October 10, 2004
-
One of the funny things I’ve noticed in the political season is that
some of the quotes used most often as an attack on John Kerry are
actually amongst the very few quotes that make me find him at all
interesting. It’s not so much what he said but the subtle nature
of the words he chose to use when saying it.There are two particular examples I’m thinking of right now. The first
is the way Kerry speaks about his vote to authorize the use of force in
Iraq. He says that he voted for it because he thinks “that’s the right
kind of authority for a president to have.” Many people think that’s a
stupid evasion, trying to step away from his commitment or trick people
in some way. I don’t. It seems a very clear and interesting principled
decision. In other words he voted to give the authority on the basis of
theoretical considerations about the balance of powers and the role of
Congress in a time of crisis. That’s exactly the kind of decision
making I greatly respect. It is much the way some justices will issue
their decisions based on the practical implications of their decisions
whereas others on the basis of theory and ideology. Now obviously
it would be absurd for any person to make all decisions on either
extreme, but persons who consider the larger consequences of their
actions seem more rare than the skilled practicalist.That being said, I don’t know whether it was all that reasonable to
vote to give the President the authority for war in this case. Sure it
was a good potential bargaining chip on the US’s side. Sure it very
likely might have given the President enough sway in international
negotiations to push more aggressively against Saddam… But that
only works if you had good reason to believe that the president would
be seriously engaging in the diplomatic process. Also of course, there
are lots of considerations about the scope and duration of the powers
granted by Congress as well. In hindsight it looks like the president
may not have used this power quite as well as he could have. Could
Kerry have seen how things would unfold? Certainly not. Could he have
guessed? Maybe. Even so I wouldn’t blame him for not being all seeing,
just as in truth I don’t blame Bush for not knowing immediately that
Saddam didn’t have WMDs. The explanation for what Kerry was thinking
when he made the decision though makes perfect sense to me and its
exactly how I should hope a great many senators think.To put a damper on that though, it also needs to be said that it is
quite likely that the fact that at the time it probably seemed likely
that it would be political suicide to vote against that particular bill
at that time might well have influenced Kerry’s decision making process
whether conscious or not. But who’s to say about such a thing. We
should generally take poeple at their word except when we have good
evidence to the contrary.The other statement that I like is of course the more recent “Global
Test” statement. Again the subtlety of the statement appeals to
me. What he said in total was something like:“The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for
preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War.
And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to
arms control.No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and
nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the
United States of America.But if and when you do it, Jim, you
have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global
test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re
doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it
for legitimate reasons.”There is no way by any logical reading whatsoever that this
can be interpreted as saying you have to ask other countries for
permission before going to war or anything even remotely like
that. The media has picked this up as if Kerry had said we have
to sit down and take a test designed by other nations before they
graciously decide to let us go to war. It is utterly beyond my
comprehension to see how you can conclude that from the words that were
spoken.However, I can see how people might not understand exactly what
Kerry is saying. The basic meaning of the words is clear, but what they
mean when put together is rather more abstract than most people are
willing to deal with. You see this is in many ways a statement worthy
of a philosopher. It speaks of a national standard of
justification in an abstract sense. In the simplest interpretation he
could be saying simply that if you go to war the citizens have to know
the reason why they are going to war. You can’t just trick them and go
to war anyway. They have to understand the reasons behind the
war. That’s actually not even a particularly challenging standard
of justification to meet, unless you presume that he means ALL citizens
which then makes it an impossible standard to meet. But if he
just means your countrymen, your people in the normal sense, meaning
the bulk of people rational and intelligent enough to consider such
things well then you might even make an argument that we DID pass that
test when we wen to war in Iraq. Most people really did understand the
reasons for war, which were weapons of mass destruction. Most people
really did feel that they could defend the case of war to any observer
whether diplomatic or otherwise. It just so happens that in this
case, most people were very badly wrong.So presumably Kerry’s test is somewhat stronger than that. If he
means that the argument must be provable in the real sense. That is,
that the beliefs for the justifications must ALWAYS be true, well then
that standard is very difficult to meet and can never be determined
whether it has been met until after the fact. So it really doesn’t make
sense to critize an administration for not being certain of the truth,
in particular when you have admitted in the past that you didn’t know
the truth and aren’t sure that anyone did at the time.No. I think the key here in understanding the statement is the word
“global”, the very word that has made it such a mock-worthy
statement in the media. Global reasonably suggests that the test must
be thorough in a way involves all nations. That is to say, not only
must your own people believe your case is strong and be capable of
trying to prove it, your very proof has to be in some way convincing
enough that others who don’t share your convictions, that don’t exist
within your own internal echo chamber of reflective justifications can
be convinced by your arguments at least to the point that they
understand your decisions even if they themselves would not make the
same. In other words reasonable people throughout the world
should all be able to conclude that you’ve at least given it a
reasonable degree of reflection. The reasons that you used to justify
your actions the rational people of the world should agree are
legitimate reasons even if they don’t particularly like the outcome.That seems to me to be what Kerry was getting at. And it is a
subtle point indeed. Now whether its true is an entirely different
question. I certainly prefer it to a totally unqualified doctrine of
preemptive strike. The Kerry global test doctrine should be one that is
seriously considered as a guide for Presidential action during wartime
not mearly mocked and misinterpreted.Yet another separate question is whether Bush actually met that
standard when he chose to go to war in Iraq. Since this standard does
not require the truth of your convictions it is possible that Bush did
meet it. But we have plenty of evidence of intelligence informed people
throughout the world and in the United States who challenged whether
the reasons for going to war were legitimate. They argued that the
inspecters were working, the evidence for WMD was flimsy at best, that
Saddam was effectively neutered and that America/the Bush
administration really had hidden secret reasons for wanting to go to
war in Iraq that were even less legitimate, such as our rage over 9/11,
our need to increase our direct influence over that part of the world,
and theoretical interests of the Bush administration both economic and
personal. Now to say that Bush actually did meet the Kerry
criteria you would have to debunk each and every one of these claims by
showing that there were not real hidden justifications for war and that
the evidence for WMDs was convcing, that the inspecters weren’t
working, and that Saddam really was a threat. And many people do
argue exactly those points. In so doing they are saying that President
Bush did indeed pass the global test. Those objecters were largely
irrational, mislead, or blinded by their own personal interests or
dislike of America/the Bush Administration. It’s all interesting
arguments. History will have to say what is true.It is interesting to note that the reason we have fallen back upon
is perhaps the only one that clearly unequivocally would have passed
the Kerry test had we actually used it as our primary justification
war. That reason is simply that Saddam Hussein was an evil vicous and
cruel dictator that should never have been allowed to have the kind of
power that he weilded. Now this is an argument that many
would dislike. It is a justification that many would feel is not enough
to justify the potential negative consquences of such a war, but few
would argue that the reason itself is illegitimate or false in any way.
People would by and large accept this sole justification for the war as
being rational even as they are vehemently opposed to the actual
fighting of the war.That seems to be the essence of the Kerry test. Going to war for simple
clear believable reasons such as “because they attacked us” (where the
object is the correct ‘they’) or “in order to defeat a great
evil” (when the target clearly is that great evil) would
generally pass the test whereas something more subjective and arguable
such as “because he probably has weapons of mass destruction” does not.Again I think that is the most interesting thing Kerry has said in
public that I have heard since he has started running. A shame that it
is being painted in such a bad light.Just to throw something in so I can get all of my Kerry defenses out of
the way in one post before I go back to some semblance of neutrality, I
also have no particular problem with the statement “I voted for the 87
billion before I voted against it.” There seems to me to be
absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Indeed, this is how the
senate works. PEople propose bills about the same subject and vote on
them until one gets passed or none get passed. If none get passed they
start writing up different bills on the same topic so that they can try
to get one of them passed next time. That’s how it goes. So clearly
Kerry voted for a bill that authorized 87 billion dollars for our
troops in Iraq and it was a bill he felt was justified and the right
way to fund our troops.. It’s just that his bill lost.. And that’s
because his bill involving rolling back tax cuts which nobody wants to
do.Now the second bill came up and Kerry voted against it because he
clearly believed it was the wrong way to fund our troops. It is
impossible to logically conclude from that, that Kerry isn’t supportive
of the troops, didn’t want them to get the money, or was being in any
way anti-American by casting that particular vote. It is in fact
quite possible that another bill could have come up later that really
would have supported our troops in Iraq that Kerry would have voted
for. That’s how it works. Why should Kerry be denigrated for
voting against Bush’s plan for funding but not praised for voting FOR
his own plan? Especially when they fund the troops to the toon of
exactly the same dollar amount in cash?That’s generally the problem for running for president when you’ve been
a senator for a long time. During the course of any senatorial career
you can find hundreds of bills voted against that you can get any
particular constituency to agree would have been good for the country,
especially if you don’t describe them in depth and only give them nice
oversimplified terms like “Funding for military/intelligence”, “tax
increases/cuts”, “education bills”, “medicare/medicaid/welfare
reform”. Why on Earth would we want representatives who vote for
bills they DON’T agree with or that they believe are downright bad or
wrong just so that they can say that they did “something” about that
subject? That doesn’t make any sense. You want congressmen to be
advocates of the right things that they believe in. Sure you want them
to compromise sometimes but you certainly don’t want them to cave in
when it matters even if that means in a future election people will say
he voted against tax cuts or against military budget or whatever.Absentee-ism is a similarly idiotic nonstarter. Do I want my
representatives who are busy touring the world trying to run for
election or doing whatever else that might keep them away from the
votes but which is nevertheless still very important to still show up
to vote anyway? I don’t think so, especially if they are most likely so
preoccupied with those other things that they can’t possibly have
familiarized themselves with all of the issues involved in these bills.
In that sense it would be downright irresposible for them TO show up to
vote.Oh don’t get me wrong, being absent for whatever reason is certainly
nothing to be proud of as it is a truly unique opportunity to be able
to be a part of the process that makes laws that have a profound effect
on the very future of a nation, but nor is it an unforgivable
unexplainable thing. It probably isn’t a fact that should have a
significant influence on how you vote.
