New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 13, 2004

Jonathan Rauch lowers expectations for Election '04.

Comments

|10.13.04 @ 5:14PM|#

Thank you. I've been getting emails all week from local repubs copying the content of an op-ed a professor the local college wrote for the hometown rag. Here's a snippet of his hand wringing rhetoric:

"The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft
underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters.

Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the
homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation.' But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last
generation.'...they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the
oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century."

|10.13.04 @ 7:49PM|#

Trainwreck,

The author of that piece seems to be blurring the line between the war on Terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the
homeland.

The steady stream of grisly photos have been coming from Iraq, which had as just as much of doubt as there was support, even before the revelation of no WMD's. Before going into Iraq, I remember many politicians saying they were receiving letters against going in more than letters for support of going in, something like 10 to 1, and massive protest marches that resembled something akin to anti-war marches in the early 70's. However, I don't recall nearly as much resistance in going into Afghanistan for OBL. Fortunately, the greatest generation actually recognizes the difference, especially when they lived through WWII and Viet Nam.

...they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation.

And that's the crux of the issue. My generation has only known dishonest and misleading pols whose duty is to preserve power and that we were born at the time when Tricky Dick was resigning to avoid impeachment. Which is about the time that the greatest generation had control of the political helm of the country!

|10.13.04 @ 9:08PM|#

The author of that piece seems to be blurring the line between the war on Terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Oh yes, let's have that conversation again for the zillionth time.

Look, the simple fact of the matter is that many people consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism -- both because of Hussein's support of terrorists (e.g., suicide bombers in Israel) and because they feel that Islamic terrorism will never be defeated until the dictatorships of the Islamic world have been destroyed. Other people, who take a narrower, "if it doesn't involve kicking al Qaeda's ass, it's not part of the war on terrorism" view, disagree.

So if you think someone is "blurring the line between" the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, stop for a minute and consider that a significant percentage of the American people don't think a line exists at all, and that there's every chance that the person you're criticizing is such a person.

And please -- don't pretend that the American public was against going into Iraq, or that the opposition outnumbered the support by ten to one. A solid majority supported the war, and you know it.

|10.13.04 @ 9:22PM|#

...and if a solid majority of them decided to jump off a cliff, we shouldn't point out the folly of their actions and beliefs?

That article written by a "professor" (of what? History? Botany? Travel studies? Seems relevant to know what his PhD is in, to see if it has any merit in the discussion on world affairs) seems written from fear, self-congratulation, and the desire to let someone else do the heavy lifting. The "greatest generation" is in their 70's and not about to reenlist to bring it to Osama. Many of these people barely understand the world we live in--where the greatest dangers come from NGOs without national affiliations, and where information and rumors travel the world via internet within minutes. With such limited understanding, this guy feels confident on sending 20 year olds into a war without end? Please.

|10.13.04 @ 10:58PM|#

I realize that this will probably get buried and the thread has already been hijacked, but...

The first part of Rauch's argument seems to be that Korea will get nukes and Iraq wll be a mess no matter who becomes President. As a result the elections don't matter. This seems backwards to me. It is exactly because Korea will get nukes no matter what and Iraq will indeed be a mess that this election matters. I certainly believe that foreign policy decisions made concerning Iraq will have significant repercussions, historically and, more importantly, in my personal life. This is why the election matters. The fact that the candidates haven't staked out dramatically different positions -- though I'm not sure what Rauch is looking for -- just means I have to choose between the devil I know and the devil I don't. Contrary to popular belief, these are not the same.

As for domestic policy, I believe the rest of Rauch's article speaks for itself. One paragraph is dedicated to Kerry trying to get something done with a Republican Congress -- Rauch believes this will be slow going. The remaining _ten_ paragraphs about Bush discuss the various possibilities of what he (Bush) could do in a second term, depending on who controls the Senate. They range from a radical reform of Social Security (Is this not a big deal?) to some sort of...what, benign malaise? The malaise argument seems predicated on a Bush humility based on lacking a clear mandate from a majority of the public.

I do not believe one has to be a leftist to point out that an argument of this form was also proferred after the 2000 election, and history has not been kind to it.

I will oversimplify and suggest that the argument of the second section is that divided government is good for boxing in a President. A kinder interpretation would be that divided government causes opposing sides to, well, talk to each other. In either cases, if the goal is divided government, then there is only one Presidential choice that guarantees divided legislative and executive branches.

I am also curious -- what was the last election Rauch believes _DID_ matter? Surely it would have to be the election of 2000, unless Rauch believes we would be in Iraq now no matter what, that the deficit would have ballooned no matter what, and that a constitutional amendment against gay marriage would have become an issue no matter what (I would agree with him only on the last one). But at the time, did he think it mattered?

Anon