in sketchy practices (see Ann Althouse's posts over at Instapundit for the last week).

From Our Mailbox

Bush v. Kerry: Domestic Differences
Max Pappas

Much presidential campaign ink has been spilled over Vietnam, Iraq, and Heinz-Kerry verbal gaffes, but relatively little has been said about the gulf that separates President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry on domestic policy issues. It is here, particularly on big issues like Social Security, taxes, and legal reform, that the two candidates are miles apart, offering a clear choice.

For starters, Bush and Kerry fundamentally disagree on how to deal with Social Security's pending insolvency. The system is set to run short of money by 2018, pushing both candidates to address the issue. Bush said, "Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account." Plans based on such accounts have been reviewed by the Chief Actuary of Social Security, who found such reform would enable Social Security "to be solvent and to meet its benefit obligations."

John Kerry also has acknowledged that the "program has serious problems." As President Clinton recognized, there are only three solutions: raising taxes, cutting benefits, or obtaining a higher rate of return through personal accounts. In the past, Kerry has favored securing solvency for the program by raising Social Security taxes, having voted to do so eight times. To date, raising taxes is the only option he has not ruled out, recently saying, "I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. I will not raise the retirement age."

Kerry has been vocal and critical of Bush's proposal to allow workers to own and control a portion of their payroll tax dollars because, as workers accrue large amounts of wealth in their accounts, the financial institutions handling the accounts would also profit by charging up to 0.8 percent for their services. Kerry’s vehement opposition to President Bush’s proposal for individual ownership of retirement accounts should give a considerable portion of Kerry’s base pause, considering Bush’s plan would most help women, minorities, and low wage earners.

The candidates also offer very different views on taxes. On average, we work until lunchtime everyday to pay our taxes, and spend collectively more than 6 billion hours a year complying with the complicated tax code. Bush has said fundamentally tax reform is something “we ought to explore seriously.” While the Bush tax cuts of the past three years have further complicated the tax code, they have also saved taxpayers $372 billion between 2001 and 2004, with every income tax payer now paying less, and families making $20,000 to $30,000 on average seeing their taxes go down by $638 this year. Bush is pushing to make these tax cuts permanent, ending the death tax and the marriage penalty, as well as cutting double taxation on savings and investment.

Kerry, in contrast, has come out against these tax cuts, citing them as the reason for the federal government's ballooning deficit-rather than pointing to the rapid increases in spending from Congress. Kerry has shown consistent opposition to the Bush tax cuts, having voted against them in 2001 and 2003, and against marriage penalty tax relief 22 times. This is consistent with his 19 year Senate voting record, which shows he has voted against tax cuts 126 tax times and for tax increases 98 times, including 10 votes for higher gas taxes. And his campaign web site reads like a list of ways to further complicate the tax code, rather than showing any sign of wanting a simpler system.

A third substantial difference between the candidates can also be found in their plans for dealing with lawsuit abuse. Economists have estimated that higher prices on goods and services due to expensive lawsuits cost us $233 billion a year. They estimate that this "tort tax" equals 2 percent of GNP or $809 per person. On the campaign trail, Bush has been critical of "junk and frivolous lawsuits" calling for reform that would mean settlement money "goes to those harmed and not to trial lawyers." While Governor of Texas, he successfully passed 3 legal reform bills. In his four years as President, Bush has tried but failed to get similar reforms through the Senate.

Democrat candidate John Kerry, and his running mate John Edwards, a trial lawyer, are both members of the Senate, where legal reforms have been blocked time and again. Lawyers and law firms are the biggest contributors to federal campaigns, with 71 percent of their donations going to the Democrats for a total of over $70,000,000 this year alone. When talking about lawsuit abuse, as it applies to dramatically rising health care costs, Kerry prefers government covered health care to malpractice lawsuit reform. Kerry would see that "the Federal government picked up the cost of nearly 20 million kids."

Americans frequently lament a lack of substantial differences between candidates, but that should not be the case this year. With George Bush and John Kerry, we have two distinct visions from which to choose.

Max Pappas is Director of Policy at FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization dedicated to lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

Funniest Ad Ever!

Club for Growth has just released a new ad about Kerry's flip flops, directed by David Zucker (of Airplane and Naked Gun fame). Quite possibly one of the funniest ads I have ever seen. Money line:

“THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH A LITTLE INDECISION AS LONG AS YOUR JOB DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY.“

Brilliant!

Tainted Love

You have a lot going for you, but most people will
only remember you for one thing, and a lot of
them will try to copy it. They'll all suck at
it, though. Besides, you've got better stuff.


What band from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Defeatists for Bush

I think that a very undercovered angle about the two candidates' ideas on the War on Terror is that in some sense, Bush's doctrine of preemption and democracy promotion is much more of a Realist position than John Kerry's approach.

Here's the rundown of the respective candidates' positions. First, Kerry pays some sort of lip service to the pre-emptive strike doctrine, as evidenced by his quote from the first debate:

"The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. "

His stance, however, is confused by his speech at the DNC when he said:

"And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

This seems to imply that only when danger is utterly imminent, will he use preemptive force.

Kerry hit Bush hard in the second debate on the failures of homeland security to secure the country better. He cited ports as an example of where we are not doing enough to check all cargo, making it possible for a terrorist to slip something in. He also attacked Bush for our inability to catch bin Laden due to our diverting resources to Iraq. Then, there is his epic interview to New York Times Magazine where he is quoted:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

It seems that Kerry wants to focus our efforts on law enforcement, beefing up security here in the homeland, and going after people we have deemed to have already committed criminal acts against us. He will go after those about to commit these acts only if and when they are pretty much pointing a gun at us, with their finger on the proverbial trigger. Eugene Volokh has already commented on Kerry's bizarre law-enforcement analogy to prostitution and illegal gambling.

This stance seems to suffer from the assumption that law-enforcement is perfectly able to stop criminals from committing crime. The key here is that in fact, as with prostitution and gambling, it can not stop every single criminal. In the case of terrorism, even if we have all of the proper security at ports and nuclear power plants and water treatment facilities, etc, there will be holes. In a country as large as ours, when thousands are trying to kill us every year, it only takes one (a success rate of just 0.1%) to be successful. And that one is just one too many, when thousands of people's lives are stake. Kerry admits this to some extent. He wants to get to a place where terrorism is "not threatening the fabric of your life" even though it is still out there. But what he fails to understand is how much it can, and there is nothing that we can do here at home to stop that. Even though there are police barrickades in lots of places in NYC and DC, someone can still pack quite a punch by strapping on a backpack of explosives, PLO-style, and walk into, say, the Times Square subway station at 9 am or 6 pm. It would probably kill 1000 people instantly, probably maim countless others. Better yet, board a train at rush hour and watch it derail. Short of checking everyone upon entry into the subway - an impractical proposition - there is no way that we can stop this scenario.

So, what does Bush offer us? He offers us an aggressive strategy that tackles the core roots of terrorism. Remember after 9/11, all the elite college campuses were abuzz about the "root causes" (see here, here, and here)? Well, all of you liberal friends of mine, here's some red meat for ya, compliments of GWB. What the Left did have right to a great extent in the days following 9/11 is that undemocratic, oppressive regimes allow terrorist groups to recruit soldiers among the communities of discontented, disenfranchised, poor young men.

Where they were wrong is in their assessment that capitalism was the cause. In fact, capitalism (true capitalism not the Saudi nepotist kind) and an economy that allows participation by all sectors of society are the cure. A free society (that is free economically and politically) allows people to enjoy a high standard of living and makes the government responsible to its citizenry. Only totalitarian regimes like Iran, Iraq, and until recently, Lybia (though even to this day it conceals its human rights record) can be truly suicidal and not care about their nations being destroyed. Destruction of the US is in itself a virtue to these nations and so they are willing to sponsor terrorism no matter what the consequences. Democratic regimes that respect the rights of minorities prevent Islamofascist factions from forming. The truly nefarious forms of Islam are at their heart anti-democratic. See the comments made by the clerics in Iran that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Look at Wahhabiism's stance on Democracy prior to 9/11 (even still, the Saudis are hesitant to move towards a democratic regime).

Bush's strategy is in some sense Realist in that he understands that we can only do so much on the homeland security front. Yes, we shouldn't be stupid like leaving our ports or airports exposed. Yes, we should allow the CIA and FBI to share intelligence on suspected terrorists. And yes, we should do as much as we can here at home. But, after a while, the law of diminishing returns sets in. We can't prevent every terrorist. And it only takes one to cause serious damage. So unless we are dealing with the core problems that address the issues of why terrorism exists and why terrorist syndicates like al Qaeda are able to recruit seemingly Westernized young men to do their dirty deeds, we are never going to be able to nip this problem in the bud. He understands that it is in nations where the regimes restrict opportunity for advancement to large portions of the population that terrorism flourishes. He said this in plain terms during the first debate:

"And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want."

Kerry, by contrast, does not even talk about democracy promotion. Not a single time in the two debates does he address Afghan elections nor does he praise the efforts to promote democracy throughout the world. To him, any idea of promoting democratic regimes to stop terrorism, is a diversion from the real threat, Osama bin Laden.

Bush also gets the fact that a healthy extension of American force in a few strategic places makes other potential evil-doers fear our power. When leading by example does not work, the threat of force is a very powerful tool. Look at Lybia, which has promised to disarm. Look at Saudi Arabia, which has finally started to crack down on al Qaeda in its midst. Look at Pakistan, which has been transformed from a regime supportive of al Qaeda and the Taliban to a regime that is wholly engaged in the War on Terror. Furthermore, he understands that at its core, extreme Islam is anti-democratic. Hence, a democratic regime is the best prevention against extreme Islam gaining a significant foothold in the nation's political process (see Turkey, for example, where the Islamic party at least pretends to be moderate). And finally, he understands that capturing bin Laden and even al Zawahiri and al Zarqawi is pointless. al Qaeda and global terrorism are more about particular personalities. It's about an ideology that is spread to distressed communities which have not taken part in the gifts of capitalism, democracy, and globalization because of their regimes.

So I think that Bush is acting out of much more Realist impulses than Kerry is. But to make matters worse, I think Kerry does not get the fact that we can't be putting corks in to stop floods. It only takes one terrorist. It only takes one Customs Inspector on the take. No matter how good we are and no matter how many bin Ladens we catch, if we are not aggressively projecting our power to promote democracy in nations that are currently breeding grounds for terrorist groups and to scare totalitarian regimes into reforming, we will pay a heavy price regardless of the number of billions we spend securing our ports and airspace.

UPDATE: I realize that I didn't do enough to acknowledge that Kerry understands that terrorism can't be prevented by law enforcement 100% of the time (based on the New York Times Magazine quoted above). Yes, certainly, Kerry's analogy illustrates the point perfectly. But, I think that all of his public criticisms of not doing enough on security domestically and NOTHING on democracy promotion are a testament as to which he thinks is more likely to prevent future attacks. Also, I think that as Eugene Volokh said (see link above), the analogy to prostitution and illegal is particularly bad because law enforcement is particularly bad at preventing them and that unlike these crimes, terrorism has serious and profound consequences even when only one or two terrorists are unimpeded by our efforts. So, even though Kerry seems to be all over the map here, I think that the consistent message from him is this:

A) We need to beef up law enforcement. Democracy promotion escapades like Iraq detract from this effort.

B) We need to beef up international law enforcement cooperation. Democracy promotion escapades like Iraq make us unpopular.

C) We need to catch bin Laden. Democracy promotion escapades like Iraq are a diversion from the real target of the War on Terror, bin Laden.

D) Law enforcement is imperfect, but we need to get to a point where terrorism doesn't effect our lives.

Kerry's realism about limits of law enforcement in D) undermine his idealism on the concept in A, B, and C. Terrorism's disastrous consequences when law enforcement fails to stop it prove that reliance on A, B, and C alone is dangerous. But A, B, and C, also denigrate the realist strategy of prevention. So, he has no comprehensive way of dealing with terrorism as best I could tell.

That one day ... little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a plan today ...

What is it with John Kerry and his obsession with the word "plan"? The phrase "I have a plan" has become so automatic to him that one could call him a policy wonk Dr. King, slightly whiter, slightly less eloquent, and with a lot less substance to back up the empty rhetoric of his promises. But don't believe me -- count 'em for yourself.

From the September 30th debate:

"I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror."

"I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table."

"You don't take America to war unless you have the plan to win the peace."

"No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

"They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks."

"Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said we will plan carefully. They obviously didn't."

"I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster, by cutting -- by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections."

"So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've laid out in four points, each of which I can tell you more about or you can go to johnkerry.com and see more of it; or you have the president's plan, which is four words: more of the same."

"I think my plan is better."

"And my plan has a better chance of standing up and fighting for those troops."

"... it's important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't."

"But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace."

"I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning."

"I also have a plan to win the war on terror ..."


From October 8th, the second debate:

"I have a plan to put people back to work."

"...not rush to war without a plan to win the peace."

" I have laid out a different plan, because the president's plan is not working."

"I have been consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help us do it."

"He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace."

"He gave you a speech and told you he'd plan carefully ..." [No, you did. -Ed.]

"I've proposed a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years."

"I could do a better job, my plan does a better job and that's why I'll be a better commander in chief."

"Go to johnkerry.com, you can pull it off the Internet, and you'll find a tort reform plan."

"I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care for you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let you buy in to the same health care senators and congressmen give themselves. I have a plan that's going to allow people 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare early. And I have a plan that will take the catastrophic cases out of the system ..."

"What means something is do you have a plan? And I want to talk about my plan some more. I hope we can."

"I've proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years."

"Let me begin by saying that my health care plan is not what the president described. It is not a government takeover. You have choice. Choose your doctor. Choose your plan."

"The only people affected in my plan are the top income earners of America."

"The Wall Street Journal said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my plan."

"The president rushed our nation to war without a plan to win the peace."

"I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists."

"But I also have a better plan on how we're going to deal with Iraq."

"I have a plan to provide health care to all Americans. I have a plan to provide for our schools so we keep the standards, that we help our teachers teach and elevate our schools by funding No Child Left Behind. I have a plan to protect the environment ..."

I rest my case.

Shiny Things

Who knew the Wizard of Oz had such a cool story behind it? And that a man who refused to be crucified "upon a cross of gold" would be depicted as a cowardly lion? Perhaps this tidbit of American History is familiar to most people, but it's the first I've ever heard of this connection.

A Philosophy Fix

Miffed by this blog's relative silence as we prepare the October issue? Join myself and Ms. Apostolides, President of the Objectivist Study Group at Yale and The YFP's own publisher, in a more philosophical conversation over yonder.

And on another note: thank you, Captain Obvious.

Character in Politics

One thing that is apparent in elections is that character plays a huge role in the way that people vote and view politicians. In some respects this is a good thing; I think, for example, that the way Bush or Kerry responded to their war duties is actually indicative of how they are likely to handle national policies; of, for example, how patriotic they are, or how likely they are to confront rather than evade national problems (like a drastically increasing budget deficit), i.e. do the right thing when not forced to.

I also think character is worth focusing on because it's important to have politicians one can actually admire. Part of increasing voter turnout and information receptiveness in citizens comes from having leaders that they can respect. (This is why negative advertising has been seen to lead to a decrease in voter turnout). The personalities of politicians correlate very obviously with the enthusiasm for politics more widely manifested.

However, there are more constructive and less constructive ways to focus on character in an election. It is disconcerting, for example, that the most widely known fact about George H. W. Bush was that he hated broccoli; or that 86% of likely voters in the 1992 election knew that the Bushes' dog's name was Millie, while only 15% knew that both Bush and Clinton were in favor of the death penalty (The New Yorker, August 30, 2004). Obviously people need to be thinking more about the policies they want to see enacted, and whether they can trust each candidate to do so, rather than about whether the particularities of the candidates' characters conform or not to their own idiosyncratic preferences. Politicians, likewise, should not respond to this frivolity. Teresa Heinz, for example, was right to throw a fit when Kerry's campaign managers sent her hair-styling and make-up instructions.

On the other hand, politicians should stop trying to obstruct knowledge of their personalities where such knowledge is actually important. My strongest demand, if radical, is that politicians actually write their own speeches. One cannot develop a trust relationship with a candidate who has five to ten speech writers working for him; or who is simply reciting the demands of lobbyists and the recommendations of the latest Gallup polls. One should be able to access a politician's personality by hearing him talk. A presidential debate, like the one we saw on Thursday, should not be organized in such a way as to minimize spontaneity. It was also very disappointing to see the candidates giving answers that not only evaded their questions but sounded like bad pieces of trite and rehearsed rhetoric.

Given that people seem to care so much about the personalities of their politicians, they should make more demands for forums in which those personalities can actually come through; they should press for more interviews, more debates, and more spontaneity. If they don't want leaders who look like puppets, its up to them to change that.