This is the first article for my revamped website. Rather than the typical persona blather, I will now be writing opinion pieces about politics, philosophy, government, current events, or whatever else catches my attention. I hope you will find my writing useful, even if you do not agree with my points. I will try to keep an open mind to all dissenting viewpoints, but please bear in mind that this page is for my writing. Responses may be made in email, but they will not be posted in message board fashion. I will attempt to reply to any emails that I receive, but my time is limited. I apologize to all who do not receive a response from me.

There will be a learning curve, I admit. I need to get used to writing again. I will do my best to make my thoughts as clear as possible.

John Kerry: The Right Man?

A conservative instructor of mine, during a debate about the failures of President George W. Bush, asked me if “Kerry is the right guy” to replace Bush as president. It sounds like a simple question, but it is everything but simple. I never thought that John Kerry was the strongest Democrat in the race for president. After Howard Dean’s meltdown, John Edwards was the obvious next best choice. Of all the candidates, Edwards was the one the Republicans most feared. A true Southerner, a self-made man, a plain-talker with moderate views, he could have been a real threat to the Republican grip on the South and Midwest. But that was not to be.

Furthermore, I have some serious problems with John Kerry. I can’t blame Kerry for voting to give the President war powers in Iraq, but his explanation bothers me. There was not a provision in the Iraq resolution that required the President to seek UN support. Given G. W.’s history, why would Kerry think that the President would proceed in a thoughtful and forward-thinking manner? Kerry voted for the so-called No Child Left Behind Act, but then claimed that the President under-funded it. Pardon me? Again, which president did he think he was dealing with? A more likely explanation is that he was afraid that voting against both of these bills would be politically risky. The same goes for the other elements of the Bush agenda for which Kerry voted. I do not see these as flip-flops of his actual position, but a submersion of his real position in the flood of current popular opinion. Either way, it is not good.

So why vote for Kerry? Why not vote for Nader, Bush, or just abstain on general principle? It comes down to one simple question: Do I want four more years of George W. Bush? We do not get a ballot with just a “yes” or “no” box for Bush’s second term. We have to vote for somebody. John Kerry will clearly be a better president than our current one, even though Kerry is flawed and weak in some areas. There are other people who would be better choices, but they are not in the race right now. Democracy is all about discussion, debate, consensus, and compromise. The majority of the Democratic Party did not agree with me on my choice of candidates. I had my fair say, my vote, and Kerry came out on top. So be it. If he were going to be a worse choice than Bush Jr, I would not vote for him simply from party loyalty. But he will be better, so I will vote for him. He has workable views on the Iraq war, foreign policy, economics and health care. Are his policies perfect? Far from it. Some of his positions are not even fully defined, but as a Democrat he would be much more receptive to my point of view than a Republican president. During his presidency, I am sure John Kerry and I will disagree on many things, and I will be as critical of his mistakes as I am of the current president. But so what? Just because I think I am right does not mean that my opinion is law, and I should turn my back on any candidate that does not follow my prescriptions to the letter. No doubt there will be some occasions when Kerry is right and I am wrong. I hope I will be honest enough to admit it.

So why not Ralph Nader? Isn’t he the real liberal choice? He is the saintly protector of consumers against big, greedy corporations. He would win if only stubborn Democrats like me would vote for the man that they secretly know would be a better president. So the slogans proclaim. Nader’s vote splitting is a legitimate reason to not vote for him, but it is not my reason for not voting for him. I truly do not believe that he would be a good president. As Air America’s Randi Rhodes pointed out in his interview with Nader, “If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills!” (Read the transcript here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/19220/29611) It is a good question, and there is no good, realistic answer. President Ralph Nader would be the most powerless president in modern history. The Republican right would accuse him of being nothing short of a communist. Though the Democrats would have some understandable resentment toward him, they would also be motivated to distance themselves from his brand of liberalism (note to Naderites: most liberals in the South and Midwest prefer to call themselves “moderates”--it keeps them from getting stoned to death). He would be hard pressed to find anyone to support his agendas. The problem is not only political. Reform is good and necessary, but in a democracy reform follows the people, and no reform for which the people are not ready can be made. Ralph Nader was never a viable choice.

So why vote at all? I have abstained from voting before, and I have regretted it. Looking at voting as a choice between the lesser of two evils is wrong. As a citizen, I have a right to participate in choosing our government, but I do not have an inherent right to have my views dominate. The fact that neither of the two main options agree completely with me does not make them “evil”. Voting is a way of expressing my viewpoints, which must be taken into consideration even if my side loses. The majority cannot pretend to have an unlimited mandate as long as the minority makes its presence known at the polls. For this reason, voting is a good thing in itself, regardless of the outcomes. That is the reason for the outrage against the rush to close the case in the Florida voting irregularities. Republicans assume that the Democrats were just being sore losers, and were just looking for some way to get their guy in. I wrote at the time, and I maintain now, that it was entirely a question of legitimacy. I want a legitimate president, be he Democrat or Republican. Legitimacy comes from the voters, and in a race as tight as Florida in 2000, a handful of votes could have made all the difference. Count every vote, and if you’re not sure, count them twice. If George Bush’s victory is confirmed by recounting, fine. The whole country benefits by having a legitimate and undisputed winner. The bottom line: legitimacy comes from votes, even if my vote is one among hundreds of millions. Legitimacy is good for the entire country, so voting is good even for those who do not win.

John Kerry is my choice. I will not have to hold my nose as I go into the voting booth. I am not motivated by hatred for George W. Bush. I am not acting out of party loyalty. I am voting because voting is inherently good, and I am voting for the best candidate on the ballot. God willing, we will win.

© 2004 Bryan Lower

Feedback: