Posted on 03/29/2004 2:01:08 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
One accusation that ought not to stick
THE Bush campaign has begun a 90-day media blitz to define John Kerry as a serial waffler, bet-hedger and panderer. They are having a whale of a time. On the Republican National Committee's website, you can play an interactive boxing match: Kerry v Kerry. Click a glove. Pow! He's for gay marriage (the site gives details of his position). Click again. Zap! He's against gay marriage (contradictory details). And so on for 30 rounds, each an example of Mr Kerry supposedly on both sides of every issue.
The assault is having an effect, or was before Richard Clarke's book embarrassed the president. Mr Kerry has lost both his poll lead and the aura of triumph from his party's primaries. In that sense, the campaign against him is already working. But is it true? Is Mr Kerry really incoherent and expedient? And if he is, what does that tell you about the sort of president he might be?
Start by conceding that a certain amount of flip-flopping is inevitable in “the art of the possible”. For example, what would you call someone who opposed setting up a Department of Homeland Security one minute and espoused the idea the next? Or who claimed to be a staunch free trader—right up to the moment he imposed illegal tariffs on imported steel? You'd call him George Bush.
Sometimes, flip-flopping is even desirable. Mr Bush was transformed by the attacks of September 11th 2001 from a cold war great-power nationalist to the democratiser of the Arab world (though with little to show for it so far). Some of America's most successful presidents—Franklin Roosevelt and Eisenhower, for instance—were accused of having no fixed moorings and of endless tactical flexibility.
So the proper question is not, has Mr Kerry changed his mind? It is, has he done it so often that he is just a weather-vane? And the answer must be no. True, there is a long list of issues on which he has changed his tune. But many of these fall into one of two categories where changes of mind ought to be regarded as commendable or at least understandable.
The first category embraces issues on which he changed for the better. In 1988, Mr Kerry voted against a proposal requiring welfare recipients to work a few hours a week. In 1996, he voted in favour of a welfare reform imposing far stricter work requirements. This was inconsistent. It was also justified. The 1996 welfare reform was one of the great successes of the Clinton presidency. Similarly, Mr Kerry used to oppose the idea of expensing stock options, arguing that to do so would hurt high-tech start-ups. But after the stockmarket bust, and as evidence grew that unexpensed options caused market distortions, he altered his line. As John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
The second and larger category consists of Senate votes that look contradictory taken out of context, but make sense once the context is added. Many Senate bills exist in similar drafts, and the final version frequently includes obnoxious provisions that have nothing to do with the substance of the bill itself. Senators then face an unenviable choice. Do they back the bill, with the extra provision they would otherwise have opposed? Or do they vote against a bill they support? No wonder no sitting senator has won the presidency since Kennedy. With 19 years of such nuanced votes to account for, Mr Kerry is especially vulnerable.
His idiotic statement about the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction package—that he voted for it before he voted against it—reflects such problems: it accurately describes how he voted on different versions of the bill. He also endorsed ending the double taxation of dividends as part of a wider tax reform, but voted against it as part of a tax cut. Inconsistent, but understandable.
Such problems are awkward for all senators. In Mr Kerry's case, they are compounded by a tension between the needs of representing liberal Massachusetts and his own, sometimes more hawkish, views on matters such as national security and welfare reform.
Resolve v realism Of course, not all his flip-flops can be explained away. To different audiences, he has supported and criticised Israel's security fence. He voted for the Iraq war resolution, criticised the manner in which Mr Bush went to war, and refused to say whether he thinks the action was, on balance, justified. He has abandoned some brave stances against Democratic dogma—such as supporting Social Security reform or earlier challenges to restrictive practices by teachers' unions.
So his record contains inconsistencies. But these are individual failures. They do not add up to any fundamental incoherence of political philosophy. In that sense, the main charge against Mr Kerry is false.
To the Bush team, that is irrelevant. They are not concerned about the substance of Mr Kerry's views. Indeed, when they do turn to substance later this year, they will almost certainly criticise him not for inconsistency, but for the opposite: for being consistently liberal. The attack on “flip-flopping” is really about image: a vacillating Mr Kerry highlights the president's image as a man of immovable resolve at a time of national danger.
Yet, almost inadvertently, this debate over image and inconsistency tells you something profound about the candidates. When Mr Bush reverses himself (in abandoning his promise to run a “humble” foreign policy, for instance) he does so boldly, almost spectacularly. There is no attempt to explain the shift. One set of principles succeeds another, as if the earlier views never existed. Mr Kerry's reversals, on the other hand, are products of subtly shifting nuance as he tries, and fails, to strike a balance between competing views. The one approach shows resolution, and a tendency to exaggeration; the other, a tendency to waffle, but also a grasp of how complicated political realities can be.
Obviously they are attempt to remain neutral at this point in the campaign, but it seems as if they may be already leaning in the direction of our French looking friend. Worrisome.
Keep the Keynes quote in mind. You may see it around in the not too distant future.
The economist needs to do it's homework. The tariffs imposed were legal by US standards - the EU felt imposed upon (those unfair americans!!) and complained to the sozialist WTO - who (surprise) ruled that the US Tariffs were "illegal". I guess if america were to instead SUBSIDIZE the steel industry (as the EUroweenies do) this would have been ok . . .
The Ghost & the Shadow
Regardless of how Kerry flips and flops, at the end of the day, he almost always winds up on the socialist side of any issue. His flip/flops are designed to hide his true statist beliefs. To that extent, he is not inconsistent in his overall world view.
Guess this guy never heard of 9/11.
Huh? Justified by what? Voting to send in the troops but refusing to fund them? Kerry as Commander in Chief? God save our troops!
I do not intend to defend Kerry, but I will defend the economist. The author was clearly not criticising Bush's policies, but rather pointing out that to be consistent as a politician regardless of circumstance is both silly and perhaps detrimental. As a result, it was necessary for Bush to change after 9/11. To not react to changing circumstances is ridiculous. Thus, the criticism of Kery for flip-flopping on many issues (according to the author) especially when taken out of context is less than fair. Note that it was not written that the man doesnt flip flop or that politics are fair. Just that in many circumstances the inconsistencies are justifiable.
I see a new John "Frog" Kerry line of designer flip-flops by summer. I'd like a pair, one labeled "I voted for it.." and the other labeled "...before I voted against it".
On the contrary. The Economist and especially the Lexington column has always been well left of center. I believe at one time Michael Kinsley wrote it.
I read the Economist and it is nothing like the paper it was in the mid eighties. It is Euro wienie, a fully paid up member of the Euro chattering classes
In other words, the Economist flip-flops in their efforts to show that Kerry isn't a flip-flopper.
Do you care to name a more objective publication? Moreover, I was talking about the Economist as a whole and not the Lexington opinion piece. An opinion piece is by its very definition subjective. I would challenge you to back up your statement with articles that reflect both the Economist of the 80s and it softer side.
Freeperland is also by definition not particularly objective. If you havent noticed, we tend to look at things from a distance slightly more than a bit right of center.
I find that the economist usually gives both perspectives and never veers to far off in either direction. A publication that is perceived by Freepers as being only slightly left of center may very well be in the middle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
