John Kerry As President? Bring Him On!

American Digest ^ | July 10, 2004 | Gerard Van der Leun

[vanderleun]

PEGGY NOONAN'S GOT THE FEAR, or at least a nagging little worry:

History has been too dramatic the past 3 1/2 years. It has been too exciting. Economic recession, 9/11, war, Afghanistan, Iraq, fighting with Europe. fighting with the U.N., boys going off to fight, Pat Tillman, beheadings. It has been so exciting. And my general sense of Americans is that we like things to be boring. Or rather we like history to be boring; we like our lives to be exciting. We like history to be like something Calvin Coolidge dreamed: dull, dull. dull. And then we complain about the dullness, and invent excitements that are the kind we really like: moon shots, spaceships, curing diseases. -- Noonan at The Wall Street Journal

I like the way Peggy Noonan writes, and I like the way Peggy Noonan thinks, and I like a lot of the things she says. She's always been elegant and intelligent. You don't find that often, but it is always a treat when you do.

Because of this I fret when Ms. Noonan is vexed -- as she is in this case and not without reason. Americans do have a tendency to be a lazy, indulgent and easily world-wearied set of humans. That is, as she points out, our one of the key elements of our nature. But only one, and if at the moment it is in the ascendant, it will not always be so.

At the same time Ms. Noonan is perturbed by the idea that the American Short Attention Span Theater will hand the election to John Kerry simply because he promises less aggro and more entertainment.

Here is my fear: that the American people, liking and respecting President Bush, and knowing he's a straight shooter with guts, will still feel a great temptation to turn to the boring and disingenuous John Kerry. He'll never do anything exciting. He doesn't have the guts to be exciting. And as he doesn't stand for anything, he won't have to take hard stands. He'll do things like go to France and talk French and they'll love it. He'll say he's the man who accompanied Teresa Heinz to Paris, only this time he'll say it in French and perfectly accented and they'll all go "ooh la la!" Same Article as Above

Ms. Noonan is not alone in her fears. The military itself is getting nervous. They are waiting for

the “three year rule.” Historically, the American public will support a war for three years. If it isn’t over by then, the public mood starts to turn ugly. It’s happened in every American war that went over three years. The war on terror will be three years old in September, 2004. Recruiters are unsure what effect this will have on getting people to volunteer. While most of America’s wars have been fought with volunteers, the two big ones that went the limit without conscription (the American Revolution and the Civil War), ran into manpower problems after the three year limit was hit. But both of those wars had lots more casualties, and defeats, than the war on terror. And even World War II, as popular as it was, saw a growing amount of popular discontent by early 1945. What will happen this time around will be known by 2005, and the recruiters are not looking forward to it. -- Strategy Page

Growing voter ennui coupled with the three year rule. It doesn't look rosy for the re-election of George Bush under those circumstances, does it? And perhaps it isn't.

But, without any rude tone, let me just ask Ms. Noonan: "So what?"

Yes, let us take the bull by the horns and get to the bottom of all the free-floating angst that has been humming around just above and below the surface of the Republican media and bloggers over the last few weeks. It hasn't been an easy time. The elevation of a creature like Michael Moore to demi-god status is enough to depress Mr. Rogers. The celebrity drenched bashfests that raise millions for John/John are yet another reason to double-dip at the anti-depressant salad bar. The continuing refusal of the Kerry Campaign to release either his wife's full tax-forms or the amount he and John Edwards have spent on dental implants would hairlip a hamster with frustration. Yes, if all of these things continue to trend up and President Bush continues to trend down, we could indeed have a Kerry Triumph in November.

But again, I ask, so what. Elections are held, the people speak, you accept it and you wake up the next day and find... surprise, you are still not in control of your own history. This is the mistaken premise of Ms. Noonan's concern: "...we like history to be boring."

You see, it really doesn't matter what we like or don't like about history. History is something that happens. And, as we have all known since September 11, 2001, we are not only not at the End of History, we don't even control what sort of History happens to us. All we control is what we do about it after it has happened. That's our move on the vast chessboard of History. And that is, indeed, what we have been doing since the 11th.

Of course, you can say that we've been proactive. After all, we've gone into Afghanistan and into Iraq waving the bright banner of pre-emption and a fresh round of democracy for all. And we've had our successes as well as our setbacks.

But I keep thinking back to an off-hand remark made by a Marine colonel to a television reporter during the first few weeks of the Fallujah battle. The marines had spent no little time and lost no little blood in pushing the enemy back into several distinct neighborhoods. Looking at the televised images at the time it seemed as if the Marines had been giving the enemy Hell by the carload and the reporter asked if this 'brutal' method was going to continue at its current intensity. "Intensity?" the Marine responded. "We've just been playing pattycake with these people up to now."

On a certain level, that's what we've been doing in the last few years after 9/11 -- playing pattycake. It looks bad and for a lot of the enemy it is bad. It has been lethal to nearly 1,000 American soldiers as well. It has also been lethal to perhaps 10-15 thousand innocent civilians. But as wars go, it has still been a pattycake, pattycake time for most of the nations involved. And it will probably stay that way, regardless of who is or is not President, until ....

We all know what "until...." means, don't we. It means Until the Next 9/11.

And if there is one thing that all parts of our political system, (right, left, center, Nadar) seems to agree on it is that there will be a second 9/11 that will be as bad as or much worse than the first.

That's when Americans who want "history to be boring" will come to understand that what they want and what they get are going to be two very different things. Up until 9/11 2.0, everything we've done since the first attack has been in responsive mode; we've essentially been reacting to History. Following the second attack it will begin to occur to the country as a whole, as a very united whole that we'd best stop reacting to History and start following the Scoop Nisker approach (to paraphrase): If you don't like History, go out and make some of your own.

After 9/11 2.0, it really won't matter much who is President. American History making is pretty much going to start right up anyway. Those who stand in front of it and try to say, "Now hold on just a darn minute!" will end up a flat patch of fur on the highway. Should Kerry and his ilk be in office and attempt to stand in the way... well, that would probably lead to something like a Constitutional Crisis. It would certainly be the death of the Democratic Party once and for all. Either way, it won't be boring.

Either way, it will be the end of the Pattycake War.

I'm sad that it will cost us so many civilian American lives to shake us out of our Barcaloungers and our boredom with History, but that's the nature of History, isn't it? Either you happen to it or it happens to you.

[PISANO]

So......."EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED"..........ONCE the mantra heard daily, said by everyone in every civilian, military and political circle..........really is NOT true.....for in essence, NOTHING has changed.....EXCEPT history!!!

[goldstategop]

If John F*ckin' gets elected, it will probably be because Americans want to relax in their Barcaloungers and pop a can of beer. A war that goes on too long just doesn't make us feel better. It may say something about how much more of 9/11 America can take and of course what the Democrats have in their favor is they are the quintessential 9/10 party. I can't think of a better way to illustrate how high the stakes are this year.

[dawn53]

It would certainly be the death of the Democratic Party once and for all

I was saying the exact same thing to my husband the other day.

The way I see it, the only way Kerry gets elected is if Americans believe or want to believe that we are not at threat from terrorism.

That's what Kerry's hoping for, that's why terrorism is never mentioned in his campaign.

But if another 9/11 happens and the Dems are in the White House, then it will be their responsibility to respond, and if the response is measured, they are finished.

We, Americans, want our Presidents to respond, look at Bush's approval ratings after 9/11.

But Americans are impatient and want instant results. They really don't believe what Bush said about a long and protracted war, so if they vote for a change and terrorism hits, IMHO, the Dems are done for, unless they respond decisively.

[goldstategop]

ROFL. And did you see Clinton react to the bombing of our Kenyan Embassy, Khobar and the U.S.S Cole? He sat on his hands. Handing over the keys of the White House to Kerry would be like giving the keys of a car to a drunk driver. And that can only lead to disaster down the road.

[dawn53]

I know what you're saying. But I contend that Americans react to domestic terrorism and not to terrorism aimed against us that is not close to home.

Right or wrong, they don't get too excited if the terrorism is in Africa, or the Middle East and happens to target Americans.

Terrorism here on the mainland tends to get their attention.

Just MHO.

[goldstategop]

I think there will be another 9/11 in our future. Maybe a fewscore of them under the Democrats' watch. And then perhaps Americans will begin to wake up.

[doingtherightthing]

"the Dems are done for, unless they respond decisively"

Oxymoronic.

[goldstategop]

Liberals by definition are pacifists. They tend to be shrinking violets in the face of violence.

[Tacis]

If Kerry wins, you got Kerry and Edwards on the down low. And, you got Hillie, Willie and McAuliffe REALLY pi**ed!!

Wouldn't a Kerry/Edwards victory effectively remove Hillie from any political future and, thus condemned, mean that Willie will dispose of her to move on to better things? Well, he wouldn't divorce her because that would negate spousal immunity. But, they'd both have to fall back on the milti-millions they've put away all over the world.

In fact, one of the very, very few things that speak for a Kerry/Edwrds victory is that it would put a stake through the heart of Clinton dreams of revival and of cleaning the s**t encrusted legacy of Slick Willie. The dems will be able to dispose of Willie far better than the good guys can!

[sgtbono2002]

I dont know if Kerry getting elected would ruin Hillarys chances in 08 or not, He could be so bad the Dems would pick Hillary to run against him, An incumbency isnt a guarantee you will get the nod, If kerry is as bad as I think he will be Hillary may beat the incumbency.

[Vision Thing]

Gerard, you state three things:

1. It doesn't matter who will win in November.

2. 9/11 2.0 will happen.

3. If Kerry is president and responds to 9/11 2.0 by refusing to escalate the "pattycake" war to a real war, all hell will break loose.

If you want to argue your case for Number 3, you have to abandon your claim in Number 1.

[conshack]

Should Kerry and his ilk be in office and attempt to stand in the way... well, that would probably lead to something like a Constitutional Crisis. It would certainly be the death of the Democratic Party once and for all. Either way, it won't be boring.

How comforting. Kerry becomes president, we lose 30.000 intead of 3,000 people in the next attack and the American people will determine that they made a mistake. The constitutional crisis will go on for a year or two(with still more attacks on the homeland). Then, we conservatives can tell the something to the effect of "I told you so". Unless, what is beginning to appear as a lot of Kerry support changes between now and November, we will find ourselves with a Kerry in the White house and a VERY scarey situation for our nation. Maybe I'm becoming paranoid(or extremely fearful), but I sure hope that our otherwise intelligent populace wakes up and realizes that the only person/party that can deal with this mess is already in place.

[lawdude]

"Either way, it won't be boring."

No, but it will be deadly. If al-Q has upwards of 50 satchel nukes, can you imagine the devastation since karry will NOT pre-emptively stop the terrorists.

[middie]

All of the political hype, hyperbole and teeth-gnashing aside, irrespective of who the president might be or whatever the party in power, the response to an attack like 9-11 would take essentially the same form. I've read every book on the reaction and response of the Bush administration and believe that had any of the Campaign 2000 candidates become POTUS, he would have convened the same groups, ordered the same studies and investigations and come to the same conclusions. And, importantly, whoever that president might be, he would have authorized the same Afghan operation on the urging of the Joint Chiefs.

Our history since the end of WW II indicates that the above assertion is valid irrespective of political party or differences on domestic policies. The end of the foreign policy spectrum where we find the necessity to engage in military operations as an instrument of that policy has consistently been political party neutral.

While I know my observation will generate a furor of contradictions, flames, and fervent accusations of the writer's idiocy, I also know that such reaction is based in politics rather than critical analysis or understanding our foreign policy history.

[lainde]

bttt

[inquest]

But if another 9/11 happens and the Dems are in the White House, then it will be their responsibility to respond, and if the response is measured, they are finished.

Exactly. The pressure on them, from Congress as well as the American people, would be overwhelming. Kerry would have no choice but to respond massively.

On the other hand, if it happens on Bush's watch, and his response is "measured", all of the talking heads on the right - as well as many people right here on this forum - will defend his (in)actions completely. They'll say he has it all under control, and that anyone who questions him "in this time of crisis" is helping the terrorists, etc., etc.

But really when it comes right down to it, it's Congress's job to declare war, not the President's.