« Too Many Carrots | Main | Bringing Freedom of Choice to Health »

June 24, 2004

Hope Is Not a Method

When I was a tank platoon leader, my company commander told us that incessantly. If you expected something to happen, you'd better have a concept of how, including all contingencies. Telling him that 'hopefully' the circumstances would be right was an easy way to get sent back to the drawing board with the words 'hope is not a method' ringing in our ears.

John was (and is) correct, of course. Whenever you're working to make something happen, you cannot be confident in the results unless you've addressed every reasonable contingency. While this is especially true when it comes to military operations, it applies in everyday life as well. Consider something as simple as going to a baseball game. You buy the tickets in advance, you make sure you have a parking pass, you set aside cash to get some food at the ballpark, you arrange to get the time off from work, and hopefully one of your friends can run you up to the game when the time comes? I don't think so; either you arrange for a friend to take you in advance, or you plan to take a cab or a bus, or you get your car out of the shop early, or whatever. Otherwise you have no real plan to attend the game, and you're likely as not going to end up at home with two useless tickets in your hand at game time.

I thought of this while reading this review of an extended argument in favor of voting for Kerry by Jeff of Caerdroia. The author of the original argument makes many good points regarding the failings of the Bush administration. I have noted many of these problems myself, and I don't think even President Bush's most ardent supporters would dispute that he has made a number of significant mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these problems that have led me to strongly consider voting for someone other than President Bush in the upcoming election, and I suspect that the argument will be a factor in many people's votes.

But our system doesn't actually allow us to vote against anyone: in the end, we vote for a candidate. And, as the old saw goes, there is always a worse road than the one on which you are travelling. I realize that there are a significant number of people who claim to be for ABB, but I suspect that the vast majority of them would vote for President Bush if the alternative were sufficiently horrific. In any case, the problem I see is that if I'm to vote for someone other than President Bush, it needs to be based on the belief that the candidate will be a better president than Bush. As difficult as it seems to be for partisans to accept, mistakes are inevitable in any endeavor; whoever takes the oath of office in January 2005 will make plenty of mistakes during his term. Therefore, the fact President Bush has made mistakes is insufficient to demonstrate he's not fit for a second term, because his successor will undoubtedly make errors as well. So if your argument is that Bush has to go because of his mistakes, there is an implied corollary that Kerry will not make as many mistakes.

Unfortunately, as Jeff has pointed out, there just isn't any evidence that backs up that claim. Even the woman making the argument comes down to the claim that Kerry would probably be more aggressive once he was in office. While that may well be true, counting on it is just one more example of planning by hope. You're free to do so, but the odds are pretty good you won't get the result you're hoping for.