Well, and Your Humble Blogger has been asked about his lukewarm feeling for John Kerry. I haven’t gone into detail, partially because I find it depressing to talk about what I dislike about the man I will vote for in November. I would rather spend time thinking about what I like about him. For the record, though, I have found, in the past, that he tends to make decisions based on politics, rather than principle, which is actually not something that bothers me greatly (as a Madisonian), but then he seems to have bad political instincts, which means that his decision-making is highly suspect.
Laura Blumenfeld, in the Washington Post, writes a fascinating article which may well make me rethink that criticism. In short, I interpret the article to mean that Sen. Kerry makes decisions while keeping in mind the complexity of the issues. That means that he doesn’t stand on principle, nor does he totally follow political instinct, but tries each time to come to the best decision, based on the facts, in consultation with experts. That’s very difficult to do, and if that’s an accurate description, explains in large measure why he wasn’t a very effective legislator.
I was particularly taken with the point that, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, he asked Rudy Giuliani and Bob Dole for advice; that is the sort of collegiality that I like to see between parties. One of the my particular complaints about Our Current President is that he doesn’t seem to seek advice outside his Inner Circle; the secrecy that circle appears to like exacerbates its insularity, and their venal cronyism takes advantage of both. I would not expect a John Kerry administration to suffer from that.
So, do I think John Kerry would make a good President? Well, like any candidate, he has strengths and weaknesses, and much depends on whether circumstance plays to one or the other. Judging from Ms. Blumenfeld’s article, however, is seems that John Kerry’s strengths may be just the strengths we need at the moment: a tendency to listen to different voices, an appreciation for complexity, and foreign policy expertise, all together with being generally on the good guys’ side.
A side note: Deliberativeness (is that even a word?) is not the sort of thing I look for in a Leader of Men. That is, I expect Leaders to be out in front, and he who hesitates is last. On the other hand, I think the habit of deliberation is a good thing for someone with lots of responsibility, as for instance the leader of the Free World. Deliberativeness isn’t inspiring. It has no Elvis. But the job of President is half Elvis and half administrator, and Elvis was no administrator. It’s possible that John Kerry is the most deliberative man we can imagine becoming President in the near future; one of the problems with Madisonian government is that it does not encourage the long view.
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
What strikes me as odd about this election year, or more specifically, the democratic angle of this election year, is the almost apologetic point of view your party has about their nominee. I’ve never seen anything like it. This “ho-hum who the hell is he? Who cares as long as Bush is gone”.
Kerry just won the nomination, and people within his ranks already feel it necessary to make excuses for his record. Given the current political climate, I would have thought the democratic party would have been much more careful about who they offer as a nominee. But no! Who were those jokers they paraded in front of us?
Dean…a joke
Clark…a freak
Edwards…was never a serious candidate in the first place. (If you need evidence just look at the last “debate”, are you telling me that a seasoned trial lawyer could not have torn Kerry a new one on all sorts of points during that discussion!?) Nice guy campaign…yeah right.
What ever happened to the FDR type demos? What happened to kicking ass abroad and taking care of business at home? Hell, If you guys could find someone worth a crap, I might even vote for him. But I’m afraid GW is going to send that liberal back to Massachusetts…sorry.
Oh yeah, am I the only one that finds Kerry’s sing-song way of speaking supremely irritating?
Quadratic,
Welcome to this little blog; I have been hoping for different points of view.
That said, I disagree with your characterization of Governor Dean and General Clark; I didn’t support either of their candidacies, but they seem to me like accomplished men, with histories of success in their fields. I, for one, would be happy to have a sone who was such a joke or a freak.
As for Sen. Edwards, I find him an inspiring speaker, if not yet seasoned enough to be predictable. I like my presidents predictable; I want to have a good sense of what they will do. That’s my preference, but you may well have other priorities.
And, no, you are not the only one who finds Senator Kerry’s voice irritating. I find Our Only President’s voice far more irritating, though.
R.I.,
-V.
Ok, so all Dean/Clark/Edwards bashing aside, do you feel confident in Kerry’s chances of winning over the American people?
He seems to have all the charm and charisma of a cadaver.
I saw the news today. Kerry again referencing unnamed sources. This time some vague reference to “foreign leaders” wanting him to win.
Considering that the leaders he’s probably eluding to live in pussified countries that wouldn’t even have their own current culture or national identity without US unilateralism in World War II, that scares me. I don’t want my country’s security and foreign policy handed over to the UN. I’m afraid that is exactly what Kerry will do.
I’m no Bush fanatic, hell, he embarrasses Republicans like me everyday. But like you, Vardibidian, I like my President to be predictable. I know what George Bush will do.
If you asked me three months ago, I would have said agreed with your cadaver line. Since then, he has won an awful lot of elections. He won them in places he wasn’t expected to win. He won them in the South, and in the Midwest, and in the Northwest. He didn’t ‘skip’ any, and he did well even in the states he lost. The current evidence shows he is good at winning elections. And, of course, in the meaningless current polls, he is either ahead of Our Only President or even with him.
Other than your own judgment, then—and I’m not discounting that, but surely you understand it’s not the final analysis—what evidence do you have that Kerry will not win over the American people?
R.I.,
-V.
P.S. The foreign policy stuff, I have to think about. We’ll be talking about it in this Tohu Bohu for a while yet, so I hope you’ll help out.
I believe that Kerry’s success at the caucuses and primaries has everything to do with a perceived “electability” rather than his policies. I don’t know, but I think this is a first. Yet the fact of the matter remains, nobody really knows who this guy is! He votes wherever the political winds happen to be blowing at the time. He’s never sponsored any big legislation in all the years he’s been in office, and he’s taken both sides of just about every important political debate before the Senate.
He has a pretty good team in his corner though. It’s pretty savvy to know exactly what your weakness are, and try to pre-empt attacks buy predicting them publicly (e.g.. “Now they are going to attack my record, but let me tell you blah blah blah”). But I don’t think it’s going to work. His record speaks for itself, John Kerry seems to stand for nothing but his own political survival.
Here’s an interesting point of view on the Kerry phenomenom, check it out. I’ve never posted a link on a blog before, I hope this works…
Psychology Experiment
DOH! phenomenon…I hate posting errors!
Quadratic:
You raise some interesting points.
pussified countries that wouldn’t even have their own current culture or national identity without US unilateralism in World War II, that scares me. I don’t want my country’s security and foreign policy handed over to the UN. I’m afraid that is exactly what Kerry will do.
Please consider using a word that is more precise and less ridiculous than “pussified”. You could leave an adjective out there and have a clearer statement.
What is your experience/evidence that suggests Kerry will hand over the US security and foreign policy to the UN? What would Kerry do/not do here? What has he said or done recently or in the further past that suggests this probability? How would this change the role/responsibilty of the Secretary of State, or would that post be eliminated?