Left Center Left

[Bush] has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.

That’s the conclusion of the New Republic’s powerful endorsement of John Kerry. Actually, it’s the endorsement the New York Times should have written but didn’t. Go read.

And with a couple of weeks before the election, it seemed fitting to formulate the top reasons I’m voting for Kerry come Election Day (no new-fangled early voting for Massachusetts). These will come as no surprise to regular readers, but in any case here they are.

1. John Kerry sees anti-terrorism efforts as addressing more than state actors. The aspersion “police action” may turn off people to this notion as wimpy, but so many pieces of the puzzle will have to deal with the possibility of non-state actors: nuclear proliferation, creative civil defense, stronger health and urban infrastructure. In all of these areas, the administration has either failed or offered mediocre, ad hoc solutions. Kerry offers smarter, broader thinking about each of these and in particular has made nuclear proliferation his issue long before 9/11. The fact the administration is still rapidly pursuing an expensive and highly dubious missile defense program (which, let’s just remember only works if a state decides to launch an ICBM our way) against more pressing needs of nuclear proliferation containment is Exhibit A in the case that the Bush administration are the ones who in fact don’t get the security threats mostly likely facing us.

2. John Kerry will help restore fiscal sanity. “Bush has been bad on the deficit,” some in effect say, “but Kerry might be just as bad.” Of course, I can’t predict the future, but the issue boils down to this. At one point early on, Clinton broke with some in his party in order to make balanced budgets and a Social Security surplus a central plank of his economic policy. He wasn’t alone in this move (G.H.W. Bush broke his “No New Taxes” policy out of the same impulse), but it involved a significant bipartisan compromise: both parties would reign in spending - defense, human services, and discretionary - and raise tax rates slightly. We climbed our way out of national debt to a surplus that was necessary for Social Security payments. Then, a Bush administration and GOP control of Congress broke that compromise and the will for balanced budgets and unleashed an unprecedented spending spree combined with unprecedented tax cuts - at least unprecedented in recent decades. The Democratic party remains wedded ideologically to Clinton’s economic policy, and campaign promises of spending aside, every indication shows that Kerry agrees with the fundamental vision of Clinton’s and Robert Rubin’s economic policy, whereas the Bush administration clearly believes deficits don’t matter. A vote for Bush is a vote that deficits don’t matter. Even for those one-issue voters deciding on security issues, this should not be taken lightly: wars need to be financed and right now we’re on our way to maxing out the credit card.

3. The war in Iraq has been a disaster and a setback in any foreign policy objective we might have. Look, I’d love for the process of democratization to take hold in Iraq. But that’s almost beside the point by now, because Iraq’s democracy was never solely the issue. What the administration sought was to set up a reverse domino effect, whereby a democratic beacon in Iraq would foment similar processes in other Arab and Muslim states. This underlying foreign policy theory is looking more doubtful by the day, as any democratic governance in Iraq will have “Made In USA” stamped all over it. Even if it does work, the timeframe gets pushed further and further into the asymptotic future. That’s all in the past, one might say, but the current administration shows no sign from learning from its mistakes. So much so that even if one does still support the reverse domino theory and feel we need to invade Middle Eastern countries to spread liberty and democratic ideals, Bush has shown himself ineffective in doing just that.

4. Kerry has more allegiance to expertise not tied to ideology. The Bush administration’s politicization of science has been well-documented. And most notably, on the hot-button issue of stem-cell research, it has chosen a theocratic approach to decisionmaking on issues deserving wider consideration. But Bush’s playing loose and free with science is only part of a larger disregard for expertise. His economic policy is run by yes men, who lose their jobs when they tell a truth that’s not on script. His Homeland Security head is a political appointee rather than someone with especial knowledge. Iraq’s Provisional Authority hired people based on their thinktank connections rather than their knowledge. We need to reverse this mentality. Technocracy is not the answer to all of our problems, but it’s usually better than its alternative.

5. Kerry supports the idea of tax progressivity, while the GOP is undermining it. Despite some ridiculous claims that the rich haven’t had a bigger tax cut than the ordinary worker, our tax system is moving from a mildly progressive tax system (we’re not Sweden, nor even the US in the 1950s) to an attempt to flat tax and to give “supply-side” tax cuts whenever possible. What’s worse, even tax “reforms”, which could be revenue neutral, become Trojan horses for sneaking in regressive taxation.

6. Kerry will actually do something to provide broader health care at a lower cost per person. Our current setup is incredibly inefficient and we spend more than any other country. And we’re not getting what we pay for. The GOP, stuck between a free-market fundamentalism and a health-industry lobby favoritism, can’t diagnose the problem, much less fix it.

7. Kerry is not trying to make gay men and women second-class citizens under the law. Even if political elections matter less than cultural evolution in gay rights battles - and even if the Federal Marriage Amendment has no realistic chance of passing - that does not mean we shouldn’t punish the political party responsible for homophobic legislation and speechifying.

There are more one could think of, of course. And they doesn’t explain the sociological reasons I’m voting for Kerry, but I don’t treat others’ arguments on an ad hominem basis and expect the same courtesy.