--- David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a valid and interesting criticism of Kerry.
I appreciate your saying that, Dr. Brin. This is actually helping me think through my own decision. Here, perhaps is where we disagree (and please, correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - I'm trying to lay out your opinions as fairly as I can). On days when I'm likely to support President Bush, my argument goes like this. President Bush, for all of his many flaws, understands that the world is not filled with friends of ours. France, Russia, and China, for example, are not our friends. Given that, a President who runs his entire campaign based on the premise that a policy carried through without the support of these countries (and that seems to me to be what Kerry is saying) is saying that American foreign policy is subject to the veto of three countries that can plausibly be described as our enemies. President Bush is not willing to do that. For all of his flaws (massive) he will make his own decisions in pursuit of the interests of the United States, and he will at least try to move in the right direction, instead of allowing our policies to be shaped by those who have our worst interests at heart. This strikes me as a reasonable position. Now, on the days I'm a Kerry supporter, I say, yes, all of the above is true, actually (note that I didn't say I'm an _enthusiastic Kerry supporter). But Kerry is (in Winston Churchill's wonderful phrase) the boneless wonder, and the public will not allow him to bow down to the French, Russians, and Germans and sacrifice the interests of the US in search of a purely hallucinatory international popularity. But Kerry will have better domestic and economic policies, and in foreign policy there's at least a chance that what he decides to do will at least be executed properly. This strikes me as a reasonable position as well. Now it seems to me that your position is that the first of these two views is _not_ a reasonable position, because George Bush is basically a bad guy who is in hock to Saudi interests, or something like that. Am I interpreting you correctly? Now, suppose someone doesn't believe that (and I don't, as you know). Do you understand what I mean that this isn't a very helpful argument for people like me? In fact, in a sense it seems that the opposite argument almost has more power - that _Kerry_, not Bush, is in hock to interests that are fundamentally antagonistic to the welfare of the US. So if the most important thing is who has influence over your actions, them I'm not sure whose side that should bring me or any other undecided voter down on. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
