The following is a list of the issues between the two candidates which have grabbed my attention over the last months. It’s not exhaustive, and I won’t pretend it is, but I’m trying to assemble the core charges/challenges made against each and set out my my quick thoughts on each subject.
Kerry as a flip-flopper
Does Kerry flip-flop? Of course. So does Bush, and so did Lord Keynes, who famously had a sign in his office that said “When I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?”
The nature of legislative maneuver requires that you occasionally “vote against the bill before you vote for it,” or vice versa. And nuance, in the sense of framing positions in ways that minimally alienate potential allies, or are maximally inclusive, is important.
Bush has flip-flopped as well; against DHS, and then for it. Against nation-building, and then for it.
That’s what politicians have to do.I am concerned – in light of the seriousness of the issues of the war – that his [Kerry’s] position on the war is so nuanced that it’s indistinguishable from no position at all. That’s the risk with carefully nuanced positions. In accommodating the largest group, you are trapped and unable to move.
I’m more concerned – in Kerry’s case – that I can’t make sense of his political evolution, and track it to his biography. I’ve blogged this before. This leaves me – and I think others – with a disquieting sense that he’s Chauncey Gardner.
Bush as stupid
No one who plays in the big leagues is incapable of hitting a curveball. No politician who has a state or national level presence is truly stupid, and it’s not only offensive to bandy that charge about but itself foolish, because it leads you to get sandbagged by your opponent.
In the specific case of Bush & Kerry, there is personal history – including the schools they went to – that suggests that Bush is at least as smart as Kerry. In fact there are some objecting military records that suggest that he’s smarter.
Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets
In my mind the Swift Boat charges break into four categories:
1. He boosted his own ratings through manipulating the system.
2. He did not act as bravely as he claimed
3. He abandoned his men by coming home early.
4. He acted immorally when he came home and was a part of VVAW.
I have a hard time not believing #1. The mere fact that he put in for Purple Hearts for injuries that were inconsequential suggests that he engaged in resume-puffery.
I don’t buy #2. I refuse to parse the courage of someone who was under fire and in command of other men in that circumstance. Was he Audie Murphy? No. Was he LBJ, who essentially stole a Silver Star in WW II? Not even close.
To me, #3 is the one that requires the greatest explanation. If he had served out his year, and either maintained his extraordinarily rapid record, or simply coasted through it competently, I would unqualifiedly admire him for what he did. But he chose to take a bureaucratic out, and that, to me was wrong.
It’s easy for me to criticize, you may say. I was never in the military and never had to face what he faced. But the draft was an issue for me in my first year of college, and had I been called – once my deferments were done – I had decided that I would either go and serve or go to jail. Kerry had those choices as well; he chose to serve – but only for a little while.
As to #4, I don’t think he acted immorally when he came home and participated in VVAW. I do think that he acted rashly, and hurtfully, and carelessly; and that a great man – which he is not – could have threaded that needle and done what Kerry did with honor. I do find it inexplicable that he wouldn’t have – at some point in his career – acknowledged the immaturity of what he did and said, and reached out to his fellow veterans, which would have added significantly to his stature (and elect ability).
And, to be honest, since one of the major jobs of the President is to be a communicator (yeah, I know, I know), that tone-deafness that kept him from making that speech is part of why I look at him and just can’t get confident that he’ll grow into the role of a leader.
And, in addition, someone qualified to run a high school ASB president’s campaign could have predicted the charges, and would have packaged a response and been ready for them. And again, that leads me to look at him and feel my confidence leak away.
Bush and the Lost Jobs
This is one of the most infuriating, bullshit-laden charges against Bush that I know of. How did you spend the 90’s? I spent the latter part consulting for a bunch of dot-coms, who were (not deliberately – usually) playing a giant Ponzi scheme with investor money. Five twenty-six year olds would get $15 million, rent 15,000 square feet of Class A space, hire 150 people at outrageous salaries, and it was never going to end. They bought cars, houses, Time-Warner, and we unsurprisingly had a boom. Add to that the financial engineering going on in Corporate America, and the stock market was headed for a 20,000 Dow, and we were all spending like rock stars.
But then the drugs wore off and we discovered that we had more of a bubble, actually. And I am just plain puzzled when smart economists like Brad Delong don’t acknowledge the powerful impact of the bubble, not only on the economy, but on fiscal policy – as the exploding economy grew, tax revenues grew, and the government was suddenly – with very little pain – solvent. Yes we had productivity growth, but as someone who sat in boardrooms while hiring and spending decisions were made during that era, I’ve got to say that my personal observation is that astronomical stock prices – created through ‘irrational exuberance’ and financial engineering – drove many if not most of these decisions.
And as a consequence all of us had jobs. Good-paying jobs, since the companies were making so much profit it didn’t hurt to dish some around to make sure the talent stuck around.
Then the bubble popped, and we were all subject to gravity once again.
We haven’t felt the last of the consequences, no matter how hard Mr. Greenspan tries by keeping real interest rates at zero or below.
So when someone blames Bush for the tepid rate of job creation since 1999, and does so in the framework of the phoney bubble that preceded him, I’ll take the charges more seriously.
Do I like Bush’s jobs policy? Well, first he has no explicit jobs policy. I do think that as my first glance is that many of his policies favor large over small businesses (tax policy, trade policy, agriculture policies), and I believe that small business are the likely engine for domestic job creation, that his jobs policies aren’t great.
Neither were Clinton’s, by that standard, and I have no reason to believe that Kerry’s would be better.
Kerry and the UN
Kerry keeps coming back to the UN as the tool that’s going to save us in Iraq and drive our foreign policy to a new, ‘city on the hill’ kind of a shining future.
I look at the UN and think of Rwanda, Srebinca and Darfur. I think of quiet deals in good restaurants in which the right to buy oil at below-market prices is offered to the powerful and the sons of the powerful.
And I scratch my head at Kerry’s claim, which might have made sense in the 1960’s, but makes none at all today.
Early results from the weekend’s general election showed that five years of UN rule had only deepened ethnic divisions as Kosovo’s voters signaled their despair with the Balkan province’s administrators.
Bush and the Lost Allies
Who, exactly are we talking about when we talk about the ‘lost allies’? In reality, we’re talking about three countries: France, Germany, and Russia.
The ability of each of them to add meaningfully to the troop levels is highly questionable (except for Russia, and as we’ve discussed, it’s questionable whether Russian troops in Iraq is a good idea.
What is being talked about is the ‘legitimacy’ in international diplomacy that would come from international consensus. As noted, that consensus can be very very expensive in terms of operating successfully. And, given the facts of Oil-for-Food and the interest of the EU and Russia in restraining the ‘hyperpower’ that is America, it’s not clear such a consensus could have been reached, regardless of the facts on the ground.
Bush and the Deficit
It’s clear that the war – which will certainly cost $200 – 300B before it’s over – blew a hole in the budget. And so did the drop in tax receipts post-bubble.
I’d like to believe that Bush is simply and consciously priming the demand pump, and will stand behind a podium and announce “We are all Keynsians now.”
But more likely, Bush is clearly following Reagan’s precept of approving all the spending it takes to make his corporate base happy, and enough spending on social programs to defer all-out war with the Congressional liberals.
This, in my mind is one of the worst things Bush has done. Like Reagan, he’ll leave office as a model to the conservative movement who will conveniently ignore this bit of history.
Kerry and Social Security
We have a pretty clear fiscal and demographic crisis coming along as our population ages, and so pension and health care costs go up, while the younger cohorts of workers are increasingly a) working outside the economy, and so not paying full taxes; and b) making lower salaries, and therefore paying less taxes.
Combine this with a stupidly low national savings rate, and things look interesting.
Bush has a proposal – one that I have some problems with because a) it’s a gift-wrapped present to Wall Street who will rake in fees and profits as a whole new block of resources steps in to buy securities; and b) it presents risks, and one has to wonder what will happen to the folks who make bad choices in their self-directed retirement accounts. Will we just let them starve?
Kerry’s position, as I see it, is well summarized in this column in Salon (it’s not worth sitting through the ad) by James K. Galbraith. Here are some of the salient points:
Social Security is not running out of money. Here are the facts.
1. Social Security is part of the government. It cannot run out of money unless the whole government also runs out of money. And the government of the United States cannot run out of money. That is not my opinion, it’s an economic fact.
2. Social Security is an entitlement. Not even Congress can easily interfere with its payments. Congress would have to vote to default on the bonds Social Security holds for benefits to fail over the next 40 years.
…
6. If the Trust Funds eventually have to be adjusted in order for full promised benefits to be paid, minor adjustments will suffice. And they will be good policy. When payrolls are relatively small, why not tap other revenues to pay pensions? The tax increases in any decade from the ’50s to the ’80s would have been adequate to plug the gap. Suppose, for example, that the estate tax were not repealed but instead credited to Social Security?
…
8. When NBC’s Andrea Mitchell accused John Kerry of pandering on Social Security after the debate, she reflected the mind-set of the coddled rich. Yes, it may be necessary someday to touch a little more of her income to cover all the bills. But frankly, Mrs. Greenspan, it’s worth it — both to protect America’s elderly and to watch you squirm.
9. After that lousy preface, Schieffer asked a good question. Privatization of Social Security would divert payroll tax revenues into private accounts. And that would blow a huge whole in the budget. Bush simply ignored this fact, as he always does. The fact is, Bush wants to gut Social Security. He made that clear Wednesday night.
Kerry’s answer on Social Security wasn’t pandering. He said that we can keep the system we have. He said we must not privatize it — “an invitation to disaster.” He said our priority should be to create jobs, the best way to pay for the system. And he said that we can well afford to wait until later to see if some minor changes would be wise. Kerry was right on all of these facts.
Sorry for the long clip, but I wanted to make two points.
The first is that in Social Security’s history, one clear theme has been part of our understanding; that it isn’t a transfer payment, but rather a self-funding retirement program.
Galbraith here just casually dismisses that with a handwave.
The second is that his assumption is that benefits always trump our ability to pay them. This is also something I’ve heard from Kerry before: “You spend what it takes.”
Clinton rejected that premise, and so managed to begin to craft a Third Way in domestic politics. Kerry would wind the clock back, to the formerly dominant branch of the Democratic Party – the branch of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.
Are there any ‘killer’ issues here? Not to my view. Putting these in a basket and shaking them, you get Bush’s mediocre economic policies (which have the sole redeeming feature of being economy-priming) against Kerry’s unrealistic foreign policies.
We’ll skip the obvious social issues differences, and simply stipulate to them. yes, Bush is bad for gays, and probably for women. With due respect, both groups will survive, and in fact thrive as the underlying social changes that lead to greater acceptance will continue, regardless of who is in office and what specific policies they may promulgate.
I’m not sure whose polciies would be worse for the underclass, except that it’s likely that Kerry’s team would care about them. Sadly a lot of damage has been done by people who care.
In a pre-9/11 world, this balance would have certainly tipped me toward Kerry.
Sadly, I live in a post 9/11 world. I wish I didn’t, and that none of us did.
I have been contributing comments to this site for over 2 years, so as a regular I am exerting the privilege of some time-limited pleading:
The election is 8 days away. The best way to express our convictions is to close the browser, turn off the computer, put on our walking shoes, and GET OUT THE VOTE.
If you want to elect Bush, volunteer for the final 72 hours campaign. Get out the phone book or call information and call your local GOP office. As Captain Ed says:
Your help is needed even if you are not in a swing state. The campaign will assist you to go to swing states during the last crucial 3 days and encourage registered voters to get to the polls. If you can’t leave town, you can staff phone banks.
If you still don’t believe how important this is, listen to the RedState folks, who are seasoned political operatives.
If you have gotten complacent at seeing Bush’s poll number go up, read this.
GET OUT THE VOTE!!
As somebody who posted a number of times here a year or two ago but haven’t lately, I bring you this News Flash originated by a moderate Democrat who told me it over the phone.
John Kerry is under consideration to be awarded the Benedict Arnold Medal with Three Clusters:
First Cluster: For his betrayal of his friends in Viet Nam.
Second Cluster: For his intended betrayal of our soldiers in Iraq.
Third Cluster: For his planned betrayal of our friends in Israel.
A.L
Another super post, and, as is usually the case, objective and well argued.
The only ,”on the facts”, criticism I can make is on the jobs segment’s claim Bush has no policy vis a vis the small business sector.
I think you’ll find the tax cuts did more for small business’s and their owners than for the amophorous “rich” Kerry and kritters whine about.
Many, if not most, small business’s are sole proprietor or Sub-S Corps., wherein the business profit is the owners income, the more of that income going to taxes the less available to grow the business and create the jobs, ergo, tax cut=job growth.
On the opinion front, if private investment of retirement savings is so evil, then why are public employees here in CA exempt from SSI while getting an economically superior to SSI retirement package. Do you know of anybody, earning the kind of money the govt. pays a 25 year employee, who can retire on SS paying him 50% of his current income at age 50? Of course not, but that’s what CalPers offers.
I think those with decades to go before retirement should be able to take advantage of wealth creation at the same level as a state worker, but that’s unreasonable today so I’ll just hope they can at least get a 10-20% private wealth building account.
As far as our super low savings go, I think I’ve commented before that you have to count home ownership equity in any national study of savings levels, as well as the values of all the 401K’s and like investment vehicles out there. In fact, was SSI to be anything other than a dot com like Ponzi scheme, those taxes would also qualify as savings
Mike Daley
Yehudit;
Thanks for the suggestion. I just donated $75 to “ACT.”:http://actforvictory.org/
“The nature of legislative maneuver requires that you occasionally “vote against the bill before you vote for it,” or vice versa. And nuance, in the sense of framing positions in ways that minimally alienate potential allies, or are maximally inclusive, is important.”
While I understand your concern about a candidate who is too accomodating to take an unpopular if necessary stand on a vital issue, I hope this factor has not been overemphasized in your consideration of Kerry, because you seem to have a misconception of his political history.
Kerry’s challenge to Nixon and the Vietnam war was principled but also risked undermining his future political viability, as evidenced by Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972.
As a junior senator he spearheaded the investigation that eventually brought down criminal terrorist financing and money laundering BCCI, in the face of strong resistance in Congress and among the political elite. No less than Jackie Onassis attempted to intervene with the Kerry investigation in an effort to protect Clark Clifford, the ultimate Washington insider and war counselor to four presidents through the darkest days of the Cold War. Clearly, revealing connections of heroes of national service to a terrorist enterprise doesn’t endear you to the political establishment in Washington, yet Kerry persevered on principle.
In a similar vein, Kerry took the lead in the Senate probing the connection between right-wing paramilitary groups in Central America and the cocaine cartels, which ultimately brought him into conflict with perhaps the most popular politician in American history, certainly in the history of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan. Once again, Kerry’s principled perseverance to see through a risky mission exposed a scandal that reached to the roots of American power. Iran-Contra was not something that the political class in Washington wanted to see the light of day, but Kerry was determined that the truth come out, regardless of what the repercussions might have been for his political career.
These are just a few brief examples from Kerry’s political biography that directly contradict the notion that Kerry will go along to get along, values stability over rightness of purpose, and will say or do whatever gains him a political advantage. Throughout his public life, Kerry has consistently put the ideal of national greatness and the vital necessity of the national interest above his own career or material interests. These stories and more, which are not obscure, but rather present themselves to anyone who does the slightest bit of inquiry into Kerry’s resume, are real-world evidence that Kerry will make a strong and principled president who will restore our position of leadership in the world.
Hanoi Jane in a Navy uniform, who met with the Communists who had commited years of mass murder and refering to Mihn as “George Washington” is principled ?
Slandering ALL our troops as war criminales with FAKE charges? that there want one MCaffery, no according to Kerry, all of them was MCafferys, a result that our POWs spent 2 more years under torture, and after the entire fight was turned over to the south, was used as an excuse to cut support so that the Mass Butchers who had been defeated by America (the tet offensive wiped them out!) decided to hold on for two more years.
Kerrys Treason undermined even support after our tropps had left and the northern terror state of mass murder came south ( thanks to kerries help) and millions fell under the brutal iron boot, holocaust, Gulags, Mass graves, and killing fields of innocents as large as those in Cambodia.
Then millions in flight ( the boat people ) with 500,000 finding death in the seas exacaping that glorous leftist hellhole utopia of mass death and terror.
Yeah, thats principled, i dont like the principles however.
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_vietnam.html
I have some major quibbles with your economics here as well as your unsourced assertion that Kerry is some kind of old school liberal–nothing in his record nor his choice of economic advisors suggests such a thing–but I suppose it doesn’t matter.
Carry on.
praktike –
If you’ve got major quibbles, this is the place to make them. I won’t pretend to get it all right, and I rely heavily on the community here to fact check my ass so that I can get closer to right.
A.L.
A.L., Steve Sailer will speak to Kerry’s IQ on FOX tommorrow at 8:44 am Eastern.
I hope someone has informed Atrios. 🙂
Actually, I think the collective IQ of the cabinet advisors is far more important. And the ability of the exec to attract and retain top drawer people. Who will be the stars of a Kerry team? Sandy Berger?
Ray, thanks for the knee-jerk wingnutism but I’m looking for A.L.’s more thoughtful and reasoned response here.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme, and all pyramid schemes eventually fail – that’s why they’re illegal…except when the government does it…The continued success of SS is entirely dependent on the base (workers paying into the system) outnumbering the tip (retirees). It’s known that the retiring baby boomers are going to turn the pyramid upside down, and possibly we could weather that storm by drawing money from other sources. But…there is no guarantee that the base will ever re-expand enough to support the retirees, and if it doesn’t, or if the upside down pyramid becomes the norm instead of the exception, SS will crumble.
I would MUCH rather take my chances on investing my own retirement money. Or better yet, I should get one of those jobs that offers CalPers instead. They make out much better in retirement than anyone on SS.
Since the underclass doesn’t even live long enough to collect social security for the most part, it’s not compassion to argue for the status quo — it’s stealing from the poor to pay the middle class.
The best thing about privatization is that poor individuals will accumulate very substantial assets that they can use in their old age, or pass on to their children.
Making every worker an investor is a visionary goal and is toxic to the class warfare model of the Democratic party.
I think A.L. got most of it right on the economic stuff. The “jobless recovery” has a lot more to do with unexpectedly high productivity than anything else.
I think Social Security is a non-issue in this election (I personally thought it was a big plus for Bush in 2000) because Bush isn’t going to be able to pay for the transfer costs of private accounts. As Paul O’Neill noted, the surpluses were the best bet of accomplishing that. And I don’t, for a second, believe that Bush is really a Keynesian. The idea of manipulating business cycles via fiscal policy is anathema to conservatives, and as I understand it, it isn’t even in vogue among economists anymore.
Of course, you all already know that the big issue in my mind is Bush’s apparent complete lack of pragmatism due to his apparent opposition to the “reality-based community,” as it were.
Handle,
before you start spewing LIAR at congressional medal of honor holding POWs, perhaps you might actually watch the film about what Kerry did to our soldgers and why they came home, not to a parade, but to spit assult and such that they was warned not to wear their uniform on the way home to avoid attack at the airports and our streets.
They deserved praise for bleeding and dieing for our country, for fighting against the expansion of evil as black as the planet has ever seen.
The conquest of leftist utopia these men held at bay Murdered 100+ Million helpless noncombatent people, many of them by death quota (5 percent of xxx village must be put to death, the village must choose who those are, failure to comply means the entire village will be exterminated)
Their story is available for download
just punch stolen honor download into google. there is even a larger high quality version you can get via bittorrent.
And Robin, if your hubby is military, it might mean more to him, than others.
Raymond,
Calm down. I believe AL already addressed this topic in his post above, and I am not taking issue with what he has said.
You seem to object to my characterization of Kerry’s protest against the Vietnam War as “principled.” I stand by what I said. Kerry objected to the conduct of the war, as laid out by military and civilian decisionmakers, on principle. Not as a matter of political expediency or fawning to the populace. You obviously have a problem with his anti-war stance, but that is not the issue. I am merely challenging the perception of Kerry as someone who only tells people what they want to hear. I think your response proves that many Americans did not want to hear what our own troops told Kerry about Vietnam.
Matthew, poor people don’ accumulate assets?!
Except, of course, even if your premise is correct (you might provide a little data for it, for members of the Reality Based Community), Social Security also functions as a partial life insurance and disability program, so their survivors (OASDI) receive checks. Indeed, I have a relative whose father is totally disabled collecting right now.
Hunh?! How do poor individuals who you say don’t live that long accumulate very substantial assets. Poor people are those with few or no assets. That’s why we call them poor.
I’m sorry reality (including the history of the USA before Social Security) doesn’t agree with whatever rags-to-riches-for-all dream you had last night, but it doesn’t.
handle –
As I specifically said, I didn’t think that Kerry’s opposition to the war was ‘unprincipled’; in the case of his run for Congress, though, you have to remmeber that he ran from a suburban Boston district which, back in ’72, was somewhat akin to running from a distict encompassing Berkeley. So while I don’t think he trimmed his sails to support his election, I certainly don’t see it as an act of electoral courage either.
As to BCCI and his more limited role in the Contra-cartel investigations, my view is a bit more subtle. I think that his core experience and value was much like that of Woodstein (Woodward/Bernstein) in Watergate. It was the idea of ‘bringing the Man down’.
Sadly, I think that too much of our journalism and politics was forged in that era and on that basis, because ‘bringing the Man down’ isn’t a recipe for governing.
I don’t think he’s uncourageous or unprincipled.
But that soft endorsement alone doesn’t get the vote, in my view.
A.L.
Handle, with all due repect, because you are being reasonable, that is a crock.
There is lots of reasons to condemn the misconduct of the war by a typically dysfunctional liberal like Johnson whos conduct of the war forced us to fight with our arms tied behind our back, micromanaged the war and cowtowed to the UN whose involvment is an almost universal recipie for failure.
If thats all that Kerry did, he would not be repugnant, but admerable instead.
But that not all he did, in fact his public focus was setup of a dog and pony show infront of congress after meeeting in paris with our communist enemy TWICE, ( scheduled 3 times, but he didnt make the 3rd trip) with the help from a now known pro-communist leftist senator,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/19/203211.shtml
Vet: Kerry Pressured Me to Lie About Atrocities
If it had been about leftist presidential incompetence and tolerating more american death by bowing before the UN, Yes that would be admirable and Patrotic, Kerry would be a Heroic figure.
But that was not what he did, instaed it was just a tool to blame america along with the Heinous act of accusatoins of non existent war crimes, a tresonous smear while we had POWS being tortured at the hands of sadistic mass killers toi admit what kerry gave them for free.
Kerrys testmony changed the status of our POWs in the eyes of the UN and America, because war criminals get trial and execution, not a return to their home country.
His false charges put the fate of around 700 POWS in extreamly more dire situation than they alreay was, as if that wasnt enough.
This sir, if you have ANY, moral compas in you,
is an outrage, its beyond words to think that this contempable oppertunistic leftist with this history can be elected to any country much less the CIC of the leader of the free world.
The fact that this is possible, shows an utter total lack of sense of right and wrong, words fail me .. how can this be possible ?
Are the American left just as black hearted and twisted as those that Kerry helped to victory.
Course the media have continued in the fine tradition of Walter durranty in the cover up of his crimes for all of his public life as well as all the other leftist who have held office and perhaps its forgivable to be unaware.
Those that know however, have no excuse, and if this dont unstick the wheels of your moral gyros, perhaps you dont have one.
no other explantion is possible
Let’s try to keep a modicum of honesty in this discussion, OK? Case in point:
First, I believe the last reform of Social Security eliminated the exemption for public employees, but current employees are grandfathered. I’m not 100% sure of that. But the real problem here is that an apple, Social Security, is being compared to an orange, a generous pension program. Social Security was never meant to be that sort of a high-end pension program, but was instead meant as a sort of social insurance. From a mathematical point of view, the error shows up in the fact that the state’s contributions to the pension fund are not a taken out of each employees’ salary, but are related to the performance of the fund’s investments and actuarial data on the amount of money that will be needed. Because of good investments during the bull market and tech boom, the state’s current contribution is (I believe) much less than social security deductions—one boom year I think it was zero—, but if the investments tank, the state will either have to start putting in its own money, or reduce benefits.
You have to realize, we already have IRAs and 401(k) plans and a host of other tax-sheltered retirement plans. It’s not as if we prohibit private retirement funds.
AL, Kash over at Angry Bear explains why Bush is bad on the economy better than I can.
The bottom line is that Bush’s tax cuts weren’t well-tailored toward economic stimulus, despite advice to the contrary.
praktike –
There’s nothing at Angry Bear’s post that I disagree with; it’s pretty clear to me that tax cuts that were more aggressively targeted at the middle class would have had a bigger stimulative effect (note that I say ‘bigger’ which implies that the cuts did have some effect), in addition to being fairer.
A.L.
Of course poor people today do not accumulate assets. However the working poor men do contribute to social security as do their employers. Here is a reference for life expectancies in the US, you can see that for some sub-populations of men the expectancy is barely above 65.
Let’s imagine a working poor person who averages $10 / hour and working 2000 hours per year over their lifetime starting at age 18 and working until age 65. Now let’s imagine this person and their employer, instead of paying into today’s bankrupt social security ponzi scheme instead take the 12.4% Social Security contribution total and invested into index mutual funds in a tax free account.
This is an annual contribution of $2480 or a total contribution of $116560 over this person’s lifetime. However, invested in an index fund returning the average over the past century (http://www.finfacts.com/Private/curency/historicalstocksreturnsperformance.htm) this money will grow at 8.5% annually, after inflation. So the total return at age 65 will amount to 1.3 million dollars, after inflation. So if that lower class poor worker dies at age 65, his kids are left with a million bucks instead of bupkis under the current system.
This is, of course, assuming that the entire amount currently squandered on the social security ponzi scheme is deposited into a private account. That is a best case scenario. Current plans start with privatizing a much smaller portion. Still, starting out with partial privatization and ramping up to a fuller privatization over time is a whole lot better deal for today’s workers than the present system, which offers negative real rates of return.
The best part of the program is that over time, that $10 / hour worker moves from poverty to wealth. He will be a low-income worker, but no longer poor but eventually quite well off. And accumulating assets and investing in American business will make him much more of a believer in free enterprise, rather than free lunches.
Andrew,
It’s really great for you and I and other upper middle class professional types that we have 401Ks, and some of us are even socking away a decent amount (10%+) in them to look after ourselves in retirement.
But I can assure you that the number of $10 / hour 85 IQ McDonald’s fry clerks who are doing so is pitifully small.
If we are going to have a forced “retirement” program, at least give people the opportunity to contribute to one that offers up positive real rates of return over time rather than negative ones. And I’d sure like the chance to add to my retirement savings, because I consider the chance of collecting on my 12.4% FICA rip-off to be right between “slim” and “none”.
For those who wish to stay with the current ponzi scheme, and collect the current -5% annual real rate of return, I would let them.
I’d say the present system is almost designed to make sure that the low-wage workers stay poor and dependent to ensure a steady stream of Democrat voters who would starve without transfer payments.
Say, Matthew, where’s the $2,000,000,000,000 for the fry cook’s parents’ coming from? Except the complete privatization you suggest runs the total up many trillions more, doesn’t it? And let’s not forget your plan loses the insurance aspects of Social Security.
Could you just honestly say that you have a jejeune-libertarian desire to revert to Dickens’ time and stop with the fake economics?
Andrew,
While your posts are never over the top, I do take exception to your characterization of my comment as violating the “modicum of honesty”.
You are totally and 100% wrong in your belief that public employees, union or otherwise, somehow lost their exemption from SSI taxation.
Once again, if relief from SSI taxation for a private investment plan (I believe 8% is the employee contribution rate with the government ie; taxpayers, putting in whatever $$$ are necessary to continue the financial stability of CalPers)which offers a far superior return to the retiree is OK for said public employee, why would a similar plan for a private sector employee be bad? Matthew pretty well described the economic differences.
And as far as the economically disadvantaged minorities go, once more Matthew has hit the nail on the head.
What estate does SSI provide the worker to pass on to his progeny, especially that euphamistic “minority” worker who acturally doesn’t live long to even qualify for full SSI?
None, perhaps, if still married, the spouse will recieve some years of reduced benefits from SSI.
Can I replace my SSI contributions, and my employers matching $$, with contributions to my 401K? No!
The state, thru the taxpayers, makes up any shortage CalPers experiences to maintain the retirement level of current retirees. This, at least here in CA, forced the state to transfer over $2 billion to Calpers last year to make up for the increased payout to already retired employees given during the 90’s dot-com bubble.
Once again, good enough for public employees, but too dangerous for the private sector? Heh!
Mike
It’s over! A Bush Landslide!
The children have decided, and they’ve never been wrong.
Andrew,
Where does the missing money come from?
Clearly the money is already missing today. There are 24 trillion dollars in liabilities for social security racked up as of today. Because of demographics, it is impossible to fulfil today’s liabilities as Kerry promises without ratcheting up taxes to levels which will kill growth and fail to deliver the promised benefits.
The current system is a ponzi scheme and broken by design. The real rate of return for younger workers will be negative. The only solution is to move gradually away from the current system with staged privatization, with existing benefits being paid through taxpayer bonding, government asset sales (such as much of the federal lands), and probably COLA reductions, eligibility tests, age limit increases, and the like in the future for some of the victims of this scheme. The current scheme is insolvent and cannot be preserved with current age limits and benefit levels.
Should have clarified “some of the victims of the Social Security ponzi scheme”.
Armed Liberal wrote:
“As to #4, I don’t think he acted immorally when he came home and participated in VVAW. I do think that he acted rashly, and hurtfully, and carelessly…”
Unfit for Command claims Kerry knowingly repeated the false testimony from Winter Soldier in his famous “Jenjis Khan” speech. They further claim he encouraged those “witnesses” to fabricate their stories of war crimes. This is clearly immoral. Are you saying you don’t believe those specific claims?
Regarding whether Kerry always tells people what they want to hear… I think Kerry told the anti-war crowd in the early 1970s exactly what they wanted to hear because they were his means to personal political power. In the 2004 campaign, there should be no dispute that he does the same at every opportunity.
As to Kerry’s principles, I think it’s clear his guiding principle is that he deserves to be president. Every person and issue is simply another tool for him to manipulate. In short, I think he’s a Bad Guy.
It sounds like Raymond above is foaming at the mouth. Well, foam on, brother Ray. I’m right there with you.
What Yehudit said: “The election is 8 days away. The best way to express our convictions is to close the browser, turn off the computer, put on our walking shoes, and GET OUT THE VOTE.”
Make a call, own it – like Armed Liberal did – and act.
A.L.:
It is possible to be terribly clever and wrong.
Supposedly we are to have adopted a whole new mass consciousness post 9/11 that somehow makes a Bush 2nd term not only plausible but inevitable. Well, I remember Sep. 10th. It wasn’t, as I remember, all sweetness and light. We had already been attacked (WTC 1993, Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole. I had read the Fatwa of 1998 in it’s entirety by that point.
In 2001, Bush was primarily concerned with Star Wars. I did not believe in the SDI proposals then as I do not now. And I did not think Bush was the man to lead us. Hell, I didn’t even think he was my elected official.
As far as I am concerned, George Bush is responsible for the attack. He took an oath to defend the U.S. The U.S. was, according to the 9/11 Commission, grieviously undefended. Who am I to look at? Who else bears the responsiblility? Am I to reelect him on the oath that he certainly won’t let that sort of thing happen again?
Are we to excuse the ones who Constitutionally bear the burden of leadership? And what then the Republic? If all who bear the burden may find excuse and cast abroad the seeds of blame on the smallest and lowest, then we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a feudal construct where much bowing and scraping must always attend the comings and goings of the Lords of The Manor. I will not live in such a state. Better that the lowest and most ill afforded of office gain dominion over it than such a thing occur. If Kerry is the lowest and most ill afforded, so be it.
obelus –
Wow. Bush was responsible for the attack. So he should have brought in a second and committed seppuku? Should FDR have when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Vote for the guy or don’t; but guess what – he will be your President on Jan 20 if he’s elected, as John Kerry will be Mike Daley’s if he’s elected. Unless you want to stand in the public square and burn your passport, you’re stuck with them.
The fact that you suggest that you’ll take the advantages of citizenship without the responsibilities ought to give you pause when you talk about taking responsibility, neh?
A.L.
The problem with Kerry on foreign policy is that he’s just not very smart. Had he attacked Bush on the right he’d be ahead by 20-30 pts.
Instead he pushes multilateralism, global tests, the French, the UN, etc. as if this means anything. Most people understand that the Europeans have no means or will to help militarily, and are anti-American and anti-Semitic too if it comes down to it.
There is a role for the international community, the UN, and the EU, when both parties want an agreement and an outside party to audit compliance. The war on terror is not it.
Kerry learned exactly the wrong lessons from the Cold War and Vietnam. He sucks down the realpolitik detente of Nixon/Kissinger, with agreements made by the US with brutal dictators that “stick” … not understanding that Brezhnev wanted arms control as much as Nixon did.
He further sticks to the Powell Doctrine of requiring absolute domestic and foreign approval of any military action overseas, matched with overwhelming US force. A wise course of action in my view pre-9/11. And disastrous afterwards.
We now know that there are people and states (Iran, Syria, perhaps post-Musharraf Pakistan) who would like nothing better than to nuke several American cities and believe that we as a nation are so weak and corrupt that doing so will topple us and make us submit or withdraw or surrender.
Neither making bargains with dicators who have no intention or interest in upholding deals (quick who expects Kim Jong Il to keep his word on anything) nor refraining from action ala Clinton will make America safer. It will only make America certain to be attacked, likely with nuclear weapons.
Much as I disagree on Bush on almost every domestic policy from the environment to stem cell research I’ve concluded that Bush is the better choice for preventing a nuclear attack. His policies are not Kerry’s and he understands that corrupt bargains ala Reagan’s with Iran or the Contras will not work, nor will weakness in the face of terror.
Jim;
That’s about it. Iraq and the WoT trumps all, and JK is delusional about the power of his silver tongue to bring sweet reason to protagonists, bystanders, and parasites [Old Europe, notably].
AL,
I “said my piece” (and much more) on your last post on this. Thanks for your thoughts on this. The 1st three things you cite in this post (Flip-flopper, Bush as stupid, Swift Boats) are in my opinion, and I think yours, contentless, and peripheral to the election. The other issues you cite in this post are, if I read you right, on balance either a toss up, or perhaps pro-Kerry (you can correct me if I’m wrong).
I guess we are back to the belief in Bush’s “determination” in the War on Terror, as the fundamental differentiator between Bush and Kerry, as presented in your last post.
Okay. I understand that.
My disagreement to this would revolve around two things, and they have pretty much been covered over the last six months.
1. Incompetence. Unlike you, I believe that this administration has made a long series of mistakes in the WOT. We’ve discussed what type of mistakes over the last several months. So the ratio of competence would be at 20% effectiveness on the War on Terror, rather than the 70% you generously affix to the administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror.
2. Political opportunism, before necessary sacrifice, partisanship put before the War on Terror. I think the Bush administration’s clear actions in this regard undercut your argument of Bush’s determination in the War on Terror. From using the Dept of Homeland Security as a political prop, to arranging political votes on the War on Terror to cause maximum embarrasment to Democrats, to supporting other policy preferences by using the War on Terror as cover, I simply believe that Bush put political opportunism above the War on Terror. And in doing so, further divided the country, weakening the nation’s will to act in a united way towards the clear enemies of the United States.
This also to a large degree undercuts the claim of Bush’s determination, in my view.
But the election will be on in a week, so this will be settled, one way or another.
Mike, first, let me apologize. State and local workers were (with few exceptions) added to compulsory Medicare but not Social Security. Federal employees were added to Social Security. Nevertheless, according to the AFL-CIO, seventy percent of state and local employees are now in Social Security. And as I understand it, that number can only grow, because State-Federal voluntary compacts to place workers in Social Security are irrevocable and grandfathered employees are leaving the system.
Your own example shows one big difference between CalPERS (BTW, my wife is covered by the University of California’s separate plan UCRS, and I may get details wrong for CalPERS that are correct for UCRS) and a privatized Social Security is that the CalPERS system has the taxpayers as a funding source of last resort. (Before you get too upset about the transfer, remember that the early retirement programs tend to reduce payroll, just as in baseball teams dump expensive veterans for cheap rookies, so there may have been an offsetting savings.) Nobody has explained what happens to people who put their PrivSS money in Enron stock: do we have an emergency, less generous, fallback plan (paid for by what?); do we impose mandatory pension insurance (who sets premiums and are they subtracted from the rosy rates of return?); do we let them enter the general welfare system as public charges; do we let them become a burden to their children (reduced upward class mobility, which may well be desired by partizans of PrivSS); or do we go with Soylent Green? Even large, diversified pension funds have been known to go under.
Additionally, the vesting requirements for UCRS (and I suspect CalPERS) are much longer than Social Security, so they aren’t comparable. I don’t know about the 8% contribution rate, because UC doesn’t break this out, but for tax purposes, i.e. for 403b limits until changed by the recent tax law, the imputed value of the university’s hidden contribution was more like 15% of salary.
But the real point is that these systems aren’t similar. CalPERS is intended to be heavily employer-subsidized old-fashioned pension programs, like the ones that give GM’s CEOs millions-a-year when they retire, and the regular workers less so. The employer was expected to make contributions to these funds to maintain the defined benefit, just like the California taxpayers. As you can tell from companies whose business shrank and whose pension funds folded, these plans were often not self-sustaining from the assets accumulated to a given time. Social Security was intended to give workers who didn’t have access to employer-subsidized pension a chance at a secure old age. Yes, it’s true that workers of a certain generation will not get back what they paid in (while older Americans are getting back much more than they paid in), but the situation isn’t drastic and seems to be under control.
And we haven’t even mentioned the transition costs, right?
AL,
“Andrew Sullivan weighs in with his endorsement.”:http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFINfAm4eR7PMnY1tkQ2m%3D%3D.
I figured you would find this interesting, because he also praises Bush in the areas that you have praised Bush – re: determination, what has been accomplished so far, etc.
Grist for the mill.
Andrew,
Your dog still doesn’t hunt.
I’ll just close off by stating that with 25 years continous employment under CalPers you can retire at age 50 with retirement income equal to 50% of your final years earnings.
Try that with SSI!
Mike
I feel I’ve been the victim of a set-up.
I look forward to future posts where Armed “Liberal” covers the topics of:
1. Bush and how he got into the ANG and how he served.
2. The administration’s record on the Rule of Law, as evidenced by the detention of scores of people, including US citizens, without access to a hearing or counsel and Abu Gharaib and the torture memos.
3. Bush’s plans for tax reform, to place all the tax burden on wage earners and consumption rather than investment income.
Just to start.
A.L., on domestic matters, just one word for you: “Ohio”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/campaign/23vote.html?8bl.
JC, it’s been interesting watching “Andrew Sullivan’s”:www.andrewsullivan/com squirm over the last year. He supports the war on terror, is a conservative and a Republican by instinct, but seems to have gotten shoved bodily out of the GOP. It’s been amusing to watch him because he thought someone can be gay _and_ Republican. Amusing.
klaatu, interesting point above on rule of law and Abu Ghraib. Interesting that in 3 (4, with VP) debates, no one mentioned Abu Ghraib. Not W., not Kerry, not the talking heads. Curious.
Mr. Harmon,
From your comment on Sullivan it appears you believe his position on Gay marriage trumps every other political, geo and domestic, position extant.
Being against Gay marriage, and a Court’s imposition of such on a state, is hardly the definition of homophobic.
Andrew twisted his own knickers and came down on the side of revenge. Kerry’s position on Gay marriage, at least the pre-election nuanced version, is pretty much the same as the Presidents, so his support of Kerry is built on his anti-Bush feelings, not his, or the Nation’s self interest.
In other words, he was not shoved/pushed/tossed or otherwise requested to leave the GOP. He bailed much like the kid who didn’t get to be pitcher on the pick up team.
Mike
Well, Sullivan’s position apparently did trump much else, in his mind, although the “Log Cabin Republicans”:www.logcabin.org are also finding it uncomfortable. And it’s true that Kerry isn’t much more favorable on marriage or military service.
Sullivan has also written at length on the subject of same-sex households in various media, and hasn’t found any nuance on his side of the political aisle. Not just no gay marriage, but no civil unions, no domestic partnerships, no visitation in hospital, no bequeathing of property, no co-adoption or the rest of it.
Of course, he had already made himself an object of considerable derision in the gay community for taking a pro-GOP position in past years. Now he’s got nowhere to turn. He nailed his colors, in public, in articles and whatnot, to a conservative GOP gay position. He did this as a high-vis pundit. No matter who wins this election, he loses. Too bad for him.
Bob, the reason why nobody has mentioned the Rule of Law in the campaign is that there is no percentage in it for either candidate. It’s not a good wedge issue and cannot be used to mobilize the bases, especially Bush’s base, in any explicit way.
It kind of goes without saying that people in favor of locking up and torturing Arabs are probably going to vote for Bush, right? Bush can’t say “I’ll torture indiscriminately and often,” but he can say “You know where I stand.”
Conversely, if you’re paying attention to the issue and care about the Rule of Law instead of just preserving your scared sorry ass, you’re almost certainly a Kerry voter. There’s also no percentage in Kerry making an issue of it.
If I were running the Kerry campaign, though, I would make a thing about how they are trying to hang this all on PFC Lynndie, all the way up to the top . . . SSG Fredericks.
“Conversely, if you’re paying attention to the issue and care about the Rule of Law instead of just preserving your scared sorry ass, you’re almost certainly a Kerry voter.”
Yes, because Kerry voters are just so much more noble and enlightened than the rest of us.
So the ratio of competence would be at 20% effectiveness on the War on Terror, rather than the 70% you generously affix to the administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror.
To be quite honest, I don’t see how either you or AL can get such numbers.
I have evidence that the media has been spinning the Iraq occupation negatively, for whatever reason. I also have evidence that the Administration has been spinning it positively, for whatever reason. Neither is telling the whole truth.
That means that we stateside observers, for the most part, don’t have a clue what’s going on–certainly not enough of a clue to know that the Administration’s effectiveness in the War on Terror is 67.38% or whatever.
In my consideration of the issues, I really only have one reliable source of information: people’s propensity to predict, and whose predictions turn out.
In this regard, the anti-Bush people have really dug themselves into a hole. Right now, I have two concrete data points and one process I feel somewhat comfortable assessing: the two invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Afghan occupation. And after hearing “quagmire” pronounced over all three, and seeing no quagmire in the final analysis (or the current one, in the case of the Afghan occupation), what am I to conclude regarding the Iraq “quagmire”?
The fact that I have to go through this exercise is itself a major failure of this Administration. Nevertheless, as I have described elsewhere, I am far more comfortable with a lack of communication than a lack of resolve. I can wish Reagan back from the grave, but I cannot make it so.
Well, you know, it seems clear to me that we have yet to win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and as an American citizen, I just might be worried about that, considering the threats which instability in these countries would present to our future well-being. It is also worrying that our leader in these two wars is an expert at sending mixed signals (we’re in a WAR but Geneva Conventions don’t apply?…we must pre-emptively attack countries that ARE or AREN’T a threat to us?…allies on our side are GOOD, but that’s not a goal worth AIMING or WORKING for? etc.), changing his mind (the threat to us from Iraq is SIMPLE! A, B, C, D, E and F. Or not F, mor C either, and D but only after B….) and completely inept at closing deals (Election 2000, his life prior to the governorship, both of these wars without end…).
What, I ask, is there reason to support this man for? His singular ability to detect Iraq for pre-crime a la Minority Report? His vision? I am, you guessed, not all that impressed. His religiosity? Well, please give up the presidency and attend Church for the next four years, Mr. Bush. His admirable political skills used to unadmirable ends, i.e. a divided republic?
It is impossible not to look at the result of his actions:
The occupation is in chaos, which is emboldening a worldwide assortment of radical Islamists and giving them common ground. The worst thing we could do now is believe that the Bush administration’s tough talk is in any way realistic. If we really think that the unrest abroad will have no impact on us at home – as too many thought before 9/11 – not even a vastly improved offense can help us.
and think that I should damn well vote for Kerry if only because all the thousands of people around the world who have died as a direct result of Mr. Bush’s policies CAN’T.
I will be their voice.
Interesting summary. While I agree with many salient points I think it important we dont deviate from the primary concern, one I believe A.L. also agrees with: the war on terroris, a win longterm in Afghanistan, a win long term in Iraq, capture of bin Ladin, the one-eyed mullah, and their lieutenants (captain?) presently in Iraq and elsewhere. Bush’s idea of a good offense being necessary to win is the striking and important basis of his philosophy. We really don’t have a clue what Kerry will really do. His “exit strategy” from Iraq is a joke and we all should recognize that and wonder what he plans to do if that’s his real priority.
The bad guys aren’t going away. Left to themselves they will get stronger, no doubt recover from any losses in Afghanistn, and there will be more terror in our Homeland.
The Swift Boat vets – I disagree on points 3 and 4. Vietnam was a hell hole. Brave man, patriotic or otherwise, any opportunity to get out would have been taken by virtually anyone of Kerry’s age. That may not sound pretty. But there were NO heroes in Nam. There were many like Kerry who did a brave act, but the goal was survival. My 365 days overlapped slightly with his (have never really cared to be more specific). In 1968 the thoughtful who spent 365 days there, an officer with access to higher strategic planning (if only minimal) knew we were going to lose that war, not because we didn’t fight well and hard, but because a small group of politicians in DC thought they could push the on-off buttons whenever they pleased, explored the possibilities of the impossible, and generally lead us through one of the most awkward periods in American history, and it was one of their own making. I would have gotten out. Most I knew would have gotten out. Someone else can debate the Purple Heart count and how obtained. This shouldn’t be an issue.
4. Having defended Kerry above, but not really a “defense” at all, I personally can never forgive him for lying in 1971. There’s a difference in youthful extravagance and pursuit of folly. Maturity comes at different times for each of us.
But he lied. I heard it in 1971. Not a vet I knew didn’t think it a monstrous act. And they included vets like myself who came home disillusioned and not as supportive of the war as they might have been before leaving. I knew vets who opposed the war. They marched in demonstrations which featured themselves and draft card burning. I respected their views based on much of what I also knew. Honest men differed.
Honest men didn’t lie. I was thre. Friends were there. Most of my friends and myself were the same rank as Kerry or above. Our perspective was no different than his. It was a horrible burden to lead others into combat. That task is the subject of considerable lore, but until one does it on a regular basis it’s difficult to comprehend. It’s difficult to see men die as the result of decisions you make. There’s no doubt in my mind that Kerry was afflicted by the same worry and concerns as so many others, including myself.
But he lied to that committee, a sham engineered by the anti-war Senator from Arkansas, Fulbright. I hate to even associate “Senator” with his name.
Kerry lied. My Lai was an anomoly. It was reported by men on the ground who served under those responsible. Had they not blown the whistle, it could well have gone unnoticed. Where is the credit given to those men?
Kerry lied. It serves no purpose to enumerate the individual lies. The number of them was beyond my comprehension. And the real question was why. Why did he lie? It suited his goals of the time. He was already becoming a politician. He’d worked his way through the paperwork in Nam nicely. He became a figure in the anti-war movement.
He lied to suit his own ambitions. Now A.L. well points out that all politicians “flip flop” from time to time. But there was no mistaking the choice Kerry made. Youth? Inexperience? At his age he was accountable. He was on the ground. He had to be respected as to his account of the war. He was after all a hero. And he leveraged that to get away with his lie.
Nixon failed and was banished from office because of a clear character flaw revealed during Watergate. It was a grevious flaw. He lied to the American people and manipulated the sitation to cover it up. Clinton did much the same thing but his sin was less reprehensible if only due to its nature, a seamy and deplorable lapse in behavior, but not a basic flaw which underminded the trust of the people relative to the function of their government. Those who wish to attack him on moral ground are welcome to have at it, but his sin was not that of Nixon.
Kerry reminds me too much of Nixon. His inability to have a definitive policy on Iraq, his varying positions, and a similar review of his voting record to reduce the budget of the CIA in earlieer years, suggest to me a man who I cannot trust. He won’t give me the answer on the issue which concerns me the most.
And I know that he lied. He told serious lies which undermined the morale, brought ridicule on others who fought bravely and well, and the effects it had on the families who died or came home crippled is more than I care to remember.
He lied. What evidence is there in his character to suggest he won’t lie again if it suits his purposes, his agenda,, and one guided by the left wing (and small group) of radicals in this country. I’m not referring to “liberals,” a group which should be angered by their supposed association with the left wingers, no more, no less, disgusting than their counter part right wing extremists.
John Kerry is not fit to be a United States Senator let alone the most powerful man in the world.
Can’t leave the “Swift Boat Veterans” just yet. I finally downloaded their film and watch it a few weeks ago (some link in their forum under the title of the film as I recall). It wasn’t a happy experience. They went to extremes in some instances in their zeal to criticize Kerry.
But they had good reason to be angered: he lied. I’ve already said that, but what caused them to come forward? Did some billionaire bankroll the whole thing? Some Nazi conspiracy perhaps? No. No way. There’s a code of honor in the military which differs from a similar code in civilian life. Men fight and died together. They are trained to lead. They are trained to obey orders. They are sometimes trapped in situations not of their own making. They sometimes have no “right” decision to escape such situations.
Aside from the issue of the P.O.W.s, although not one easily ignored, their point is relatively simple. The Code requires that each be reliable and dependable, each depends on the other for their very life. To break that code, whether to run and hide and leave fellow warriors less protected, to ignore the requirements of interdepence (if you will) is the ultimate sin. It doesn’t have to occur in battle. Someone can later unjustly make claims which bring dishonor to one who does not deserve it. Actions of this sort must be carefully weighed. All available information and concrete evidence must be evaluated before even considering a decision to bring dishonor on another.
When Kerry lied he broke that Code, the agreement that binds all together. That Code is the very basis of survival. To break it is no different than to abandon others in combat. The code is in many ways an element of a soldier’s life which is difficult to explain to a civilian. And in Nam we had the worst of times. We were happy to finally escape the madness. Those who volunteered and returned for second, even third tours, were motivated to try to bring some “right” out of the madness which a group of politicians had placed us in. Did we fully understand that at the time? Of course we didn’t. In 1968 we did have Johnson’s “confession,” but he was replaced by Nixon who, to bring peace, extended the war.
Against all this backdrop our service was not like that of others in prior or later combat. Reliance on each other, with emphasis on the smallest denominator, the core unit in which we served, was something we relied on to suffer the hell of Nam. To survive. To get home and try to forget it.
The last thing we expected was someone like John Kerry, the ultimate liar of the extreme left wing at the time. We came to understand that some of us still had marginal support for the war, some werfe neutral, and we even came to understand our brothers who opposed the war. We all had our good reasons.
But that group, virtually all the vets of Nam, did not say and commit acts to discredit those they had served with, those who died, and those who were crippled, and those whose injuries would live on as a disease in the brain they couldn’t escape. Shell shock isn’t uncommon in war. The number of Nam vets that suffered from mental disorders was one of the truly shameful aspects of that war.
And Kerry lied and brought discredit to all of us. We’d done our best under difficult circumstances, in situations that soldiers had not experienced in previous wars. The dishonor he brought to all vets I can’t forgive because I was one of them. Getting spit on, heckled and all the rest, was obviously a disturbing experience for returning vets.
But nothing compared to the lies Kerry told. And the fact that a large group of other “swift boat veterans came forward should suggest that the present generation, which knows all about Vietnam, reconsider and investigate furtheer.
There is nothing comparable in American history to compare with Vietnam, both the warriors and civilians. There were too many abberations. John Kerry was among the worst of them.
Incensed voter:
“we’re in a WAR but Geneva Conventions don’t apply?”
Yes. If you, you know, READ the Geneva Conventions, you’ll find that can be true. If you think about the issue and look at some history, you might realize the importance of the civilian/military distinction they uphold by forcing certain behaviours in order to receive their full protection.
You might also have the basic humility not to appropriate the voice of anyone but yourself as your own, let alone people who are dead and whom you have never known.
Must be nice to be G-d in your world. Pray tell, what color is the sun there?
Mind you, lots of al-Qaeda types are dead now as a result of the current wars. If you want to be their voice in an American election, you may be well suited to the task for all I know. Good luck.
Joe is correct re: the Geneva Conventions. Their primary purpose, and most of their provisions, have to do with the treatment of uniformed military. Those who belong to a nation’s military but fight out of uniform, or those who are fighting but not as uniformed members of a nation’s military, are not accorded most of those protections under the Conventions.
Thus, the main provisions of the Conventions would apply to treatment of Saddam’s Revolutionary Guard if they were captured in uniform, but not to guard members who might be part of an insurgency now and who fight out of uniform.
But they were entitled to a hearing to determine status and this, IMO, is where the Bush Administration has erred.
This idea that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply, because, it is alleged, they only apply to uniformed regular military, is a canard.
Read “Geneva Convention IV.”:http://www.genevaconventions.org/
The definition of “protected persons” is broad, and even spies and saboteurs are entitled to be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention.”
Aside from that, there is flouting of the US Consitution, the sacred Bill of Rights. How can the Bush Administration argue that a US citizen (Padilla), arrested in the US, can be detained indefinitely without a hearing or counsel?
Yet that is exactly what argue in the _Padilla_ case.
Now, Padilla is probably a loathsome individual and should be tried for conspiracy and treason, but the Rule of Law is a superceding principle.
One reason that Kerry has not addressed this issue is that it would obviously open him to a barrage of false attack ads. I can just imagine the ad: dark, shadowy figures with an ominous voice over (perhaps by Cheney himself) _John Kerry wants to turn a terrorist who plotted to explode a radioactive bomb free . . on a legal technicality._
Perhaps the author Armed Liberal or another commentator can help me here.
I’m a vet with 5 years in the Navy from 84 to 89.
But how exactly does one “put themselves in” or “request” a purple heart?
Per the accounts, in at least one case, Kerry went to his C.O. and requested a PH. In another, he went to the attending physician and requested one.
A.L.
I really do have to laugh at these people who have never been under fire, critiquing the performance of someone who got a Silver Star.
You have a mortar round land near you, take even a little piece of shrapnel and then say it was a “minor wound.”
You get shot at, and then come back and talk about how you’d like to stick around for several more months.
The truth is, the experience of getting shot at and living for any period of time with the reality that people are trying very hard to kill _you_ everyday is, in itself, a life-changing experience. When they get close enough to hit you so much the more so.
And no, having the draft “as an issue” for you while you were in college does not compare to volunteering for combat. Read what you wrote again, AL, and contemplate it a bit.
And then Kerry had the balls to come back and tell some truths about how that war was being prosecuted, the brutality and senselessness of it, and keyboard commandos dare to impugn him.
So that none would ever tell the truth about what that war was, and any war is, ever again.
Mr. Joe Katzman,
You are disgrace to humanity.
Incensed Voter, a man is judged by the enemies he keeps. Your implicit recommendation pleases me.
RE: al-Qaeda and the Geneva Conventions, this legal issue has been “covered here in part by Bob Harmon.”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005109.php
Briefly, one can detail unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield (vs. Padilla, an American citizen arrested at home) for the duration of the conflict, without the privileges of communication et. al. which are generally granted to lawful combatants as POWs. One cannot torture them, but one may choose to try them and even execute them if convicted.
bq. “In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.”(Art. 5)”
Note that last clause – “consistent with the Security of the State.” So you don’t keep detainees after the war is over, they go home. In this case the war on terror is not over, and given the fact that we’ve had a few incidents where people released from Gitmo have later been killed when they returned to terrorism, releasing these people on legal grounds (rather than judgment that they are no longer a potential danger) is certainly not consistent with America’s security.
klaatu
How does that make Kerry special, from the others he left behind who did no such things ?
And is this “special” artribute positive ?
Of course, this overlooks tha main point that the
Swift boaters and POWs are making, that his treason against both America and his pivotal role at painting ALL of them as baby killing a-moral murdering losers and making the situation significanty (understatment) more dire for the POWs in the hanoi hilton.
Taken en whole, Kerry cannot be seen as anything but a dispicable figure and a traitor who provided aid to an enemy known for mass indescriminate mass murder and crimes against humanity and just yet another example of the Socialist religion that has wrought the singular gore-rifc example of crimes against humanity with a mountain of 100+ Million tortured mutilated and summary exceuted innocents.
We know from history that the communists ARE guilty of the very thing he accused our tropps of doing, that RED terror is based on that very thing.
And in typical fashion, the left is always guilty of what they accuse others.
This is case is no different.