Since I’m getting swamped by emails lambasting me for leaning toward giving Kerry a shot, it may be worth defending myself from the assertion encapsulated by the following email:
Why don’t you just admit it Andrew? Whom ever supports Gay marriage can count on your support.
Of course, John Kerry doesn’t support marriage rights for gay people. And in 2000, George W. Bush, whom I endorsed, didn’t support equal marriage rights. I haven’t noticed my supporting Al Sharpton or Dennic Kucinich on those lines either. The notion that someone who has views about a whole host of topics and who has backed both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for the presidency is some kind of one-issue voter strikes me as deeply unfair. But telling. I should say up-front that, of course, the president’s support for the most extreme measure imaginable on the issue of marriage – a constitutional amendment – has obviously affected my view of him. The fact that he did so without even attempting to explain himself to the gay community or even his gay supporters merely compounded it. Many of you think it’s no big deal, and you’re entitled to believe that. For someone who has spent much of his adult life arguing for gay equality and for gay inclusion in the Republican party, it obviously is a big deal. How could it not be? If Bush favored an amendement restrcting the rights of, say, Catholics, would anyone be surprised if a Catholic decided not to support him on that basis? Would the blame be assigned to the voter or the president? The very notion that a gay person should simply acquiesce in the FMA is itself an expression of prejudice against gay people and the legitimacy of their aspirations and beliefs.
MANY ISSUES ANDREW: But, of course, my concerns about Bush are emphatically not merely related to the marriage issue. The blog speaks for itself on this – over the last few years. From the minute Baghdad fell, I expressed concern about hubris and chaos. At the first sign of fiscal disaster, I called Bush to account for his spending policies. As a cultural liberal, I’m obviously alienated by Bush’s embrace of everything and anything James Dobson says. As a believer in free trade, I was offended by steel tariffs; as a federalist, I was appalled by his incursion on states’ rights, from marriage to marijuana; as a balanced-budget conservative, I was horrified by the president’s insouciance toward deficits and expansion of entitlements; as a strong believer in the moral superiority of American values, Abu Ghraib was an indelible lapse, however effectively it is white-washed by the Defense Department. Does all this represent a capitulation to the “left”? On all these matters, I’d argue that my core principles remain unchanged. Should the war trump every other issue? In some ways, yes. But, as I have argued, I’m not sure that the choice is as stark as some want to make it out to be. I have yet to discern a distinction between Bush’s and Kerry’s Iran policy, for example. If our major unfinished task is “nation-building,” I’m not convinced Kerry would be much worse than Bush. And Bush’s errors – the WMD debacle, for example – have definitely made him less effective on the world stage. No British prime minister will go out on a limb for an American president in the foreseeable future. Pre-emption has been largely discredited – by Bush himself. When I listen to the president on the war, I am heartened by his support for democracy. I take back not a word of praise for his conduct after 9/11 and during the buildup to the Iraq war. But I think he has shown himself to be at worst incompetent and at best feckless in many aspects of the conduct of the war at a time when such lapses are unforgivable. All this leads me to look at the alternative. Heaven knows I have been critical of Kerry. But I want to give him a chance. So sue me. I know in this polarized climate, such indecision is rare and punished. But it’s my best take on what’s going on. And the joy of a blog is that I can simply write that – and let the chips fall where they may.
The Dish 