Flawed Arguments for Kerry over Bush

By Eric J. Lakits

After reading the articles, “Capitalist Hawk for Kerry” by Craig Biddle and “Opposing Platonic Conservatism: A Matter of Values” by John Lewis on Capitalism Magazine (www.capmag.com), I took a moment to pause and reconsider my reasons for voting for Bush in this year’s election. But the pause was brief as I concluded that Biddle and Lewis are making many serious errors in their arguments for Kerry over Bush.

Perhaps the most prominent error is in believing that voting in an election can be a means to influencing the ideas that shape our culture, thereby inverting the relationship between politics and philosophy. Ayn Rand explained when criticizing Libertarians that politics is an end, not a means, in the realm of ideas, and that the only way to change the political climate is to endorse the right philosophy, not the other way around.

Yes, it is true that philosophy matters in this election — I’d like to know who said that it did not. Furthermore, I do not know who these alleged Objectivists are that Mr. Biddle and Dr. Lewis are referring to who believe that President Bush is doing a good job, or that his values coincide with those of Objectivists. I can assure you that I, for one, suffer from no such delusions.

However, I will be voting, with full philosophical knowledge, for the candidate that comes closest to protecting my self-interest despite knowing full well that neither candidate is qualified, but that one is much worse than the other. And I will not be deterred by the fact that some people might try to use the actions of our future president as a means of arguing against the philosophy they wrongfully believe he represents. That would be acting based on “what would people think,” not which candidate is better suited to the office.

The fact that someone might use Bush’s actions as ammunition for an argument against being “hawkish” or acting selfishly for America is not a valid reason for deciding how one should cast one’s vote. Nor will casting a vote substitute for an argument to correct such an error. The only proper response to an incorrect analysis between Bush’s actions and the philosophy that it allegedly represents is to present the right ideas. This can only be done by countering with rational and cogent arguments, not with a ballot. This is our job as philosophers and intellectuals. Just as opinion polls offer no knowledge of reality, it is equally true that philosophy cannot be presented to the masses by means of a ballot box.

There are too many issues for anyone to interpret any one vote, let alone many votes, to imply anything. It is useless to think that one can protest in this manner. By what means is a vote supposed to be interpreted as for or against any one particular issue, let alone and entire system of abstract ideas? Unless and until a section marked “comments” is added to the ballot, it is impossible. Jack Wakeland expresses it best when he writes:

I have yet to see an election where it was a good idea to vote for the worst 
of the two candidates. I never will. 

Bad things happening on a bad politician's watch will not necessarily cause 
his bad ideas to be blamed for what happened. Ideological blame has to be 
identified by someone and articulated. Once articulated, people have to be 
philosophically open to listening to the answer. The only thing that 
determines what or who gets the blame for bad events (and good events) are 
the ideas of the dominant voices in the culture -- in the press and in 
academia. 

This is why it has always been and always will be absurd to vote for the 
worst candidate for president or any other elected office. 

One should always vote for the best. 

One cannot triangulate with one's vote. One cannot double cross with one's 
vote. One cannot setup the next election with one's vote. One cannot 
impart a nuanced meaning with one's vote. 

Voting is a blunt instrument: Yes. I approve. That's all it says, nothing 
else.1

Biddle commits another grievous error when he places more emphasis on the sanctity of abstract ideas than he does on the concrete facts that differentiate the two candidates. He wants to preserve the meaning of “hawkishness” as if the validity of this idea could somehow be wiped out of existence by the collective consciousness of those who would misidentify its application by associating it with the policies of the Bush administration. First of all, it is a mistake to be defending an anti-concept such as “hawkishness” anyway. This is a derisive word used by pacifists who oppose going to war. The policy that we should be attempting to defend is that of self-interest. This is a policy that will in no way be maligned by being falsely associated with the Bush administration because, contrary to what Biddle believes, Bush’s foreign and domestic polices have not be taken in the name of “free markets,” “the principles of America,” and “capitalism.” They have been done in the name of “compassionate conservatism,” which even many conservatives reject as being too liberal.

He also explains that Kerry would unwittingly put the argument for “hawkishness” back on the table—presumably because his actions would contrast with this idea. However, one could make the same argument for any other idea associated with Bush. For instance, all hell breaking loose under a Kerry administration might wrongfully be associated with a lack of religious faith. Using Biddle’s logic, voting for Kerry would eventually lead people to believe we need more religion, not less. I submit that this—if such logic were valid—would be far worse than damaging the reputation of “hawkishness.”

The premise implied by both Lewis and Biddle is that the only way for Americans to comprehend the validity of the proper ideas is to see the devastation that occurs when their opposites are put into action. Aside from insulting the intelligence of most Americans, this is the most destructive way I can think of to learn a lesson—especially when atom bombs are involved. Should we wait until our enemies attack again under a Kerry administration so that we can learn the value of “hawkishness?” I believe it is better to make the argument for fighting for our self-interest by appealing to reason. And the best way to pursue such a fight is to begin with a President who has already proven his willingness to engage in war, as opposed to one who would cower from war and castrate us before the United Nations.

Regardless, whatever damage the reputation of certain ideas, such as “hawkishness,” may suffer at the hands of irrational pseudo-intellectuals is nothing compared to the real damage we will incur if terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb on our soil.

My strongest disagreement with Mr. Biddle is when he asks, “what will the American people call for after Bush’s folly leads, as it will, to another 9/11 or worse,” and then wonders if Bush will then come to terms with reality. I submit that the likelihood of such an event is greater under a Kerry administration than it is under a Bush administration and that John Kerry is far more removed from reality than George Bush. I also differ from Biddle because I believe that Bush can be pressured to do more, and that Kerry can and will resist pressure to keep up the status quo and eventually undermine our efforts.

Why do I believe this? Let’s first analyze the source of Biddle’s errors—that he bases his entire argument on Ayn Rand’s statement: “a half-battle is worse than none: it does not end in mere defeat—it helps and hastens the victory of your enemies.” While this premise is certainly true, his reason for evoking it is flawed. He believes the choice between Bush and Kerry is the choice between fighting half way and doing nothing. This is not the case, the choice is much worse—it is the choice between fighting half way versus fighting on the wrong side. Kerry does not represent doing nothing. He represents taking sides with the enemy and undermining our security efforts. He is doing worse than not fighting—he is fighting on the wrong side.

As evidence, look at his actions after returning from Vietnam. Look at his voting record in the Senate. Look at his statements regarding the coalition and our efforts to fight the war. And if one believes this does not reflect his current position, look at his declaration to abandon research on smaller nukes in the first presidential debate.

Both Lewis and Biddle are quick to point out the flaws of President Bush, but they are only presenting one side of the balance sheet. An equally thorough analysis of John Kerry would reveal someone who is much worse. The few examples given of how Bush has eroded rights in our country are minor in comparison to the damage that Kerry would do. Yes, Bush has introduced more subsidies and tariffs. But under Kerry we would have this and more—much more. We would see the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, increased taxes on individuals and businesses, legislation preventing outsourcing, and many other suffocating regulations on businesses and the economy. But even worse, we would be even more helpless against our enemies as Kerry would make us subservient to the United Nations and would continue his legacy of undermining our security efforts.

Lewis helps stack the balance sheet further by discussing the source of neo-conservative values. Where is the similar discussion for the liberals? While the conservatives believe values come from God, the liberals attack values all together. One side believes that rights come from God and that we should sacrifice in the name of religion, while the other side believes that rights do not exist at all and that we should sacrifice for the good of society. We are faced with the false choice between what Ayn Rand identified as the mystics of spirit versus the mystics of muscle. Since neither one of these alternatives is acceptable, the source of values according to either side has no bearing on my decision. They are both equally false and cancel each other out.

Lewis goes on to use Reagan’s handling of Iran as an example of what happens when actions and principles do not coincide. And what is his opinion of what happens when they do, as was the case under the Carter administration? Whatever Reagan’s flaws, he was certainly a better President than Carter was. What will happen when Kerry’s selfless, statist, anti-American principles are fully enacted and we become subservient to world opinion and allow threatening regimes to remain in place?

Furthermore, I take issue with comparing Reagan’s actions in Lebanon with those of President Bush in today’s war. There is absolutely no comparison to what Reagan did in Lebanon to what Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reagan withdrew from his battle; Bush has totally decimated the armies of two countries and installed new governments. While the results leave allot to be desired, one cannot argue against the fact that Bush will wage war if he gets it in his mind to do so, and will not withdraw under any pressure.

Lewis also uses Reagan’s Lebanon as an example of inspiring our enemies when our actions don’t match our words. While I agree that Bush is not doing nearly as much as he should, I have yet to see him offer a concrete example that compares with what happened in Lebanon. In fact, the case is quite the opposite. As a result of the quick and devastating invasion of Iraq, Libya has preemptively surrendered its nuclear weapons programs for fear of being attacked by America.

If Lewis is really concerned about sending the wrong message to our enemies, what message does he think it will send if we as Americans change leaders at this juncture? If there is one exception to the rule of sending a message with your vote during this year’s election, it is the message that we as a country will send to the rest of the world. Because in their eyes, there is only one issue concerning this election and that is the war in Iraq. Changing leaders at this juncture would lead the rest of the world to conclude, “even the Americans don’t support the war.” On the other side, a landslide in Bush’s favor would proclaim loudly that we do support acting in our self-interest, and to hell with world opinion. Of course, only a landslide would accomplish this. Most likely, a win for Bush will at best reveal us to be a politically divided country. And that is one of Kerry’s most significant flaws—his divisive nature. He is dividing this country in half at a time when we need to stand together. If we are going to send any kind of message, we should proclaim loudly to the world that we stand united and fully support military engagement. Have Lewis and Biddle forgotten the message that Spain sent to the rest of the world in their last election?

There are strong concerns about more terrorist attacks occurring in our own country as we are near the election, and for good reason. Who is Osama bin Laden and the rest of our enemies likely to want us to vote for? This should indicate which candidate they fear most. I for one will be damned if I am going to ally myself with the likes of bin Laden when I enter the voting booth by casting my ballot for the candidate he prefers.

We do not yet know what more President Bush has in mind for how to deal with our remaining enemies. There have been hints that our intelligence agencies know that Saddam’s weapons were moved to Syria. And I have observed Dick Cheney avoid answering questions regarding this topic in a way that implied he knows something but does not want to tip his hand lest the enemy finds out what we already know. The fact that we have not attacked Iran or North Korea may have more to do with timing and preparation than to an unwillingness to engage in further conflict—I can only hope. This being an election year, demonstrating intent to invade other countries could be dangerous to Bush’s chances of getting reelected and consequently detrimental to his chances of being able to implement whatever plans he may have. Once reelected, Bush will have the option, if he chooses, to continue unfettered. I do not know what he will ultimately do, and I am sure it will not be enough. But I am certain that it would be much better than anything Kerry would do.

Mr. Biddle and Dr. Lewis presented some interesting arguments. However, I find many of them to be out of context (Lewis’ comparison of Lebanon), rationalistic (Lewis’ history of neo-conservatism), based on faulty premises (Biddle’s idea of half a battle versus none at all), faulty logic (the cause and effect reversal between politics and philosophy), and extremely one sided. I will conclude by focusing on the latter.

Whenever one is face with a choice, one must weigh the pros and the cons of every instance involved. For this election in particular, it is unacceptable to offer an in depth analysis of Bush and not Kerry, nor vice versa. It is equally wrong to focus on exclusively on the cons, exclusively on the pros, or to focus on the pros for one and the cons of the other. There is a great deal of discussion about Bush’s faith by Lewis and Biddle, but very little analysis concerning Kerry’s socialism. Furthermore, they appear to be primarily focused on cons and not pros, with a heavier emphasis on those of Bush. Yes, if the goal of one’s writing is to present an argument against faith in the realm of politics, then it is proper to select which facts of reality are relevant to such a discussion. But when the goal is to persuade an audience as to why one should choose one presidential candidate over another, then it is irresponsible to be so selective.

Before anyone accuses of me of doing the same, I want to make clear that the goal of my writing this was not to offer an in depth analysis of why one should choose Bush over Kerry in the absence of Lewis and Biddle being able to do so. My purpose was to expose the flaws in their arguments that lead them to conclude in the manner they did. That being said, I will be voting for Bush and urge everyone else to weigh the pros and cons to see if you too arrive at the same conclusion.

Notes:
1 Jake Wakeland, http://www.tracyfineart.com/blog/archives/2004_08.html, August 27