The Half-Assed Kal Presidential Endorsement 2004

Well, today's election day, and millions await Kal's last-minute presidential endorsement.

As my dear readers well know, Kal is supporting President Bush for re-election, although he doesn't exactly know why. I'm a heart a libertarian, but not the crazy gun toting pro-porn, legalize drugs and do away with government type. Okay, I'm pro-porn, but not the nasty stuff. I believe, to paraphrase the great P.J. O'Rourke, that a little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

I'm a republican in the mold of Bill Weld, or maybe Nelson Rockefeller. I want government to do its job, but do it with a minimum of my money, and while leaving me alone with respect to my choices of modes ecclesiastic and carnal.

I favor, or, more correctly, fail to care too much about, gay marriage. I don't see why we can't grant same sex couples all the civic benefits of marriage (property rights, taxation treatment, job benefits) while leaving it up to churches to call what they will marriage. I just don't see how it negatively affects me and my little family unit if my good friend Ahhhndrewww goes off and gets married to his beau.

I don't like abortion, but I can reconcile that by not having one. I do at my core think a three month old fetus is more than a random collection of cells, but I can't solve all the problems of the world, and I can not imagine what it would be like to be a 17 year old high school senior in trouble with very little in the way of prospects. Again, this isn't something for government, its a matter of conscience where prohibitive legislation would only be destructive and ineffective, so I guess you'd call me pro-choice.

I abhor too much connection between Government and Church, as I am afraid all too often organized religion is used to adjudicate matters temporal rather than matters spiritual. I don't think Jesus wants to give me a tax break, or wants to preserve my second amendment right to keep and bear arms. As the good book says, render unto Caesar what is Caeser's, render unto God ditto. I am a tad wary of the current President's preference for faith-based solutions, but Senator Kerry offers little in the way of contrast on that issue.

So why would I vote for this president?

Because I simply do not trust John Kerry. I've been watching Senator Kerry for fifteen years now, and I think he will do and say anything to get elected. I just can't get a bead on any sort of core set of values. I don't think he was always like this. I believe he was sincere in his objection to Viet Nam when he returned, but I think he began to sense that his extreme position (he advocated committing American troops only with UN approval in an interview with the Harvard Crimson in 1972, sort of an embryonic "Global Test", eh?) was not going to get him elected dog catcher. Particularly in Massachusetts, which for it's fairly large liberal ya-hoo contingent, is still run by conservative Roman Catholics who love God, mother, and country, and not necessarily in that order.

So he evolved. He evolved an advanced ability to sense an coalescing public position and stake out a claim to it before anyone else. How else do you explain his forays into conservatism (questioning affirmative action) in the mid nineties, right before being challenged by an immensely popular sitting governor.

I think Kerry voters will be disappointed should the Senator pull this out. Fact of the matter is I don't think he can do anything in Iraq except commit more troops, and perhaps hope to buy off the French with promises of oil contracts (the real reason the French were so opposed to US involvement -- as a digression, I believe the Germans had true ideological basis for their absolute abhorrance of the American position on Iraq; I can give the French no such credit looking at the balance of their foreign policy). Kerry can't get us out of Iraq any sooner than Bush, because he knows that a US pullout, followed by the toppling of the fledgling democracy and installation of an Islamo-fascist theocracy, equals no reelection.

Plus, by most counts you'll have an increasingly Republican House and Senate which will give a President Kerry absolutely zippo in terms of a comprehensive energy bill, or health care reform, etc etc. Name for me the defining legislative accomplishment of the Clinton years. Anything? Not that I can think of, but I could be wrong. And, you know, as a republican with libertarian tendencies, a little gridlock now and again suits me just fine.

Another reason I worry about the efficacy of a Kerry presidency (and, should he get elected, he'll be my President too so I'll be rooting for him) is that from what I've observed the driving force behind the Kerry campaign is that fact that he's not Bush. That's not a recipe for an effective term in office, ask Carter. I fear we will remain a deeply divided country completely unwilling or unable to recognize that the other side may have some merit to their argument.

As a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy I'll take some credit for that; we certainly gave Clinton the business. But, let's face it, Clinton was a craven liar. It wasn't the Lewinski thing that ticked me off -- frankly, I can understand trying to fudge that point. Clinton disappointed me early on by excoriating Bush the Elder on the campaign trail as "immoral" for pursuing a policy repatriating Haitian refugees fleeing the violence of Haiti in 1992, and as president some months later, pursued exactly the same policy. Don't vilify your opponent and call him immoral for something you end up doing yourself. That's sleazy and divisive, and drags down the discourse.

I think this campaign has been pretty boring, because it's been run pretty above-board by each of the campaigns. But I don't think there'd be too much in the way of difference in results in domestic policy between a Kerry administration and a Bush administration. The decisions a president makes have a pretty limited range of options. Kerry will take a run at some of the Bush tax cuts, maybe he'll get some of them reversed, maybe not. The next president will be the beneficiary, or victim, of an economic engine somewhat beyond the ability of government to harness too much. And most of the decisions that really matter to me, and affect me on a daily basis, are made in town hall or at the State House, not in Washington DC.

The differences between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy are real, but I think were glossed over by the Senator. He says the war was ill-conceived and wrong, yet he, knowing the same things the president knew, voted to support US action. He says we're screwing up the after-war, but his plan seems to consist merely of asking everybody else if they'll help out (jeez- why didn't we think of that?!?) (Of course, he might succeed where Bush failed, if only because he's not Bush). Likewise with Kerry's "plan" to get Bin Laden. Jeez, why didn't Bush think of trying to get Bin Laden? Brilliant! (by the way: anyone else concerned about the Senator's repeated assertations that he's going to kill Bin Laden. Methinks thou dost try to hard to look macho. Easy cowboy, what's wrong with arresting him and bringing him to trial? Why the bloodlust (well, obviously, the Senator has to combat the general feeling that he is, well, a wimp).

So, in four or so hours I'll trudge off to the polls and cast a ballot for my President. Not with great enthusiasm for the course we are on, but with the recognition that a tacking in the middle of a storm is the way to swamp the boat; and I'd like to stay dry for a while more.