Shrewd and perceptive novelist Tom Wolfe on the election:
I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East-coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment. Support for Bush is about resentment in the so-called ‘red states’…. I come from one of those states myself, Virginia….
And John Kerry? “He is a man no one should worry about, because he has no beliefs at all. He is not going to introduce some manic radical plan, because he is poll-driven, and it is therefore impossible to know where or for what he stands.”
It’s hard to think of someone whose personal style and demeanor is more different from Tom Wolfe than former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton, and yet he has just made a point that could have come from Wolfe:
When Americans step into the voting booth to choose the people they want representing them in Washington, high on the list of qualities they’ll be looking for in the candidates is personal integrity. To be sure, they will weigh other considerations as well – party label, ideology, stands on issues of importance, likability. But for most of us, it’s very important to know that the people to whom we entrust our hopes for this nation aren’t just in it for themselves.
As Wolfe suggests, Kerry strikes many people (I am one) as someone whose only guiding principle seems to be what is good for Kerry. He clearly lied for years about being in Cambodia. He padded his Vietnam resume, and left at the earliest opportunity. He threw away his (or someone’s) medals and attacked his former comrades as war criminals and then claimed his heroic (just ask him) war service as his leading qualification for office. He continues to lie about whether he has released all his relevant military records, keeping hidden information that would put to rest doubts about his several medals and the nature and conditions of his discharge. His explanations of his position(s) on Iraq have vacillated along a scale from misleading to vague to dissembling. He does not, in short, come across as a straight shooter.
I’ve been thinking about this matter of integrity lately, because it is clear to me (and especially to those unfortunate enough to have to listen to me) that my disgust with Kerry goes far beyond disagreement with his position (whatever it is) on issues. I do disagree with much of what I think he favors and with how I think he would approach Iraq, but I would feel much the same about any possible Democratic nominee. But I would not have felt the same level of disgust with any of the other serious Democratic candidates, including Howard Dean. I think it is possible to disagree with someone without abandoning all respect for them. On a personal level, Kerry does not strike me as deserving respect.
“All of the hopes and dreams of our country are on the line,” I just heard Kerry say in the background on the TV in one of his last speeches. “The world is watching….” Listening to him makes my skin crawl.
UPDATE
WorldNetDaily has an article today featuring comments by William Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy, 1974 – 1977:
A former secretary of the Navy is urging Sen. John Kerry to open up his personnel files to resolve the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy.
John –
You do a grave injustice to the integrity of your blog when you engage in partisan hackery. I invite you to consider, critically, the background of a number of prominent Republicans in the context of the assertions you cite. For example:
a. “who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality.”
Why on earth would a Republican supporter use a statement like this against Democrats when their handpicked senatorial candidate in Illinois, Alan Keyes, slurred Mary Cheney as a “selfish hedonist”. Although Keyes has refused to apologize for the slur, he has admitted that he has never met Ms.Cheney and knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about her character other than she is attracted to other women. I think if one were searching for an example of someone trying to force a “twisted morality” on other people, Keyes would be their poster child.
b. “Kerry strikes many people (I am one) as someone whose only guiding principle seems to be what is good for Kerry” – How on earth could you make a statement like this when you ardently support a ticket that includes a man, Dick Cheney, who received FIVE DEFERMENTS during the Vietnam War because, and this is a direct quote, had
Best Poll for undecided Voters;
Since 1956, Weekly Reader students in grades 1-12 have correctly picked the president
http://www.weeklyreader.com/election_vote.asp
Weekly Reader kids select Bush in Presidential Poll
The students who read Weekly Reader
James-Who did you vote for in 1992 and 1996 presidential elections? From your comments and especially in light of your father’s service, it probably goes without saying that you voted for GWH Bush and Bob Dole. Both vets, both stand up guys who risked their lives to keep us free. So forgive me for asking, but I’d appreciate your confirmation of my assumption. Then I’ll be able to fully appreciate your righteous occupation of the moral high ground.
Stu –
1992- Clinton
1996 – Clinton
Clinton, on moral grounds, was a conscientous objector to the war. I respect his position. What I don’t respect is politicians who unfairly criticize others for not meeting standards of behavior that they themselves refuse to follow. In ’92 and ’96 Clinton supporters were not out on the campaign trail attacking the integrity of Republicans who did not serve in Vietnam, whatever their reasons.
1. I agree with you about Alan Keyes. I wouldn’t vote for him if I were in Illinois. But neither do I see him as representative of George Bush or the Republican Party. On the other hand, I found Kerry’s and Edwards’ use of Mary Cheney to be a calculated political offense, putting them in a category very close to Keyes, maybe lower because of their role in the party and campaign.
2. Sorry, but I do not find seeking and accepting a deferment (Kerry, after all, sought an additional deferment and enlisted only when it was refused) to be at all similar to falsifying military records and them, contrary to repeated declarations, keeping those records secret, or to slandering former colleagues and then running on the basis of having (briefly) served with them.
3. My “charges” against Kerry are nothing more, or less, than my honest opinion about him. Because I can well imagine that others are not particularly interested in my opinion (although I recognize that vainly having a blog suggests otherwise), I tried to jack them up by surrounding them with the aura of TomWolfe and Lee Hamilton. But I’m pretty sure that Hamilton doesn’t see Kerry himself the way I do, and so I’m not shocked when others don’t. I’m not sure what I said that leads you to conclude that I support the Iraq war “at all costs,” it’s certainly true that I do support it.
Moving now beyond James, I’m still not clear in my own mind about the exact nature of the relevance of integrity to leadership. My inclination is to regard it as very important — character, I really do believe, is destiny — but at the same time I can easily imagine campaigns where the candidate with the most integrity, if he is wrong about an issue or issues of fundamental importance, could be less appealing than his Kerry-like opponent. (In my youth in Alabama, “Big Jim” Folsom, a drunk, dishonest rascal who opposed the rabid segregationists, was such a candidate.) That’s why, I suppose, that I would have more respect for Kerry if he were an anti-war candidate than I do as a result of his being a dissembling candidate.
James,
Clinton, on moral grounds, was a conscientious objector to the war.
No. A conscientious objector is someone who openly refuses the draft and takes the consequences, or (better yet) accepts the draft but refuses to bear arms. (I had a middle-school English teacher who did that — was drafted and served basically as a journalist.) Clinton did not do that. I don’t blame him especially for not wanting to do time (in a prison or in Vietnam), but “conscientious objection” is not the right name for his choice.
Michelle
According to the ultimate authority, the Selective Service System, “A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.” The SSS goes on to state that “Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.”
site: http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
In Clinton’s famous letter to Colonel Eugene Holmes he states
“Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine, After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans for the demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
This text was taken verbatim from “SLICK WILLIE”, Floyd G. Brown’s anti-Clinton tome.
see: http://www.gmasw.com/draft_no.htm
Michelle, If Clinton is not considered a conscientious objector under the SSS’s definition then who would be?
James,
I think there was considerable controversy at the time of the Vietnam War about whether a CO could be someone who objected to that particular war, or only someone objecting to war as such. The SSS definition you quote,
A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles[,]
suggests the latter. It is unclear whether Clinton was opposed to all war — unclear at the time, anyway; he launched any number of military offensives as President — but clear that he opposed the Vietnam War.
But the same link you provided gave the SSS alternatives to military service for COs. You could serve in the field in a non-combatant capacity; or if you preferred not to aid the military in any way, you could be assigned civilian duties for a term equal to a standard draftee’s term. Clinton preferred not to be drafted at all. As I said above, that’s understandable; but I would rather not conflate his position with that of people who did stick around to be drafted, and either went to Vietnam in non-combatant capacities or stayed here in civilian work as officially-recognized conscientious objectors.
Someone may prove me wrong, but until that happens I will assert (as someone who looked closely at this issue at the time) that one could not be classified as a C.O. whose objections, no matter how profound, deeply felt, or even religioius, were only to one war.
This discussion is unreal. Nobody, except for James ever claimed that Bill Clinton was a conscientious objector. For obvious reasons, there is no way that a conscientious objector could be elected President.
Anyway, isn’t it necessary to have a conscience to be a conscientious objector?
The last comment was mine.
I just thought of a good line for Kerry’s concession speech:
“Millions tried to vote for me, but they went to the wrong polling booth, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
Everyone, go read what a commenter is saying at the DailyKos. It’s eye-opening:
http://openthread.dailykos.com/comments/2004/11/3/95657/2208/25#25
Congratulations to those who supported President Bush, and are celebrating his re-election. I read the above post link about the “eye-opening” strategies a liberal blog wants the faithful to follow. I think some of the tactics are a little extreme, but it’s indicative of the political atmosphere in America today.
Now, I would love to have concrete evidence to accuse Karl Rove of election day shennanigans; either through voter challenges or Diebold Electronic Voting conspiracy theories
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04482.html, but I’m not going down that road again.
The politics of fear and hyperbole in this year’s campaign is out of control, and I think have past the tipping point of rationale debate.
The vengeful tactics from the left listed in the above post are in retaliation for the tactics used by the right, including this beauty of a flier that was circulated by Republicans:
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/09/the_rnc_bible_f.html
How low will the tactics sink? Vote Republican or the Bible will be “banned?” Come on, now! No wonder evangelicals turned out in droves. And I’ll be the first to admit there were “repealing voting rights act” scare tactics by the DNC used in minority neighborhoods to get out the vote.
If anybody thinks that this nation will come together after this election, they are sorely mistaken, because diatribes have replaced dialogue. We’re divided right down the middle–Red and Blue. The Culture War is now fully engaged.
–Cobra
Cobra, the flyer you link is a nasty piece of work; but if you think “evangelicals turned out in droves” because they all thought Kerry wanted to outlaw the Bible . . . well, what can I say? The leading Democratic meme for the last couple months has been that conservative Christians are gibbering idiots, and evidently you’ve bought it. I won’t make the obvious further comment.
The interesting thing about the DailyKos comment link is that it explicitly advocates (1) making accusations of vote fraud even if they’re definitely not true; and (2) deliberately allowing things to get bad — at home and abroad — so that Bush can be blamed for the mess. The first is, well, fraud, and not justified by fraud on the other side (though I understand the temptation). But the second is just plain anti-American. You do not hope for Americans to be hurt, to suffer economically, to die prematurely, if you have the best interests of the country at heart. If that’s what you will, then you’re on the border of treason, if not right over it.
The culture war is not “fully engaged.” It is over.
The 1960s are finally over, Cobra, thank God. The days of the race hustlers are coming to an end. Feminism was a mistake that will slowly fade into oblivion. Abortion will ultimate be outlawed as a form of birth control. Tolerance for gays will remain in place, but the foolish attempts to claim “oppression” will be met with laughter. Religion and family are returning to take their proper place.
Those with failed lives will continue to cling to the crazy nihilism of the 1960s, hoping that somebody else will bail them out of their self-imposed failures. But, public support for this nonsense will slowly fade away.