October 5, 2004

The Debate of the Century

by Steve Barrera

Here are my thoughts on the Presidential debate over foreign policy and homeland security, held on September 30, 2004.

It was amazing to witness the two candidates, making their cases to the American people with respect to specific policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan, as well as on homeland security and the War on Terror in general. The experience underscored for me the strength of our democracy – the most powerful office on the planet, whose policies have such world-shaking consequences, is dependent utterly on the approval of We the People of these United States.

Before I continue, let me make one point.

There is not likely to be another 9/11, no matter who wins the election. The probability of another massive terror attack occurring in this country is independent of the party in the White House. It has more to do with the effectiveness of intelligence agencies and the justice system, and with sheer chance – and it’s just not that great a likelihood. The candidates’ campaigns might have you believe otherwise, but that’s election politics for you.

Now let’s move on to the analysis.

Getting Personal on Iraq

Both candidates had a considerable amount to say about a key fault of their opponent. Bush repeatedly stated that Kerry sends “mixed messages” and changes positions on Iraq, and therefore won’t make a good Commander in Chief. Kerry stated that Bush has misled the country on his reasons for going to war, and has rushed into the enterprise without a good plan, and therefore has got to go.

Different Strategies

On Homeland Security, Bush believes that the best defense is a good offense. Kerry thinks we need to do more domestically to reduce the chances or the effect of an attack.

On the War on Terror, Bush believes we should make Iraq and Afghanistan into free countries, because free countries will reject terror. Kerry understands that the die is cast in Iraq, but believes the occupation requires a better plan involving more allies, and that otherwise our strategy should be to refocus on hunting for Osama bin Laden and stopping nuclear proliferation.

Mr. Bush Throws Down the Gauntlet

At one point, early in the debate, Kerry accused Bush of rushing into Iraq – of going to war when war was not the last resort. Bush countered that the UN resolutions were failing, and that hope in them reflected a “September 10th mentality” – meaning that, here in the September 12th world, when necessary, we take action.

In this way, Bush was challenging Kerry to take a stand on whether or not 9/11 ushered in a new age of decisive transformation. He was accusing his opponent of being on the wrong side of history, of living in a past age of indecisiveness and fruitless negotiations. But one has to wonder, then, what Bush was thinking when he supported the six-party talks over North Korean disarmament.

Mr. Kerry Makes a Point

Kerry has received considerable flak over his “global test” remark, as though he meant that he would beg permission from “the globe” before employing American force of arms. That it is not what he meant; he said in the debate that he understood the President’s right to preemption in defense of the United States.

What Kerry was grasping at was the idea that it is important that American actions have moral legitimacy before the world. This is not a minor issue to be brushed aside on the principle that “might makes right.” This goes to the heart of what America’s destiny will be in the twenty-first century.

Conclusion

That’s all I’m going to say. My advice to readers is to keep watching the debates, and vote according to your reason and your conscience. And please, respect your neighbor’s choice. That means no stealing yard signs, people!

May God bless this country and may God bless the world.

© Steve Barrera and Generation Watch 2004-2007. All rights reserved.

Also by Steve Barrera

The Wisdom Deficit