WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR BUSH.
Taking a Chance
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 09.09.04
<snip>
We also know that by far the worst attack in history occurred on George W. Bush's watch. It seems a bit of a stretch for the vice president to turn this around and say that only Bush guarantees protection from terror and that Kerry all but guarantees its re-emergence in America. Mr. Vice President, the historical evidence is not your best friend in this regard.
Moreover, we also know that there is a limit to what any government can do to prevent future terror attacks. That's why the public, by and large, has rightly not held Bush (or Clinton) solely responsible for September 11. Truly determined terrorists can and probably will get through and murder Americans in the near or medium future, whatever anyone does in the next four years. When all it takes is a warped, jihadist mind, concealed explosives, and an unprotected shopping mall, murder will happen. There is no direct or immediate cause and effect in this war, as Dick Cheney well knows.
And the effect of better policies versus worse policies in these matters can only be measured long-term and, even then, may be hard to measure. Take Iraq. My own view is that intervention there probably increases the danger of short term terror, but, if it is successful, is one of the few things we can do to minimize or reduce long-term terror. That may make it more likely that we will get hit in the short-term, but that shouldn't be the test of whether the policy is ultimately a wise one. And that's why, in this respect, Cheney is pushing his luck. By saying we'll get hit under Kerry, he's running a huge risk if another attack does take place under Bush.
And this crude piece of deflection is deployed more widely as well. 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.
<snip>
subsription req'd
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3Dfisking%26s%3Dsullivan090904
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
