Bush's re-election too much to ask . . .

22 October 2004

Kerry or Bush?

In answering that, I start with the two questions the late Ronald Reagan made famous in his 1980 campaign against incumbent President Jimmy Carter. One focused on domestic - and especially economic - policy: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" The second looked outside of our borders: "Is America as respected throughout the world?"

They were good questions then; they are good questions now. Carter failed on both; so too does George W. Bush.

Americans certainly don't feel as well off today as they did at the end of the Clinton years. The giddiness of the Internet boom is gone; the of seemingly unlimited growth has disappeared. Many statistical measures support that feeling. For example, the unemployment rate today is 5.4 percent; four years ago it was 4 percent. Various indices of stock performance - such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the NASDAQ Composite - are down.

The rebuttal - the same one Carter ineffectually made 24 years ago - is that much of that is due to circumstances beyond the president's control. The economy was going into recession anyway. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, only nine months into Bush's term, exacerbated the economic collapse. Moreover, the Bush team argues, the economy is now coming out of its doldrums. Things are better today than they were, say, a year ago, and they'll continue to improve.

All of that is true. Yet the recovery has been exceptionally slow and tentative. And it has been spurred largely by mammoth tax cuts combined with governmental spending increases. Thus the recovery, largely driven by consumer spending, is somewhat artificial. And it has been purchased with an historically high deficit, one that poses severe risks to the U.S. economy.

Which is why I conclude that, yes, the last four years have left the nation worse off.

Is the United States more "respected" in the world? You may laugh. The question almost seems too easy. Sometimes, it seems, no one likes us.

Yet "like" is not the same as "respect." The demands of leadership often mean one has to do the unpopular. "Respect" is something that is earned when one does the right thing.

And today, that right thing means engaging the great issue of our day: terrorism - or more correctly, Islamic radicalism.

Much like communism during the Cold War, that radicalism is an ideology (in this case, masquerading as a religion) that is bent on the destruction of Western culture and values. And its adherents' tactics involve the deliberate murder of civilian populations.

It is on this issue, argue fans of the president, where Bush has excelled. He has been steadfast and unflinching, seeing the problem clearly and willing to take the political and military risks needed to meet it head on.

I disagree. When it comes to the threat of Islamic radicalism, Bush has done a lousy job. Iraq is symbolic of that failure. The invasion, as John Kerry says, was "the wrong war at the wrong time," both because it was a distraction and because it failed to reduce terrorism. Indeed, it may have exacerbated the problem. The right approach to fighting terrorism is to marginalize it. It's easy to mock Kerry when he talks about working with other nations. But such coalition building is a critical step to creating a united front against Islamic radicalism. Bush has squandered that.

In truth, it doesn't bother me at all that the United States is not as well liked as it once was. But the loss of respect - the sense that the United States is misguided, unprincipled and irrationally bellicose - is deeply troubling precisely because it undermines our fight against terrorism.

Having said all that, is John Kerry much better? No question, he is a flawed candidate. His record in the Senate isn't stellar. He can come across as pompous and dull. And his motivations and political principles are open to question; it is hard to figure out precisely why Kerry wants to be president, except that it seems the next logical step in his career path.

Yet watching him side-by-side with Bush in three debates, one couldn't help but be impressed. Kerry was clear in his positions and knowledgeable in his subject matter. Far from a flip-flopper, he seemed confident and sure. In their respect for fiscal rectitude, his economic policies seemed more responsible than Bush's. Kerry seemed to understand as clearly as Bush the need to take on Islamic radicals. But his approach - involving both the strengthening of coalitions and enhanced military presence in terrorist strongholds - seems more likely to succeed.

Sure, there are risks and unknowns. There always are when one considers replacing an incumbent with a challenger. But four years of Kerry worry me a lot less than more years of Bush.