http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3258238,00.htmlGeorge W. Bush for presidentKey difference: foreign policy
October 16, 2004
If it weren't for 9/11, the 2004 presidential campaign would be a weary reprise of the one four years ago, with John Kerry substituting for Al Gore. Even as it is, large chunks of the recent debates echoed those in 2000. On tax cuts, Social Security, health care and education, the president and Kerry offered arguments remarkably similar to those voters heard from the then-Texas governor and Gore. What was different four years ago, of course, is that America was not at war.
Now it is, and George W. Bush's vision for American foreign policy is a major reason we support him. The Bush Doctrine, as some have called his admittedly ambitious design, has been refined since 9/11 but remains based upon a few key principles: The U.S. reserves the right to take pre-emptive military action against terrorists wherever they dwell, and against the regimes that harbor or encourage them. Americans need not wait for another massive attack on their soil before they act. Meanwhile, this country will energetically encourage political reform in the repressive landscape of the Middle East, where so many of the terrorists whet their resentments.
"I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century," Bush told the Republican convention. There is literally no other country with either the resources or the will to do that job.
So where does Kerry stand on protecting U.S. interests and, when necessary, defending freedom around the globe? Whatever his professed attitude toward foreign affairs today, he has a long record that suggests radically different instincts from Bush. To put it bluntly, he was for many years quite simply wrong about America's successful strategy in the Cold War, opposing such critical decisions as deploying medium-range missiles in Europe and countering Marxist insurgencies. He opposed many of the weapons systems used effectively in Afghanistan and Iraq. And despite his mantra about the need for international coalitions, when he was presented with the broad coalition assembled for the Gulf War, he still opposed military action.
Given such a record, it is likely a Kerry administration would have difficulty even recognizing a gathering storm, let alone moving aggressively to neutralize it.
The candidates' differences over what to do from this point on in Iraq are not terribly significant, yet here Kerry's obsessive interest in securing major commitments from countries that dissent from U.S. policy is revealing. If he is really determined to have all of our major allies with us on any future foreign endeavor, then the chances of action are just about nil.
Like many Americans, we have serious misgivings about some aspects of the president's performance. It is strange that no one in his administration was forced to walk the plank soon after 9/11, especially CIA director George Tenet. It is outrageous that several U.S.-born terror suspects have had their constitutional rights consistently abridged. It is mystifying that the president failed to veto a single spending bill, and that he sometimes acts as if Congress inhabits a parallel universe where he is not allowed to intervene. It is disturbing that planning for Iraq after the invasion so badly missed the mark.
Nor are we hopeful the president will successfully push some elements of his domestic agenda far in a second term given the likely makeup of Congress. Yet at least his agenda remains attractive as a goal. The president's ideal of an "ownership society" is no mere slogan. It is reflected in his embrace of health-savings accounts and self-directed pension investments for younger workers, as well as in his support of tax, regulatory and (usually) trade policies that promote growth and an entrepreneurial culture.
Throughout his career, Kerry has rarely displayed sustained interest in promoting dynamic growth of the sort that is the main hope for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And while Kerry scored a soundbite when he quipped in the third debate that "being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order," the fact is the senator openly advocates outspending Bush in a host of areas, from health care and education to even the military.
America is a huge, energetic, resourceful nation whose fate does not hinge on the policies of one man. The question is which candidate's vision is more likely to make us safer, freer and more prosperous than his rival's. For us, the answer is George W. Bush.
Copyright 2004, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
