Side Note: A Tale of Two Candidates

I often do not enjoy debates but I was satisfied with last night’s. I don’t think either candidate embarrassed himself, and I felt that both fairly represented their positions. To my satisfaction, Bush confirmed my interpretations of his personality, character, and motivations. I thought Kerry fairly voiced my concerns with Bush’s policies, and he reminded me that he has been in the Senate for twenty years.

On presentation, I give the debate to Kerry. He was calmer (surprisingly Bush was the one who went over the time limit more and who asked repeatedly for an extra minute rejoinder) and looked more confident and comfortable. I kept thinking of the SNL skit where Bush has the answers written up his sleeve and pant leg—Bush kept pausing until he could find the right place in his notes. It was also apparent why they didn’t want us to see the candidates when they weren’t talking—Kerry did a much better job on presence.

On content, I personally would give the debate to Kerry as well, no doubt because he voiced the same objections I already had to Bush’s foreign policies. Obviously someone who agreed with Bush’s foreign policy would agree with Bush’s content more. Bush had the same problem last night that he had four years ago when I was more or less backing him: he tends to repeat phrases over and over without really specific content: “you can’t send mixed messages.” I think he did better last night, though, than he did four years ago in debate.

I don't really dislike either of these men; they both seem at least nominally likeable to me. Bush has really upset me with the war on Iraq and Kerry is probably a little snobish, but I am not massively turned off by either of them like I was with Gore and Clinton.

I respect Bush because I think he really is basically a straight shooter—what you see is largely what you get. I was a little suspicious of his opening comment about praying for the Floridians. He may have been sincere, but it sounded a little like a “nudge, nudge; wink, wink” to his Christian base. In other words, "You know I’m your man, the Christian, the one God wants you to vote for." I hope it was a sincere statement, because it would really upset me if he was using religion to get votes.

Having said this, Bush has some very clear weaknesses. I really think he knows that he has made fundamental mistakes and miscalculations with Iraq. That’s why he fidgeted the whole second half of the debate. He so much as said, you have to stick by your decisions (even when you’ve really messed up) because to do otherwise sends the wrong message to your enemy.

The so called "mixed messages" about Iraq thing is a sign to me of why Bush is actually a poor leader. "Tough decisions" involve acknowledging mistakes and then reseting your course appropriately. It seems to me that troops are trained to "do what you have to do" to get the job done. Bush gave them the wrong job at the wrong time. He's put them in a bad situation, but they will do what they have to do now that they're there to get the job done. That's the stuff of the honorable soldier. It's belittling to think they are not better situated than any of us to handle a "nuts" kind of situation (cf. Battle of the Bulge). Maybe the rest of us softies (or those who did not actually see combat in Vietnam) can't mentally get to such resolve. Maybe in fact it's the American public that Bush doesn't want to send a mixed message to.

You will not convince me that Bush would go to war with Iraq again if he knew then what he knows now. Is this stubbornness? Maybe. But we might also see it as him sticking with his “mixed messages” theme. If I admit how colossally I goofed and that I have foolishly killed over a 1000 American soldiers, what impact will that have on the troops (not to mention my reelection campaign)? By the way, the mention of a specific wife who lost her husband reminded me of the stuff Clinton used to do that made me cringe.

Bush confirmed my suspicions for why we really went to war. It was an overall strategy to stabilize the Middle East, primarily by creating a positive, democratic example in Iraq (pushed by conservative think tanks in Washington). As Bush said several times, “A free Iraq is going to make the world a safer place.” It will “set an example to part of the world desperate for freedom.” I really think these people have good intentions, although they don't know how to go from the classroom to real life where there is friction and opposition.

But you can’t make the invasion of a country a means to a different end, especially without international support. This doesn’t pass any ethical test I can think of. Bush’s business degree might help him with the economy, but I have a feeling he got C’s or lower in history and philosophy class. Okay for a business major; unacceptable for a president.

My thoughts on this subject have really crystallized of late—I agree that most of us will never use a great deal of the knowledge we learned in our college “gen ed” courses. Most of us do not need to know about Alexander the Great or utilitarianism to be successful in life. You don’t need to know Latin to pull a 2 million dollar a year salary with Enron. But most of us also would not make good presidents. A president should know more than we ordinary people. Those who don’t learn from the past are destined to repeat its mistakes. I don't want a C student as my president. I want the best I can get.

I hope people actually get the indisputable point that Iraq had no substantial connection to bin Laden. If I were on Saturday Night Live, I would really capitalize on Bush’s “Of course I know that Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.” I’d have the person playing Bush say it with the tone of someone who had really gotten confused and was trying to cover it up by protesting just a little too loud.

On a more serious note, Bush’s clear inability to have any affect on the nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran is sobering. These are the places he should really have been concerned over more than Iraq. I fear that by diverting our attention to Iraq he has seriously compromised the real battle on terror in the world. I am really dumbfounded that anyone seriously thinks that the war on terror is really Bush’s strong suit.

The things Kerry said were acceptable to me. If he errs a little on the "soft" side, this is not a bad thing. Indeed, it is more Christ-like. We will not repair our relationships with the rest of the world--especially the Arab world--while Bush is president. Regardless of any contradictory sounding things Kerry has said (I don't think he has really contradicted himself as much as the sound bites make him sound, especially when you take into account how politics works), I don’t think we would be at war with Iraq if he had been president. And that would mean we would be in a much better place all around than we are now.

It’s not personal. I think Bush is a nice person, even with his foibles. But he’s failed as a CEO of the company. I think the appropriate course of action is best summed up by Donald Trump: “you’re fired.”

P.S. contrasting points of view are welcome