What with the election and all I haven't had time to flesh out a few observations on some arts developments in the District (particularly the arresting Ana Mendieta review at the Hirshhorn). You may have noticed that things have been slow here—I've been engaged in some pretty heady debates over at Begging To Differ. I'm going to note this in the much-neglected side panel over the weekend, but when I'm ignoring the ol' G.p, it's usually because something is going down over at BTD.
I have some stuff that's itching to be unleashed from the "Draft" cage, but for the moment, I've written up my official endorsement (posted earlier at BTD). Since my goal was to limit myself to 200 words, I'm pleasantly surprised that I managed to express my irrational Bush hatred in just over 500 frothy, spittle-fueled packets of pro-Kerry letters.
It seems to me that the president elect in 2005, whoever he may be, will have his hands tied. It's an irony that in oppressive times circumstances would conspire to limit the efficacy of the office most capable and obliged to affect global problems. One of the preventable circumstances that is most responsible for dismal present conditions is President Bush.Obviously there's a lot that I didn't cover. You're invited to add or subtract in comments. Posted by Kriston at October 29, 2004 2:30 PMAnyone will acknowledge the severe stress currently placed on our armed forces: there is simply no capacity for conflict expansion, either for neocon wish fulfillment or even bolstering our present positions. John Kerry has recommended internationalism as a solution to our problems in Iraq, an option unavailable to Bush for reasons of obstinance; I have my reservations about the degree of success Kerry will achieve in internationalizing the occupation of Iraq, but I will give him credit for outlining an unexplored avenue in the face of a no-win scenario. I think that in turns he will be successful and our some share of our burden will be relieved. Insofar as this share may likely be small, I point to the incumbent. President Bush has no new strategy to offer; he has exhausted his options, which have amounted mostly to unrestricted, unwarranted, and uninformed optimism.
The Rumsfeld doctrine of warplanning provided limited successes in Afghanistan and failed to unforeseeable degrees in Iraq—a mistake in and of itself—and he should be terminated as soon as possible. President Bush will not do so. A reversion to the Powell doctrine of warplanning is necessary for the security of the American interest, people, and military. In the instance of another attack, President Bush cannot be trusted to prosecute our enemies effectively. It's absurd that anyone should believe that a Kerry administration—really, any administration—would not respond forcefully to a domestic attack in the post-9/11 world, so "resoluteness" is not a quality that concerns me greatly. Kerry promises nonideological analysis of our threats, and that is what we need most—we need to be strong, but moreover we need to be right.
Again, I emphasize that a Kerry administration would be a restricted one: hamstrung by the greatest deficits in American history and an oppositional Congress, two limitations the incumbent did not face. Given the hand that Bush was dealt when he entered the office, his domestic policy has been inexplicably awful, and probably the single greatest mark under the Kerry column in this respect is that he will not be George W. Bush.
My outlook on the prospects of a Kerry administration is admittedly grim—but certainly not because Kerry will fail to be a resolute drinking buddy, or any of the other personality qualifications over which President Bush would like you to vote. My hesitations stem from the enormity of the work to be done, but I do think John Kerry possesses the thoughtful determination necessary to begin the process of reversing our course in terms of global esteem, moral authority, economic might, political partisanship, and military strategy—and I will vote for him enthusiastically.
