Taking A Chance On Kerry

This column from The New Republic was written by Andrew Sullivan.

Fair or unfair? I don't think the veep was engaging in punk-era irony. And in some respects, his point is an obvious, and legitimate, if blunt one. If he believes that his policies are the best in the war on terror, he presumably must believe that there will be bad consequences if John Kerry wins the election. Again, in a war against terrorism, one of those bad consequences must surely be the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack. So in some respects, Cheney was saying the obvious. The same goes for Kerry, whose criticism of the president's war record obviously implies that this administration has failed in the war, and that therefore the likelihood of more terror attacks has increased. Kerry, of course, tends to avoid the crudeness of Cheney's rhetoric. But the logic has to be similar.

Nevertheless, the leap from making the case for your own war policies toward blaming the other guy for potential attacks is still a perilous one. It flies, first of all, in the face of certain facts. We know, for example, that al Qaeda and other jihadist groups need no specific casus belli to kill innocents. They do not kill only under Democratic or Republican administrations. They killed under Clinton and they killed under Bush. Their battle is far larger than American domestic politics. And this war is -- or should be -- regarded as more important than a few points in the polls.

We also know that by far the worst attack in history occurred on George W. Bush's watch. It seems a bit of a stretch for the vice president to turn this around and say that only Bush guarantees protection from terror and that Kerry all but guarantees its re-emergence in America. Mr. Vice President, the historical evidence is not your best friend in this regard.

Moreover, we also know that there is a limit to what any government can do to prevent future terror attacks. That's why the public, by and large, has rightly not held Bush (or Clinton) solely responsible for September 11. Truly determined terrorists can and probably will get through and murder Americans in the near or medium future, whatever anyone does in the next four years. When all it takes is a warped, jihadist mind, concealed explosives, and an unprotected shopping mall, murder will happen. There is no direct or immediate cause and effect in this war, as Dick Cheney well knows.

And the effect of better policies versus worse policies in these matters can only be measured long-term and, even then, may be hard to measure. Take Iraq. My own view is that intervention there probably increases the danger of short-term terror, but, if it is successful, is one of the few things we can do to minimize or reduce long-term terror. That may make it more likely that we will get hit in the short-term, but that shouldn't be the test of whether the policy is ultimately a wise one. And that's why, in this respect, Cheney is pushing his luck. By saying we'll get hit under Kerry, he's running a huge risk if another attack does take place under Bush.

And this crude piece of deflection is deployed more widely as well. I endorsed Bush in 2000 but cannot do so again for three main reasons: a) his endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment (an unnecessary, massive over-reaction to a small and beneficial social change); b) his stunning expansion of government's power and spending (if a Democrat had this appalling fiscal record, no Republican would defend him); and c) his mismanagement of the war (the missing weapons of mass destruction, the under-staffed invasion, the lack of postwar planning, Abu Ghraib, the botching of the sieges of Fallujah and Najaf). Now leave aside (c) for a minute. Whenever I argue in defense of this decision on the basis of domestic issues I am greeted with derision on the part of many of Bush's supporters. Their argument? Essentially Cheney's. Whatever your disagreements with Bush domestically, they say, it's too dangerous to hand things over to an instinctual dove like Kerry. Actually, that's the nuanced version. The more common version is simply: Your gay rights will mean nothing if you're dead at the hands of Jihadists. Or: Even humungous deficits don't matter when you're toast. So suck it up and back Bush, you wimp.

I can see where these guys are coming from, and I don't want to sound like John Kerry, but it surely is a bit more complicated than that. Simply put, the blackmail is a bluff. Any president elected after September 11 will understand that defense of this country is the overwhelming priority -- if only for his own political survival. The explicit differences between Bush and Kerry on this are not so glaring -- or, more to the point, not so extreme that they can plausibly be described as making the difference between life and death, or victory and defeat. Both favor engagement in Afghanistan for a long time; both are committed to a transition of power in Iraq and elections next January; neither is urging war against Iran or North Korea -- in fact, Kerry can seem more hawkish on North Korea than the president. Yes, there are clear differences in their approach to allies and troop numbers. But, again, this difference may be important but it is not dispositive in the short term. In other words, it is possible even for someone leaning toward Bush on national security to find his claim that he and only he can lead that war for the next four years a self-serving overreach.

Moreover, there is a connection between domestic issues and the war. Long-term deficits will cripple our ability to wage war across the globe as we may have to; and a deeply divided country -- polarized by both sides for political gain -- is not conducive to winning wars. And that leaves aside the many legitimate complaints pro-war advocates have made not about the decision to go to war itself, but about the unplanned, hapless, and increasingly desperate way in which it has been waged.

This is still a democracy; and one of its true merits is that people can assess whether their war leaders are wise, prudent, or need replacing. They can weigh domestic issues against foreign ones; and they can judge the likelihood of their imminent demise after deciding not to support George W. Bush. So, thanks for your concern, Mr. Vice President. But, after observing your administration closely for the past three and a half years, I think I'll take my chances.

Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at TNR.

By Andrew Sullivan
©