Why is it that come every fourth November as we choose a candidate to support, so many toss their hands in the air in frustration as neither candidateever seems fills the bill? As I look back on my previous votes for President (dating to 1976, and in only one contest did I vote for the loser) I have to say I've done that myself each time. I've thought about it over the years, and while I don't mean to damn with faint praise, I've come to realize in a very practical way that in regards to this complaint, our two-party system shares a secret motto with Microsoft's XP programming team: It's a feature, not a bug.
The winner take all structure of our electoral system forces disparate factions to gel around opposing poles. Parliamentary systems give voters the chance to vote for the issue of their choice and leave it up to the elected Parliament to figure out how those poles should align. But our system forces the voters to align the poles at the precinct, county, state, and national level. That's why third (or fourth or fifth) party candidacies, while far from infrequent, have never been successful in Presidential elections, although they've certainly had their
influence.
Which brings me to the election, one week away, and and another encounter with this age old dilemna. Here's a decent description of it (via
Vodkapundit):
Some might argue that I'm scoring the election "Bush 0, Kerry -1" and ask how that's different from "Bush 1, Kerry 0" (i.e., a vote for Bush). And in a sense it isn't different, except for the "mandate" factor (i.e., one less vote for Bush to invoke). And of course there's always the question of my conscience, which is the only reason one really votes anyway.
Yes, I might prefer Bush over Kerry, in the same way I might "prefer" being deaf to being blind. But that doesn't mean I have to shove an awl in my ear.
Some of my favorite bloggers have publicly dickered around with this choice.
Daniel Drezner finally concluded he's voting for Kerry. Jane Galt has posted
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here asking questions of each major candidates supporters in an effort to cut the baby in half.
And a month ago I got an email from my left-leaning former college roomate (and commenter here, Graxnable) who pretty much plays the snake to Bush's wombat (or is it the other way around?) every chance he gets, challenging me to consider everything else in addition to the War:
[B]ut again, I boldly ask where are the [WCRS] analyses of Kerry's and Bush's stance on these things (set against your own opinion on them, which your blog readers might actually be interested in:
The environment and how Bush is protecting it or hurting it
Our treatment of our veterans (cutting their benefits)
The balance of trade
Patriot Act and privacy
airport and ports (cargo container) security
gay marriage
separation of church and state
Ubiquitous cameras in public places
What to do about Social Security
the expiration of the weapons ban
taxes
the deficit
the availabilty of abortion
prayer in schools
teaching evolution vs. creationism
stem cell research
secrecy in our government
the possibility that we will need to reintroduce the draft
jobs going overseas
What should we do about Putin moving back in a dictator direction?
How we should approach Iran and North Korea
But that list is loaded, and it it doesn't distract me. I don't think Bush has been nearly as bad with his environmental polices or the Patriot Act as Graxnable does, and I think both candidates (and parties) generally have their head in the sand about Social Security and government spending. There are some things I dislike about Bush that we'd agree upon, but they aren't decisive. (Although I love his suggestion that my readers might like to know what I think on these things too -- especially considering how many of them exist -- but that's the optimism of a liberal for you).
No, the poles have aligned and the choices, again and as always, seem unsatisfying. There's no one to vote for that combines my personal sense of "kill the terrorist bastards" and "stop trying to run the country from Washington".
But given the circumstances, for me anyway, it all comes down to the Global War on Terror. In it's absence, I'd have another set of problems to consider, but it isn't absent and that's that. Anyone concerned about anything in the list above, anyone in either party, in my view can't avoid the fact that all of those problems become worse if we do not succeed in the GWOT. And so, the question is, which of Kerry or Bush will prosecute the War more succesfully.
On the one hand, I think Bush has properly identified the stakes. Critically, he understands that allies are only useful to the extent they are actually allied with us. He (and his team) get's a big plus for quickly resolving Afghanistan in our favor. He also gets a plus for taking the War to Iraq, which held a unique position amongst the most dangerous players in the world because it is situated smack in the middle of the Middle East and was controlled by an unpredictable and reprehensible tyrant and avowed enemy. There's no doubt in my mind that we did the world (and ourselves) a huge favor by taking the opportunity presented by the necessity for the War to move on Saddam aggressively. It was the right war, in the right place, at the right time.
John Kerry, on the other hand, gives me no sense of security in the knowledge that he views the War in the same way. His fetish for international agreement preceding action (that is, and let's all be clear about this -- getting Russia and China to vote with us in the UN Security Council) is a carefully calibrated bit of politcal crapola or, alternatively, pie in the sky romanticism. Kerry, we're told, will do "it" smarter, but after listening to him for months I have absolutely no idea what "it" is.
Which is a shame because smarter, or at least being quicker on our feet in post-war Iraq, could have been a blessing. As I've
said before, though, by no means do I think our objectives in Iraq are lost.
But Kerry's long record of opposing Cold War weapons and opposing the first Gulf War (which, let's face it folks, was pretty much a no brainer to support, especially given Kerry's present elevation of international consensus to the be-all-and-end-all of our foreign policy), leaves me colder than a witches tit. He opposed the first Gulf War because he wanted to negotiate further with Saddam. He opposes now, he says, the timing of the invasion in 2003 for essentially the same reason -- we should have let the inspector's "do their job". International weapons inspectors are marvelous folks when those being inspected allow them to do their job. Saddam never did, and there's no reason to believe he was about to change. One of the things I like about Bush is that he handled the pre-war build up well -- he "consulted" and he "negotiated" in the UN -- he did it all. And when they balked, he walked. John Kerry says he knows a balk when he sees one too, but seeing as he's made a living taking his foot off the mound I don't believe him.
As the primary campaign heated up in the months following the Iraq invasion it became pretty clear that even if Kerry had firm convictions that the war was the right thing to do, he couldn't win the Democratic nomination by following those convictions. So he was either right, but dithered on the point to win votes and defeat Howard Dean, or he was wrong all along. Kerry wants this stuff both ways and for all I know (and hope!) if he's elected he'll show us he means what he's saying half the time.
Last, half of the criticism of the handling of post-invasion Iraq has irritated the hell out of me. How would present day war critics have handled the fact that we sent thousands of soldiers to die in
death traps during WWII? More than one thousand soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you say, in the grand scheme of war, that 1,000 isn't all that many if you think about it for a moment? Democrats, that is post-Vietnam Democrats, can't. Life isn't cheap, and war is hell, but if all you talk about is the former you'll never be able to conduct the latter.
So what's my problem then with Bush? Well I'm not a social conservative and not really a conservative at all, at least as that term is defined by conservatives themselves. Along those lines I don't know what the hell Bush is -- if anything he's to conservatives what Clinton was to liberals. He throws them bones now and then, but crosses the line when he can gain political advantage. Clinton was more deft at it, but you can't tell me that Clinton's support for welfare reform or the Communications Decency Act weren't similar in this sense to Bush's trade protectionism, or drug bill. So I'm not a Bush man in the sense that if you took Graxnable's list above I'd agree with Bush's take on alot of them.
So what's my problem with Bush, I ask again? It's some of that, I supposed. But for me it comes down to this: too often in the War's execution he and his team have tried to be too clever by half. Were Kerry a believable supporter of the War that would cause me problems. But he isn't, and so I've got to say that bug or feature, I'm probably more comfortable voting for Bush than I've ever been voting for Ford, Reagan twice, Bush I, Clinton twice, or GWB in 2000.
What happened to the bug?
[Linked to
Outside the Beltway.]