why conservatives should vote for john kerry

Originally published August 14, 2004

Let me preface this with a definition. When I say "conservative," I don't mean "people who want to regulate where other people put their penises." Nor do I mean people who use the label "conservative" as a euphemism for bigot; wealthy business interest; religious zealot; or AM radio first-time-caller, long-time-listener. I'm not even talking about Republicans. I don't see much conservative about 'em, really.

No, when I say "conservative," I mean moderate, cautious, restrained. Conservatives do not put the cart before the horse or charge into wars without having their ducks in a row. (Pick your favorite zoological metaphor.) They don't whimsically use the Constitution to deny civil rights. They don't so much believe in small government as they believe big government is dangerously immoderate. They don't think that government does much very well and when possible, they'd prefer to let nature take its course. They're a mistrusting lot, generally presuming that people will act in their own crass self-interests, which is from where the penchants for a strong national defense and free-market principles originate. This paranoia also makes them famously resistant to change, always fretting about consequences. Consequences like doing irreversible damage to the deficit, Constitution, ally relations, and the environment. But I digress.

As an exercise, let's view a dead horse through this redefined conservative lens. Take gun control. The battle lines are drawn, yes? Conservatives want little or no gun regulation, and liberals want some or total regulation. We're so accustomed to this reality that we don't even notice the philosophical hypocrisies at play. Conservatives championing unrestricted civil rights and liberals trying to take them away? Liberals championing a literal (read: moderate, cautious, restrained) interpretation of the Constitution, and conservatives presuming to divine the framers' intent? What's the difference between that and the much-ballyhooed "judicial activist judge" making similar presumptions? None. None whatsoever. Party politics has so warped the discussion that both sides have this issue exactly, 100% wrong. Yay, parties.

This brings us to the upcoming election.

I'm not going to make the argument that John Kerry is a conservative choice; he clearly isn't. My argument is that a President Kerry is a small, fleeting price to pay for getting rid of the ultimate bastardization of conservatism, the one currently wrecking our foreign policy, environment, and budget as he bloviates the size and intrusiveness of government like no one before. The one who wants to make penis regulation a "conservative" campaign issue. View the choice through a truly conservative lens: whose damage to the country, in the the end, is going to be more lasting? Bush has wrecked an entire political party, appalled even Republicans with his dismal environmental record, handed our grandchildren enormous deficits, and needlessly set our Mideast policy back a generation. These blunders are not easily undone. Government-subsidized squeegie guys—or whatever silliness Kerry ends up being in favor of—will be easily enough dismantled. Hell, it'll die in committee in Congress. And that's my larger point: the side effects of the medicine are far preferable—far more moderate, if you will—relative to the symptoms of the disease. Consider these vital differences:

 

President Bush President Kerry
A Republican Congress with a second-term President Bush who, freed from the moderating effects of running for re-election, is even more unrestrained. Power divided between branches of government, leading to gridlock and the sorts of prosperity a gridlocked government leads to.
Allies continue working against us, in Iraq and everywhere.

 

 

Allies given a political "out" and now free to assist us without supporting a man their constituents despise. We get a geopolitical do- over.
Religious nuts' control of Republican party is emboldened and their Puritanical warping of conservatism continues unabated. At worst, religious nuts don't gain in stature. At best, they're blamed for the loss and educated fiscal conservatives wrest power back from imbecilic social conservatives.
You're still identified with the bigoted reprobates who call themselves "conservative" in W's America.

 

This will still happen. Sorry.

But at least you got to smack the reprobates. Feels good, don't it?

We know and understand our president's positions.

 

 

 
As candidate, can't admit a mistake because he honestly can't think of one he's made.

 

 

As candidate, won't admit a mistake because he's dishonestly running for office. At least it's pragmatic.
More massive deficits—  only more so because of aforementioned re-election multiplier.

 

Gridlock. Glorious gridlock.
No conservative conservation option. Businesses continue to ass-rape the environment unfettered. Add re-election multiplier. This is a tough one. Modern liberals cannot be trusted with conservation, 'cause they pollute (heh) the debate with silliness like electric busses that, because of the resistance in the electric lines, actually end up creating more pollution and using more fossil fuels while libs pat themselves on the back for their right-mindedness. Worst case: they're still by far the lesser of two