Is there anyone else out there who thinks all this yammering about our presidential candidates’ whereabouts during the Vietnam War is rather pointless? We’ve got people arguing over whether John Kerry was in Vietnam or Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, while others are asking where George W. Bush was, period.
I find it particularly humorous because the same arguments were made during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and W’s father. Clinton was defending his deferments and contacts with military officers in an attempt to avoid going to war, while George Sr. was fighting accusations that his WWII service might not have been as heroic as it was made out to be.
The lesson we should have learned in ’92 is that how one did or did not serve when they were eighteen or twenty years old is not going to make much difference in the way people see them as candidates.
Oh, sure, lots of people will beg to differ. Unfortunately, they are largely the people who already have their minds made up about the two. The same people who were defending Bill Clinton’s deferments are the ones asking where George W. was during Vietnam, while those who saw the senior Bush as a hero are painting John Kerry as a traitor.
In other words, how one views their service depends upon how one views their candidacy. How one views their candidacy does not depend upon how one views their service.
Personally, I don’t know where John Kerry was or what the circumstances were regarding the war wounds that he suffered while he was in Vietnam. But I do know that he was there. For that, I salute him. Anyone who serves during a time of war has earned my undying respect.
On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically qualify him to become Commander-In-Chief. Heck, I've got a cousin who served in Vietnam. He’s a great guy, a hard-working family man with a Purple Heart to show for his time in country. I’ll drink a beer with him anytime, but he is better suited for pursuits that do not require leading the free world.
As for W, well, I’d drink a beer with him, too – if he were still drinking. He was no Vietnam hero, but serving in the National Guard does not make him a coward or a slacker. And it certainly doesn’t disqualify him to be president.
The fact is that Vietnam – and the entire decade of the sixties – was a trying and traumatic time for the U.S. The rules were such that a great many people never had to serve, and those who did had to under the most difficult of circumstances. It is folly to try and judge a person today based upon their actions back then.
There are far more pressing issues facing us today than what took place nearly forty years ago. Rather than look back, we’d be better served by looking forward. What to do about Iraq, the economy, the deficit, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation and exploding healthcare costs are the things we should be discussing. But they are being drowned out by a tit-for-tat exchange that ultimately will have little bearing on how either of these men will lead this country.
Progress is all about where we’re going, not where we’ve been. But rather than peer ahead, we’ve chosen to fix our gaze squarely on the rearview mirror
9/09/2004
Red Car Syndrome
All lies and jest. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. – Paul Simon, The Boxer
While discussing the merits of a military draft, I once got into a heated discussion with a friend’s wife, who argued that women should never be subject to the draft because women don’t start wars, men do. I asked her about Margaret Thatcher, who sent the British navy to fight the Falkland’s war. Nope, men in Argentina started it. How about Golda Meir, who started the Six Day War in 1973, despite pleadings from Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to refrain from doing so. Nope. It had to be Arab men’s fault.
Her inability to even consider evidence contrary to her opinion was a classic case of what I call Red Car Syndrome. That’s where you form an opinion, then selectively choose to consider only the evidence that proves your point. In the case of Red Car Syndrome, it’s the belief that red cars always exceed the speed limit.
Once you’ve made that assumption, then every time you watch a red car speed past, you say to yourself, “See, red cars always go fast.” The problem is that you ignore all the red cars that obey the speed limit, as well as all the brown, green and black cars that don’t.
In other words, your opinion is based not upon evidence, but upon what you want to believe. It’s the adult equivalent of covering our ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you!”
There are a few more common terms that define this behavior – tunnel vision, closed-mindedness, stereotyping. The definitive term is prejudice.
For that is what prejudice is – prejudging something or someone on preconceived notions or opinions. Our minds are made up based upon what we’ve observed in the past, upon what we’ve been told, or worst of all, what we want to believe. The problem is that it keeps us from getting to the truth. And the truth is what really matters. But we’re so preoccupied with convincing others that our opinion is right that we never take the time to make sure that it is.
9/03/2004
Two Americas? Whose Fault is That?
If the Kerry/Edwards ticket thinks it sees two Americas, they should take a look at my house. I’m sure they’d see two families – the Haves and the Have-nots. Two little people who have no money to buy anything, and two adults who – at least in our kids’ eyes – have all the money in the world.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
9/01/2004
Prediction for 2008
Right after the Republicans took over congress in 1994, when Bill Clinton was at the depths of despair regarding his popularity, I predicted to a friend that he would win re-election in ’96. I based it solely on the roster of potential Republican candidates, not believing that any of them would be able to beat the master politician.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)