If anyone would implement a draft, I think Kerry would be more likely to do it than Bush. Kerry is starting to look ever more Nixonesque, after all, insisting that we will stay in a war that he considers a mistake. He mentioned sending troops to Sudan; Bush didn't. And Bush has mostly kept his campaign promises so far, even the bad ones like steel tariffs and the prescription drug benefit. Bush highly values trust, and keeps his word. And he's a party builder, who knows that a draft would destroy the Republican base. Kerry, on the other hand, reverses himself, morally compromises himself right and left, and is a poor tactician who is always getting himself into jams.
I was remiss in expressing this as an off-the-cuff opinion when there was evidence for it. Many thanks to the anonymous commenter who reminded me of this link. I've actually read this before, back in February, and was horrified by it; it's one of the reasons I've hated Kerry so much all this time, and yet I unaccountably neglected to link to it. Here's a quote:
As President, John Kerry will have the courage to lead and call on all Americans to make our nation stronger. Whether it is protecting America from the threats of terrorism or addressing the problems we have at home, America's new challenges will not be met by the same old answers of big government or big tax cuts for the wealthy. John Kerry will call on all Americans - tapping into the idealism and ingenuity of Americans and putting it to work on building a safer, stronger, and more secure nation. Americans already make an enormous difference in their communities, volunteering, in Boys and Girls Clubs or homeless shelters. Many Americans do full time service. John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.
"National service?" In my book this is a draft, even if it's State-side and non-military. And once the principle of self-ownership was violated this way, it's a short step to a military draft. Imagine. In May of your graduating year, the recruiters come to your high school, some from the military, some from the national service board. "So where would you like to do your service? Go to the military and you'll learn some valuable skills. You can be a hero. Or you can work on the highway. Which will it be?"
It gets worse. The Investor's Business Daily reports that:
As John Kerry barnstorms swing states in the election's final days, he has harsh words for President Bush on the Patriot Act: It doesn't go far enough.
Kerry and other Democrats who once called the law, which gives the federal government sweeping powers to fight terrorism in the U.S., a threat to the Constitution are now praising it.
The shift is likely because the act remains popular. A Gallup poll earlier this year found 64% said the act was "about right" or "didn't go far enough."
I don't know much about the Investor's Business Daily. I pray that it's a partisan hack paper, and this is just spin that can't be trusted. If it's true, it's very grim news.
My position is: I think the Patriot Act is a useful law-enforcement tool, which probably keeps us safer from the terrorists, and may be the reason there was no repeat of 9/11, and I think the Bushies are good people whom I trust not to abuse the powers it grants; but I still oppose the Act, because in the long run an oppressive government is far more dangerous than terrorism, and if/when the Patriot Act powers fall into the hands of bad future presidents, wicked deeds could happen.
Power corrupts. Suppose roving wiretaps enabled Clinton to discover Linda Tripp's impending treachery before she went public. There would be a temptation to, say, assassinate her to protect his legacy. I don't think Clinton would do that, but I also believe that even the best of us are capable of wicked crimes under strong pressure and when we think we can get away with it. The Patriot Act would make this easier.
Bush said in the second debate that he doesn't think the Patriot Act infringes our rights. Kerry said it does. I agree with Kerry. Except that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. So which would you rather have, a man who respects people's rights as he understands them but whose views about what rights we have is somewhat authoritarian; or a man who understands civil liberties but will violate them for his political advantage?
The problem is not that Kerry flip-flops. Flip-flopping can be good. Clinton's post-1994 flip-flop was the making of his presidency. But Kerry flip-flops on issues of conscience. Or rather, on what are issues of conscience to other people. I'm waiting for evidence that the word "conscience" can be applied to Senator Kerry. [UPDATE: But I don't think Kerry really will pass a draft, so maybe I should calm down. Josh Claybourne rebukes the draft rumor.]
No comments:
Post a Comment