“You Like Me!” (Part 2 of 2)

John Kerry’s “Sally Field” approach to foreign policy

by Heidi Parent
04/16/04

In the last issue, we began discussing John Kerry’s take on matters of national security, or what I call his Sally Field “you like me” approach to foreign policy. (By this time I trust you’ve all had a chance to read up on your Oscar history.)

In this issue we will continue the discussion by focusing on a very important Kerry trait that is sure to influence the way he makes decisions. And that is his lack of political conviction, or core beliefs.

The first example of Kerry lack of conviction is his desire to run as Bizarro Bush, or what those unfamiliar with Superman would call the exact opposite of Bush. His eagerness to contradict Bush at every turn is almost laughable. If Bush said the sky was blue, Kerry would quibble and say, “well actually it’s more gray today, Mr. President, and we’re not going to allow you to tell us otherwise. We have had enough of your lies and exaggerations.” He will never give Bush credit for being right about any issue and would rather buy his shirts off-the-rack than position himself on the same side of an issue as the president. Therefore, even when Bush is right, Kerry reflexively takes the opposite side.

Now taking the positions he is taking for no other reason than to be seen as the complete opposite of Bush is much more than playing a harmless game of contradiction, because words have consequences, especially when heeded by terrorists. (Look no further than the attack in Madrid for an example.) So the result of Kerry’s words is an undermining of American foreign policy.

The second, and perhaps truest, example of Kerry’s lack of political conviction is his attempt to cover every possible position on every possible issue.

We need only look at two of Kerry’s recent votes to see that he votes out of political expediency and not out of principle. The two votes in question are his vote for the Iraq war resolution and his vote against the $87 billion to fund it.

First, his vote for the war. Prior to the vote Kerry said, “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Sounds like a line from a Bush speech, doesn’t it? Too bad Kerry didn’t really mean it. Because his comments since the vote, which of course coincide with his efforts on the campaign trail, contradict his hawkish pre-war attitude, “You truly should go to war as a matter of last resort. I'm afraid the president rushed to war."

Since Kerry is capable of contradicting his contradictions, a reporter recently asked him to clarify whether as President he would have would gone to war at all. Once again he gave an all purpose “maybe, maybe not” answer, “I might have gone to war, but not the way the President did." Truth be told, the only reason Kerry voted for the war in Iraq was because the 2002 mid-term elections were looming and Democrats needed to appear strong on matters of national security.

Now contrast his vote for the war with his vote against funding it. Kerry seemed poised to vote in favor of the $87 billion if his comments on CBS’s “Face the Nation” were to be believed. When asked if he would vote for the $87 billion if his proposed alternate amendment did not pass Kerry gave the impression that he would, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." But when it became clear that rival anti-war candidate Howard Dean was pulling ahead in the polls, Kerry needed to also appear anti-war. Ipso facto, his vote against the $87 billion. So much for reckless and irresponsible.

Now don’t think for a minute that Kerry was going to stand by that vote either. When it became apparent that the vote was going to cause him political problems, he once again wanted credit for taking both sides of the issue, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But this isn’t by any stretch Kerry’s only flip-flop. In fact, he is so adept at flip-flopping, he is able to take both sides at the same time. Take one answer from a recent interview with Time magazine. When asked whether the cost we have paid was worth deposing Saddam, Kerry replied, "If there are not weapons of mass destruction – and we may yet find some – then this is a war that was fought under false pretenses." (This is really quite impressive. In one sentence, Kerry deftly gives something to everyone. “No weapons of mass destruction” – that’s for the left. And “we may yet find some” – that’s for the war supporters.) When the reporter asked for clarification, "So if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?" Kerry replied, "No. I think you can still – wait, no. You can't – that's not a fair question and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go."

(I’ve read this quote dozens of times and I’m still not sure what he said. I’m not sure Kerry even understood what he said. Boy, he is going to be a tough debate. Just when you think you’ve pinned him down to ABC he’ll respond, “Well, I’ve actually also said XYZ.”)

If Kerry possessed and was guided by system of core beliefs – or, if he does possess such a system, he was brave enough to reveal it – voters could make an informed decision. Instead we are left to wonder where Kerry stands on every issue because his beliefs are subject to change with the wind, or more accurately, with shifting polls.

The same cannot be said about President Bush. Agree with him or not, Bush clearly does possess a set of core beliefs and they are there for all to see. And it is through these beliefs that Bush views every issue. So there is no question about where he stands on a number of issues – War on Terror, taxes, education.

So, with all that we know about Kerry, the questions are clear – can we trust him to guide us safely through the next four years? Can we trust a man who possesses no core beliefs with the presidency? A man who lacks political conviction and as a result allows himself to be swayed by polls and the opinions of foreign leaders? A man who sees a gray area when it comes to good and evil? If history is an accurate teacher, the answer is no.

Serious times deserve serious people. Britain at the onset of World War II is a perfect example. The British people were content with Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister until it became clear that his doctrine of appeasement would not deter Hitler’s quest to dominate Europe. When this became apparent, they wasted no time replacing him with a serious man. And Churchill responded by defeating Hitler.

Fast-forward sixty plus years. Once again we find ourselves facing serious times. Fortunately we have a serious leader in President Bush. But we also have an upcoming election giving us a choice – keep President Bush or replace him with Senator John Kerry. President Bush has already shown himself to be a capable Commander in Chief, able to make a distinction between good and evil. Moreover, he has shown that he will protect America at all costs, regardless of how it is perceived by other leaders.

Can the same be said about Senator Kerry?