Because You Never Asked

(3/04)

     I write this essay at a time when the next great bout for the Heavyweight Championship of the World (and America's significance in shaping the world makes such phraseology correct) is about to be contracted between President "Mini-Me" Bush and John Kerry. John Kerry is far from being this writer's Messiah. Like millions of other people who will vote against Bush in 2004, he'd prefer a Dennis Kucinich or a Ralph Nader to the mainstream politician that is John Kerry. But the last 3 years have also taught us a bitter lesson: "Not so great" (or in Kerry's case I would say "not so bad") is a heck of a lot better than another 4 years of the misguided Armageddon of this administration, and we will fight hard, be it for Kerry, Edwards . or Yogi Berra, to put a new family in the White House.

     As it becomes more obvious that Kerry will be the man, the Republicans have begun to show some of their hand, prematurely abandoning their poker face due to the negative unrest caused by their own policies. Being that the Democrats have a habit of getting outmaneuvered by Republican practitioners expert at taking bull crapping issues and making them the focal point of an election, I will now offer a response to these tricks as if I were John Kerry.

---

     When the Republicans have nothing real or practical to base their candidate's hopes upon, they always try to drive a wedge through the electorate with social or moral issues. In the year 2000, it was fairly clear that the Democrats had left the country in pretty good shape. This caused the opposition to play the "morality" card against Bill Clinton's Viagra Presidency and Al Gore fell for it, running away from the Clinton legacy. With the Bush Presidency now floundering in the hip deep quagmire of Iraq, along with the unruly, dangerous red ink caused by the war and the administration's dubious economic policies, the Republicans can't find anything really concrete to boast about. That's where the gay marriage issue comes in. By bringing it to the forefront, "Mini-Me" not only activates an important part of his political base, but he might be able to pry away some fence sitting voters who are offended by the idea of such an institution. If the Democratic nominee waivers on the issue, it could hold down gay turn out, which would only help George W.

     If I were John Kerry, this is what I'd say:

     "As President of the United States, I have a responsibility to lead and shape policy in 2 vital spheres of interest. The first one is the internal safety and national security of the nation, as well as the protection of our legitimate interests abroad. The second one is anything relating to the prosperity and health of our citizens. In these two basic areas, I will lead the country in the direction I deem best. This is what a president is elected to do. But with regard to cultural issues, social mores, societal customs, our people's tastes and values, etc., that is something that must evolve through time in a natural way, on the streets, in the cities, farms, cross the hi-ways and bi-ways of everyday American life. As President, I would let the people of this nation decide how they feel about gay marriage. I cannot honestly say that I am an advocate for such, but I can definitely say that if the American people, through the proper use of the legal framework of our country, show a tendency to accept this as a formal institution, I will not stand in its way, nor will I advocate for it if the opposite proves true. (The following is optional) If some in the gay community find this stance not to their liking, I ask them to consider my opponent's attitude when I ask for your vote. It is not just gay marriage at stake here, but a far more encompassing feeling of homophobic resentment."

---

     With the nation now involved in a difficult military action that is costing it lives and money, the respective military records of the candidates have become noteworthy items. Kerry's service in Vietnam gives him a clear leg up on the President, who dodged the fray with the use of his oligarchic lineage. In trying to muster some kind of response to these circumstances, the Republicans seem to have decided to go after Kerry for his virulent anti-war stance when he came home. If I were John Kerry, I'd play it like this:

     "It was not my plan to say the things I am about to say. I would have hoped that my military record and that of the President could stand on their own without having to say much more about it. But if my opponents are going to try to undermine my patriotism and integrity by attacking my anti-war stance after completing my service in Vietnam, I am forced to take the gloves off."

     "I share a similar background with the President in that I come from a wealthy, influential family. (At a time when any candidate with the faintest hint of poverty in their background struts it like Pamela Anderson's chest, such a remark could seem refreshing and honest to the electorate.) It would have been very easy for me to avoid service in Vietnam . but I felt that going was the right thing to do. I thought my country was right and my country's fight was my fight. When I was there, I saw a lot of things that made me change my mind. Perhaps if the President had been there, he'd have had something to think about too. He thought the war was fine and let others fight it for him. If anyone in this country had a right to stridently protest the war in Vietnam, it was the disillusioned veterans who lived it. One of the things I learned in Vietnam is that the greatness of this nation does not lie in its guns or bombs or missiles, but in the fact that we have the right to protest. I can't think of anything more patriotic for an American to do than to legally protest when he or she thinks something is wrong. I fulfilled my duty in Vietnam, and I fulfilled it afterwards. I'm proud of both." (The author offers a "just in case" addendum to this as well. If the Republicans insist that such protest hurt morale and helped kill more Americans, Kerry responds that it was just the opposite, that such protest eventually brought the troops home sooner, thus saving thousands of lives.)

---

     What will now be discussed is not only nothing new but has become almost traditional: the pinning of the "liberal" tail on the Democratic donkey. In letting this word become a dirty word in American politics, the Democratic Party has shown a gutless quality that has had much to do with eroding its power over the last 20 years. It's time to make a stand. If I were John Kerry, I'd respond to this garbage in the following way:

     "Look, call me whatever you want. I think of political leaders less in terms of 'liberal' or 'conservative', and more in terms of being right or wrong. It's much more important to be right than to be liberal or conservative and I think the so-called liberals have been plenty right. If we look at the progress this country has made since WWII, one cannot help but see the liberal fingerprint all over it. Such things as racial and gender equality, as well as the acceptance of less prevalent sexual preferences, have given more and more Americans access to the lives they want to lead, and it is the so-called liberals who led the way. Since WWII, more and more Americans have had access to higher education, and liberals led the way. It is liberals who have given women the right to control their own bodies. It is liberals who have raised consciousness with regard to environmental decay and it is liberals who will eventually fix a broken health care system that is the brunt of ridicule throughout the world. But I don't ask the voter to see me as a liberal or conservative, but to see me as being either right or wrong. If you do that, I feel confident as to the outcome of this election."

     "If my opposition wants to play the 'label game', I can do it too. The label I hang on them is 'radical'. When a nation unilaterally goes to war against the wishes of almost the whole international community, using a 'pre-emptive strike' policy unheard of amongst law abiding nations, and then can't find evidence of anything it based its aggression upon, I call that radical. When a nation won't sign environmental agreements that are almost universally agreed to by the rest of the world, I call that radical. When a nation won't sign on to an International War Crimes Tribunal that almost everyone else has agreed to, I call that radical. When a nation won't sign on to non-proliferation treaties the rest of the world is pleading for, I call that radical. When a nation is forced to use a 'free market' health system whose model is not used anywhere else, I call that radical. When regulated power systems that have functioned well for generations are dismantled for 'free market' concepts not used anywhere else in the world --- and, quite coincidentally, favor companies that have contributed so much to this administration's coffers --- I call that not only radical, but immoral. When our hallowed tradition of separation of church and state, which is a fundamental characteristic of a free and democratic nation, is stubbornly being undermined, I call that radical. Go ahead Mr. Bush, call me whatever you want to call me, but the facts speak for themselves: I am much closer to the center than you are."