Accountability, not Fear

This election is remarkable not only for its intense polarization, but for the interesting schism between the conservative case for Kerry and the "one-issue" voter for Bush. I have read countless blogger posts, online articles, and even British newspapers where people claim to be voting for Bush solely based on the esoteric “War on Terror”. It is such a prevalent argument - to link anything would be rather superfluous. You have surely come across it. Well summarized by the "Security Mom" for Bush, for example. Or similar to the outrageous claims of Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit that he is an objective independent voting solely on Terror, when he can write something as blatantly hyperbolic as this:

"I think that electing John F. Kerry at this juncture would be like electing the ugly bastard child of Jimmy Carter and Millard Fillmore -- in 1940. (I could be wrong, of course, and if Kerry should happen to be elected, I fervently hope to be proven so. But that's how it seems to me. I mean, Jesus, just look at the guy.)"

"Just look at the guy"? Shocking even as hyperbole... but then again, Instapundit is one of the only guys in the world who dreams of a Lieberman/Cheney ticket as the dream team. That says a lot. In contrast, over the past few days here at Oxford, I have argued to various people that if given the straight-up choice, I would vote for an ashtray, a dog, or my beer before this President (in all seriousness!), for the sole reason of purging this ideological administration from the White House. I cannot imagine it getting worse, on a whole host of issues across the board. So could someone please explain why swagger and bluster always trumps careful nuance and strategic thinking in foreign policy, and how this can also trump everything else that goes into voting in the most critical election of modern times? As if Kerry would abandon the "War on Terror" and stand idly by while the terrorists regroup and make the world less safe!! Please!! To me, this seems to be the most intellectually bankrupt (if the only) argument in favour of Bush - it is worse than fearmongering, since it is no argument at all. Okay, Bush may be wrong or terrible. But sorry, no one else can do it. In a different context, I have heard this ridiculous logic from others, such as Paul Martin’s Liberals. An affront to democracy. From my perspective, the real vital contribution that Andrew Sullivan has made to the debate is his continued damning indictment and persistent criticism of the administration's ACTUAL CONDUCT of this war. And by all accounts it has been horrendous. I agree that not bringing up Abu Gharib in the debates was a mistake, though it probably should have emerged as a question from the moderators, as opposed to asking the candidates about their faith or their wives. But the point remains, just because Bush talks tough does not mean he is being effective! Even the West Wing offered a more insightful look at the ongoing problems and complexities of the ongoing threat of Islamic terror in the closing episodes of last season. And it is a damn TV show. Since it is baseball season, permit me a simple analogy - if only if it gives me an excuse to direct you to Boswell's superb article on the Red Sox two extra inning victories in the Post. It is like your pitcher is floundering about on the mound, serving up hanging sliders, almost sure to throw the game… but God forbid the idea of bringing in a reliever – he might be worse! Only the starter can complete the game? Uh, in a word, wrong. [update: 4-2 Sox and Comeback Kerry will be ecstatic. Bring on Game 7. Ya gotta believe!] In New Hampshire, as January 27th approached, we began posting new signs all around Concord: "Vote Hope, not Fear." I still think that is basically the choice here. Kerry's continuing job in the last two weeks is just to convince voters that they can trust him, that they can begin to hope again for the great restoration of American values that Dean called for, that they can hope to live in a world not incessantly dominated by fear of terror alerts... That is how he wins. But in the mean time, I have to confess that I find it insulting to think that smart people can continue to honestly claim that the Democratic nominee for President cannot even perceive the threat of the greatest single enemy facing the country in the midst of the most important campaign of his life. Maybe you can boil it back down to the Yakutsa advertisement's bullshit, and the unwillingness of people to look beyond slander and prejudice and soundbites. Still, I propose a slight riff on that now-ancient Dean poster: "Vote Accountability, not Fear". It is the old Saletan argument, and the prime reason I still think Kerry will pull this out of the fire… I look forward to your reports from the frontlines. Any doubt that the focus of our lives will not continue to be elections and policy implementation? I think we can safely note in the biographies that it truly started this cycle.