I know bloodlesscoup often comes off as universally against our beloved President, and universally for Kerry, but it is worth noting that there are some legitimate potentially objections to a Kerry Presidency. Daniel Drezner (a Univ. of Chicago Int'l Relations prof) admits to being right wing (and did some work for the 2000 Bush/Cheney ticket, if I remember correctly), but finds himself drifting towards Kerry in this cycle. He still has issues with Kerry, but for him it comes down to process: Kerry has bad instincts, but good procedures and decision-making/policy analysis - Bush has better instincts, but catastrophic decision-making and analysis.
Given the foreign policy stakes in this election, I prefer a leader who has a good decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I don't like, over a leader who has a bad decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I do like.
If Bush gets re-elected, he and his team will view it as a vindication for all of their policy decisions to date. Whatever groupthink occurred in the first term would pale besides the groupthink that would dominate the second term. Given the tactical and strategic errors in judgment that this administration has made, I have to lean towards Kerry.
The comments section after his post is where the real action is. I won't quote any (it's a very long thread), but there are a bunch of fairly thoughtful posts that really do find holes in Kerry's assumptions and plans. It's at least worth noting and debating the potential flaws that Kerry brings to the table. I still firmly believe that no one can be worse than Bush, but that doesn't make Kerry automatically Churchill.
One caveat: while there are nuggets of wisdom in the Drezner thread, there are a hefty amount of wingnut mouth-breathers. Try to ignore them. I still don't know why (reasonably) intelligent people continue to think that Kerry has given a veto over US actions to the UN or Europe. He has repeatedly stated and argued that he won't. I understand that many feel (perhaps legitimately) that he will be less aggressive, which translates to using force less often (and we should debate the pros and cons of this), but that isn't the same as a "veto" over our actions. Anyway, worth a read
Posted by baltar at October 16, 2004 03:56 PM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsI think if Drezner holds to these priorities he's going to have to vote for Kerry. If a CEO is completely incompetent, his intentions and instincts are of little value.
Plus the actual criticisms of Kerry here seem kind of light. I mean he seems to be saying that Kerry's approach (more multilateral) and new face will help ... but they won't help THAT much. It strikes me that something is better than nothing. And yeah, some of his posturing is perhaps a little tasteless election-year politics, but it's not like the president hasn't been doing that for 4 years himself (though I still think it'll be hard for Bush to out-do himself and top letting those Latin American terrorists into the country in what I can openly presume was a horrifying attempt to win favor with the Cuban-American vote).
Now the personnel question is interesting. It's hard to imagine a worse team than the Cheney/Rumsfeld brigade, but it is somewhat surprising that we don't hear more about who Kerry would appoint. Holbrooke would seem to make a lot of sense at State and would be hard to oppose (I hope he gets the nod if Biden is the alternative), but I think legitimate questions can be raised about some of the people surrounding Kerry. That said, I can't see how they'd be any worse than the current line-up at the Defense Department.
Oh, and I think the George column he draws on is spot-on and extremely important. Bush's disinterest in accountability is shocking. And I think it's vitally important to remember that the House will almost certainly still be run by Tom DeLay next year. That is going to put the breaks on Kerry's ability to wreak whatever havoc it is that the conservatives fear he will wreak, and I think that really there is an excellent argument to be made that if you are interested in staying true to the cause that a Kerry presidency would force conservatives to behave like conservatives again.
Posted by: Armand at October 16, 2004 05:44 PM | PERMALINKThat was my take on some of the comments as well. I really hadn't heard anybody's name tossed around as appointment possiblities (it is a bit early to be counting those chickens), but it does make for some interesting speculation. Why, exactly, are the bright shining lights of Democratic foreign policy? Holbrooke, Biden (if he wants to leave the Senate), Lugar (reaching across the isle, and if he wants to leave the Senate and leave his party; ditto for McCain), Whats-his-name (ex-Clinton US ambassador, Govn'r of New Mexico) and that's about it. Who the heck would run Defense for Kerry (and that's a critical post in the next four years, not just for Iraq, but for terrorism and restructuring as well)? Anyway, I thought Drezner had an interesting set of questions and comments. Just food for thought.
Posted by: baltar at October 17, 2004 02:16 AM | PERMALINKInteresting post. This was precisely the point I made to Morris awhile back. While I wasn't certain that Kerry would do a great job I was certain that Bush was doing a bad one, and I had a reasonable hope that Kerry would get a better team.
Posted by: binky at October 18, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINK