Why I am not voting for Kerry

I am at the house of a dear friend, helping my wife to house sit while she is on a tour through Russia, and I am currently listening on her stereo to a lovely CD, With the Voice of the Archangel. Basically, it is a collection of Orthodox liturgical music sung in English by cantors, duets, or trios. The CD was put together by Dr. Vladimir Morosan, founder of Musica Russica, and founding member of Orthodox Psalm. It includes some of the most beautiful liturgical music that I have ever heard (and that is saying something). With the exception of an occasional problem of intonation by one of the tenors (not Dr. Morosan), it is perfectly sung, and well worth purchasing.

My wife Elizabeth is outside now, watering and tending the gardens (yes, gardens: rose (2), herb, cacti, pond, and vegetable (3)) that she has been cultivating on at least a weekly basis for our friend for these last seven years. Though the recent bout of chemotherapy has tired Beth more than she would like to admit, the gardens are helping to heal her in a way that the drugs cannot. She is far nearer to Eden than I, and to our original calling: she has turned a parched desert into a paradise.

While I have been tempted to watch the DVD of Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I thought it better to tend my web journal instead and write this essay. Considering its subject, however, perhaps it would be better if I went out to the wading pool and soaked my head instead.

I suppose that part of the reason I am writing on the subject is that it appears that just about every weblogist is writing on some aspect of the upcoming election. I could plead peer group pressure, but that voice, heard within every cradle Catholic worth his or her own salt: If everyone else decided to jump off a cliff, does that make it right for you to do it too?, stops me from attempting it.

I think instead that a good reason for writing now is to fulfill my duty as a citizen, to examine the bases upon which it is proper to choose our leaders, and which are improper, and to make a decision on rational bases.

I have heard a great deal about a candidate’s war-time career as a basis for choosing a leader. This would be good, if that career involved leadership over many, as was the case for General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. I am afraid, however, that a mere captaincy or the like only shows individual valor. Shakespeare’s Hotspur had that, but it did not make Hotspur a good leader; only an impetuous one.

On the other hand, lack of military leadership does not prevent one from becoming a good commander-in-chief. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was unable to serve as a soldier in time of war, but that did not prevent him from being perhaps the best Commander-in-Chief that America had in the 20th century.

Even irresponsibility in one’s youth is no disqualification. Shakespeare’s Henry V, and the Henry V of history, was by all accounts a blackguard and a robber when young, and a capable ruler in his maturity. Thus, I believe that neither Kerry’s military record, nor Bush’s or Cheney’s lack of one, appear either to be qualifications or disqualifications for office.

On the other hand, there are some who have said that Kerry’s anti-war activities should prevent him from serving as Commander-in-Chief. In examining the record that the media has provided, those activities were two: his involvement in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and his trip with Jane Fonda to Hanoi.

As regards the first, everything I have seen from the record indicates that Kerry acted honorably in his leadership of that organization, particularly in speaking before Congress to make the point that thousands of American lives had been needlessly lost in a poorly conceived and prosecuted war; so effectively pressing the point that America later abandoned that war.

As regards the second point, it is unfortunate that Kerry chose to indulge in the revolutionary hyperbole of that era, accusing both himself and others of alleged war crimes, and going so far as to travel to the capitol of the enemy to proclaim these accusations. I believe that this was a grave mistake, and if it had been made during a formally declared war, then Kerry should have properly paid for that mistake by an official charge, a military trial, and his execution for treason, for having given aid and comfort to the enemy.

As the war in Vietnam had not been formally declared by Congress, however, his only penalty was his mistake, and that was one which he had made more than thirty years ago. With all due respect to our veterans and prisoners of war who had suffered as a result of that mistake, I believe that it would be as foolish to penalize Senator Kerry for that mistake as it would be foolish to say that Sir Winston Churchill should have been disqualified from being Prime Minister in WWII, as a result of the strategic mistakes he made which caused him to be cashiered from the Royal Navy during WWI.

Further, there have been some attempts to discredit Kerry’s war record, making the claim that his honors and his medals were obtained fraudulently. I personally believe that those responsible in the armed forces are in a better position to judge of the valor of a soldier, and whether he merits medals for that valor, than the voice of disgruntled veterans after the fact. The indicia are, from the media and elsewhere, that Kerry received his awards in the course of duty, and without objection at the time. It was only after his intemperate talk of war crimes, and his journey to Hanoi, that the objections began. It is entirely understandable that veterans would wish to discredit a fellow veteran whom they believed had betrayed their country, and them; but their statements, made when and how they were, are neither creditable, nor credible. For my part, I believe that Kerry was both gravely mistaken, and a valorous soldier who deserved the medals he received.

Finally, there has been an attempt to say that because Senator Kerry has changed his position on a number of occasions, that he is therefore indecisive, and therefore, that he would make a poor President.

While there may be merit to this accusation, if it can be shown that Kerry has repeatedly vacillated as to a position or positions, a mere change in position can also be a sign of decisiveness. For example, Woodrow Wilson ran for President with the promise that he would not bring the United States into WWI. However, after he entered into office, the sinking of the non-combatant Lusitania by German submarines, the apparent discovery of German strategic designs on South and North America, and the popular outcry in favor of war as a result, were factors which led Wilson to change his mind and to prosecute the war in Europe. Rather than being signs of indecision, Wilson’s change of mind was entirely justified, and was one of the marks of greatness in an otherwise troubled presidency.

In short, then, I believe that the attacks that each party has made on the other candidate do not appear to be reasons for rational citizens to select either one candidate or the other. My fellow web journalist, Maggie Hettinger, has done a capable job of pointing this out as well. I recommend reading what she has to say, even though I disagree (as shall be shown below), with some of the comments she makes regarding one of those candidates.

As an Eastern Catholic, and one who attempts to follow the Eastern ascetic theology of the Philokalia, I believe that we should think and act with our minds, and not with our desires or our fears. There should be other, more rational, criteria for choosing who is to lead us.

* * *

I am now in my office late Saturday night, waiting for my wife to get off from her work at 10:00 p.m., typing the notes I wrote earlier and composing the remainder of my essay. It is now 8:23 p.m., the Venus movement of Holst’s suite, The Planets is now playing on KUSC, and I have a Starbucks Grande Chai Tea Latte and a Caramel Pecan Tart to keep me company until 10:00.

So, to continue, if we should avoid irrational bases for choosing our leaders, what would rational ones be? It appears to me to be obvious that the basis for choosing a president would be both the candidate’s goals regarding domestic and foreign policy, as well as their ability to carry out such policy. While the character of a candidate is at issue as well, it would be rational to limit the inquiry regarding that character to the extent that it affects the candidate’s goals or abilities.

As regards domestic policy, I am afraid that I cannot help you. There appears to be a division in belief as regards the proper place of government in economic and personal lives, in a continuum which has as one terminus that of the ideas of Adam Smith and his successors, who believe that government should only act in such areas that individuals cannot act for themselves: the making of laws for the social welfare and commonwealth, and the implementing of those laws through the police and military powers. The other terminus, espoused by Frederich Hegel and his successors, is that government should be the guardian, nurturer, and protector of the people. If one gravitates towards the first terminus, one should therefore vote for Bush, if towards the latter terminus, then Kerry.

Concerning foreign policy, however, I believe that there is the possibility of more consensus. We have had a declaration and an act of war committed on American soil by an Islamic terrorist group calling itself Al-Qaida. Moreover, Al-Qaida, through its leader, Usama bin Ladin, has issued a fatwa, or sentence of death, upon the United States and Western Europe. He has declared that as those nations have apostatized from their Judeo-Christian origins, that according to Islamic law based on the Koran, these nations are therefore apostate, and are subject to death for their citizens and despoliation of their property by Muslims.

It also appears that a number of countries dominated by Muslims and Islamic law are growing towards adopting these principles, or at least, have developed an antipathy to and an opposition against Western liberal political philosophy, including such abhorrent beliefs as freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly, and of association.

Finally, it appears that a large number of these countries have either until recently attempted or are presently still attempting to obtain the materials and techniques to develop thermonuclear weapons. In particular, Pakistan and Iran presently possess such weapons; Syria appears to be working towards obtaining those weapons. Libya and Iraq until recently appear to have been working toward obtaining such weapons, at least, until they were persuaded otherwise.

Therefore, one of the pressing dangers to the United States is a movement of Islamic terrorist organizations, which is beginning to work in coordination with some radical Islamic nations, which in turn are attempting to obtain or have obtained nuclear weapons. Most of these organizations (with the possible exception of Pakistan) appear to have in common the destruction of the United States, and one of those organizations has already declared and acted in war against the United States.

I believe then that the present circumstances require a leader who is aware of these facts, who is willing to make an effort to apprise himself of whatever intelligence is available regarding, and who will act accordingly to protect the United States against these threats.

An example from American and European history comes to mind: Sir Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were leaders who, even before they became respectively Prime Minister of England and President of the United States, were aware of and made themselves expert as regards the threat of German National Socialism and its leader, Adolf Hitler. Churchill in particular worked to apprise the then Labour government of Great Britain of that threat, to no avail.

I believe that Senator John Kerry was in a position to be another Churchill or Roosevelt. He was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993, when Al-Qaida proclaimed its fatwa against the United States, and then its first act of that fatwa with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1994, until 2000, when Al-Qaida was in secret planning the second bombing which brought down those buildings.

But for all of those years of service on that committee, it appears that he was present at only one in four of the public hearings on that Committee. News reports indicating this pattern of service may be found here and here. It also is likely that, since he is unwilling to release to the press authorization to view the record on the secure meetings, his attendance at those secret meetings was at the same low level as at the public ones. If I may be permitted an analogy, a student who is present at only one in four classes may be able to cram to pass exams, but it is seldom the case that he or she may become expert on such a showing.

Further, it appears that Kerry's only acts as a committee member were to recommend budget cuts on Intelligence which exceeded those authorized by then President Clinton (and against the recommendation of Democratic colleagues in that Committee, Senators Inouye and Lieberman), to oppose funding of the advanced Satellite Surveillance system (which might have given a better view towards Iraq’s actual development at Al-Tuwaitha, among other places), and to recommend that intelligence work on terrorism should be headed by a small (and toothless) task force devoted to Foreign Crime, Drugs, and Terrorism. One report indicating this pattern of (in)action may be found here.

This inaction is all the more surprising, since in 1992 the Republican Task Force on Terrorism pointed out an apparent pact between Iran, Iraq and Syria; further, in 1993 that same task force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare warned of the development of Islamic terrorist groups who sought to act against the United States (that report may be found here); further, in 1997, a report by a joint task force showed the erosion of the intelligence gathering and analysis community, the internecine wars between the three branches of the CIA, the bickering between CIA and FBI, and the need for reform of those agencies. These reports appear to have been unheeded by Kerry, or others in his committee.

In the recent report on 9/11, the committee members of that report indicated that in addition to the agencies themselves, and the current president, that the Senate and Congress bore responsibility for failing properly to fund the intelligence agencies which could have better informed us of developments in Al-Qaida, in failing to reform the CIA and FBI , and finally, in failing to stop the erosion of its intelligence gathering and analysis community, and in selecting new members who had the language and cultural experience as regards Arab and Islamic peoples. Under the circumstances, as he was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for the years in which Al-Qaida was developing, and the intelligence capability was eroding, I believe that Senator Kerry failed in that duty. I believe that his moral situation is similar to a Member of Parliament in the Labour Party in England who was also a member of the War Department, who failed to recognize the Nazi threat, to the disservice of Great Britain.

Nonetheless, Kerry could have acquitted himself, by admitting the mistakes made during his tenure in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and by better apprising himself through the Intelligence briefings made available to him as a Presidential candidate. It appears however that he has done neither.

I am afraid that the foregoing shows that Kerry has failed, and is failing while under the scrutiny of the press, to take action to familiarize himself with the intelligence necessary to be a commander in chief. And for that reason, I will not vote for Kerry.