I've previously written that the pollsters are underestimating the effects of the high turnout in this year's election. Anecdotal reports I have from New York City (not exactly a battleground area) and Florida seem to indicate severe crowding at elections, and determined patient voters.
One of the best bloggers in my book, Jonathan Edelstein, is usually quiet on American politics but is out stumping for Kerry in Philadelphia. Andrew Sullivan, as everyone should know, is going with Kerry although he endorsed Bush in 2000.
Nearly everyone I know who would otherwise vote for a Republican is voting for Kerry this year, even if they are holding their nose while they do it.
One point I want to share with you:
Although Europeans (obviously) can't vote in US elections, there is a prevailing sense that Bush is famously unpopular there. This is evidence of European treachery among many, even me in my darkest moments.
Most of those I deal with can't comprehend why anyone would even consider voting for Bush, far less why something around half actually will.
I think what the Europeans don't "get," is the determination the vast majority of Americans share in defeating terrorism. Where European public opinion sees detestable methods in the service of an understandable goal, American popular opinion sees an enemy that is evil in every way.
Bush is an attractive candidate because his moral judgment is steadfast: the US will use all its power to defeat the enemy. Kerry's rhetoric is equally categorical, but many Americans fear that he will yield to pressure from the left wing of the Democratic party and those same Europeans and show weakness in the face of the enemy.
There's no denying that there will be such pressure, and those who vote for Kerry believe that he understands that his mandate (if he is elected) derives from the collective will of the American people to confront, rather than appease terrorism. Bush may have screwed up in many areas, but many of those who support him (such as former mayor Ed Koch) believe that his stand on terrorism trumps everything else.
This relates to a particular brand of American optimism and determination. Europeans feel that terrorism is an intractable problem that has to work itself out over time and with patience; Americans feel that it is something they can and should eliminate from the face of the earth. Europeans feel that nothing can be accomplished in international affairs without cooperation among states; Americans are prepared to go it alone, if necessary.
At the end of the day, the conservative pundits have a point: Bush is a radical that won't be constrained by conventional wisdom in foreign affairs. This is heresy among many Europeans, but refreshing for many Americans.
This explains the attraction Bush has among Americans, but it needn't disqualify Kerry.
The main distinction - lost, I think, to European public opinion - isn't that Kerry will or should go along with the same conventional wisdom Bush/Cheney so vehemently reject. The distinction is that Kerry is far less likely to ignore the Europeans, who it must be remembered, want the same thing as us at the end of the day. Kerry's mandate will derive in large part from a constituency that believes that the US can't endanger the very things it is seeking to protect against terrorism.
The late historian Stephen Ambrose pointed out that the American military in WWII was comprised of citizens: ordinary men (and some women) who fought a war based on moral conviction rather than nationalistic pride or even patriotic duty. The US is not fighting terrorism to extend its reach in the world, secure oil supply, or even defend her citizens against the occasional attack. Americans want to defeat terrorism because they sincerely feel that terrorism is evil, even in societies that support it. It is no coincidence that Martin Peretz highlights the fact that people voted in Afghanistan last week - the purpose of the war there was not just to annihilate Al Qaeda and unseat the Taliban. It was also to leave something better behind.
In other words, those who support Bush aren't just gung-ho, xenophobic John Wayne types (though some probably are). Most of them are idealists who believe the US needs to stubbornly hold on to the aspiration of making the world a better place, the American way.
My point is this: Kerry is no less an idealist, and possibly more of one.
>> My point is this: Kerry is no less an idealist, and possibly more of one
Unbelievable statement. He is anti-american at the core. That's the only thing is consistent about. He was dishonorably discharged, committed treason by talking to the enemy during war time, and implementing their plan to undermine the war, slandered american servicemen serving in vietnam, gave aid and comfort to the enemy which was used against POWS, consistently lied about his heroics: his commanding officer turned him down for a medal for a scratch, so he filled his own paperwork and sent it in, won't release his records, consistently opposed every defense bill and weapon system that America used to win the cold war, iraq, and terrorism. 20 years in the senate, and hardly anything to show for it. No significant bills.
Flip flopping on almost every issue, and you call him an idealist. Amazing...
Posted by: Gunnar, Maryland | November 05, 2004 at 12:28 AM
Ah, yes, the Ann Coulter school of politics: anyone who disagrees with us is anti-American, treasonous, and foolish, too.
Posted by: Leif | November 05, 2004 at 03:33 PM