« Fort Polk in the Fall | Main | A Chance for the Press »

September 20, 2004

Kerry for Hawks

Michael Totten today offers the hawk's case for President Kerry, Totten's list of the best reasons for hawks to prefer a President Kerry to a President Bush. While I don't consider myself to be a true hawk, hawk issues will probably decide my vote in November, so I was quite interested to see what Totten had to say. (Actually, I usually am; he's an excellent writer.) So let's examine each point Totten makes.

Deflating the Anti-War Movement

Totten points out that the current anti-war movement is as much driven by animus against the current president as by true anti-war sentiment. I think Totten is correct here. A sizeable fraction of anti-war liberals were perfectly happy with far less justification for war in 1999, when President Clinton launched the Kosovo war. Both liberals and conservatives are more comfortable with war when they have their own man in the Oval Office. But conservatives currently supporting the Iraq war will find it difficult to turn on a dime and start calling for U.S. troops to leave Iraq simply because John Kerry is now President, while many liberals will drop the Iraq issue once Kerry is in office because it doesn't help their cause. There will still be anti-war activists out there, but their force will be blunted with Kerry in power.

Flipping the Media Message

Totten also suggests that the media and popular culture will be somewhat more positive on Iraq with a Democrat in power. Since Totten is absolutely correct in stating that our military cannot be beaten on the battlefield, any reduction in defeatism would certainly be helpful for us in maintaining the course in Iraq.

Ending Bush Derangement Syndrome

This might be replaced with Kerry Derangement Syndrome, but unlike BDS, KDS would not find such a prominent place in the media, and so would be less of an issue. (Remember, while the far right probably hated President Clinton as much as the far left hates President Bush, we hear a lot more justification for Bush-hatred than we ever did for Clinton-hatred.)

Making the Hecklers Drive

Here Totten notes a fact of the two-party system: the party that is currently out of power spends very little time being constructive. When you're out of power, you can't really take much credit for anything good that happens, so you just snipe at the other side and tell anyone who will listen that if you were in charge, you wouldn't be making all these stupid errors. But you never offer a real alternate plan, because if you do and the other side adopts it, you're screwed. Either it works, and they get the credit for doing it, or it doesn't work, and they point out that it was your idea. So the only way to demonstrate how big the problems we're facing really are is to let the Democrats wrestle with them for four years.

Reuniting the Country

I don't buy this. The country is not going to unite over very much, because we all feel very strongly about the issues. Changing the org chart isn't going to change how people feel about the issues. Removing President Bush might cool the fires briefly, but they'll only flare up again as soon as President Kerry tries to do something.

Ending the UN Fetish

Totten is probably correct here. President Clinton talked about the UN, but he ignored it just as thoroughly as President Bush. With the Democrats in power, we'll hear a lot less about how important UN support is.

Checkmating the Radicals

This sounds good, but I'm not as sanguine as Totten. When Michael Moore is seated next to a former President at the Democratic Convention, the radicals are entirely too close to the power levers of the Democratic party. I would hope that President Kerry wouldn't let them into the government, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him rewarding them for their support in the election.

(Possibly) Breaking the Strategic Impasse

This is another example of wishful thinking: once Kerry is in power, maybe he'll see the need for preemption, and then the Democrats won't be in position to argue against it. Maybe so, but I don't know if I'm willing to count on it.

Totten doesn't make a bad case. Some of the above-listed reasons are valid. They are why I'm not overly concerned about the election. A Kerry victory would bring certain benefits, in addition to the more dubious potential Totten discusses. Still, his case is based on too many maybes for me to really consider it a sure thing. Senator Kerry still needs to make his own case for why he should be president. Sad to say, Totten has done a much better job of making that case than the Kerry campaign has to date.