Hmm…it does sound silly when you put it like that. I’ll clarify if we can.
The OP is presuming that Bush’s policies and ideologies are inherintly harmful for the country. If this is true, then Bush and his allies didn’t come to power over both the Dems and the “good Repubs” because of the proven effectiveness of thier ideas, but just because their ideas sold better to the electorate. The more the “evil repubs” are able to avoid being front and center when the inevidable fallout from their 2000-2004 decisons comes through, the less damage they’ll take in their ability to win future elections. Whats more, they won’t have to either continue to put their policies in action, doing more damage, or publicly turn away from them by doing things like raising taxes.
Thus, if we assume that the neo-cons have “bad policies”, then they are in fact given more creditbiliy, and thus more political power, if they are blocked from being able to freely implement these policies.
I think the intra-party schism is the more tenable strategic rationale for letting the Pubs die by the sword. Unless we cut and run, we’re stuck in the Iraq quagmire for years; maybe even a decade. Given our progress so far, it’s not implausible that it will turn into a Vietnam-scale debacle no matter who is in office. It’s civil war if we leave soon, and…well, civil war if we stay, quite possibly.
Kerry’s only advantage and distiguishing characteristic, as far as I can see, is he could possibly persuade dissenting UN members to join the fray. Now the heat is really off the neocons, who could blame the inevitable Iraqi implosion not only on Kerry, but (even more gleefully) on other nations, like France and the Germany. Boy, wouldn’t that be a Wolfowitzian wet dream.
If Bush stays in power, the neocons own it. It’s still “you-broke-it-you-fix-it” as far as most other nations are concerned. As the integrity of the Iraqi federation continues to degrade, elections are indefinitely postponed, and the UN refuses to get involved due to security concerns, the Bush Doctrine is revealed in its full glory: One of the most costly, destructive boondoggles in American history. The taint the necons bring to the Republican party rivals that of Nixon. Congenital xenophobes and isolationists sympathetic to Buchanan’s paleoconservatism are emboldened and challenge the neoconservatives for the heart of the GOP, not only on foreign policy, but also on social spending and deficits. Maybe popular figures like McCain jump ship to become Independents, dismayed by not one, but two ultra-right factions duking it out within the “Big Tent” for the votes of conservative radicals, whilst ignoring the Republican centrists. In the 2008 elections, the fractious and self-besmirched Republican party is routed, and the Democratic candidate has a true mandate to bring about a speedy resolution of American involvement in Iraq, as well as a complete realignment of American foreign policy along the lines of multilateralism and UN involvement in the War on Terror.
I disagree. I think the machine in power right now has long been preparing for the consequences of these investigations and failure in their transformation efforts. Witness the continuing rhetoric about how the Iraqi people are failing in doing their part to stabilize the country. Witness Bush’s speech before the UN this week stressing the responsibilities of the international community in rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq. My prediction is that if Iraq continues to deteriorate we’ll see stronger condemnation of the UN as not doing enough(although their hands have been tied in so many ways it isn’t even funny, this is not common knowledge). I think we’ll see the UN and Iraqi people become scapegoats much as the intelligence community has been blamed by the man on the street for the pre-war intelligence failures. We who have researched the issue know the intelligence issues to be the work of the OSP and Chalabi’s cabal. I think if Iraq goes into a state of bloody civil war we would find the UN and the Iraqi people at large becoming scapegoats for this failure to capitalize on the golden opportunity provided by the US removing Saddam. First the UN didn’t care enough to remove him in the first place(humanitarian reasons and “spreading of freedom” having totally eclipsed WMD as the rationale for war in the minds of most Americans already), and then the UN and Iraqi leaders failed to do enough to build a viable state. They failed to grasp the fruit of freedom which was being offered. See the “this is what freedom looks like” trial balloons that have already been floated.
Basically I think the weasels in office are skilled enough in weaseling that the crap coming their way won’t stick. And in the meantime they’ll continue to wield power and the changes that desperately need to happen(at very least the opening of the coffers already earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction) will not happen. The US military presence in Iraq will prevent any ultra-fast breakdown of society and unless the meltdown occurs very fast then the cabal will have time to engineer ways to spin the news and redirect the righteous anger.
My hope is that Bush is alienating enough of his party on economic issues and foreign policy issues that he can no longer treat Congress as a rubber stamp and we may see some of the Republicans who are dismayed at the way intelligence has been manipulated and finances mangled start to push back. When this happens he’ll have to learn to compromise and that will mitigate the harm he could do if he is elected again.
My fear is that Kerry will win the presidency but the Republicans will gain a larger share of congress and then we’ll end up in partisan gridlock which will continue the current policies with effectively no one at the wheel.
Maybe I’m just a simple minded guy, but I think that each voter should vote for whichever candidate (s)he thinks will best run the country the way (s)he wants it to be run. I guess I’m just not the Machiavellian type…
It should be noted that this is a rather slim hope. Bush may be driving away the fiscally responsible Republicans, but with the campaign focus on social issues such as health care, the “runaway judiciary”, and same-sex marriage, he is forcing them into choosing between their fiscal priorities and their social ones. At the moment I think even some who believe the financial and international policies of the admin are disastrous are holding their nose and supporting him anyway because of these social issues. After all, international relations and fiscal issues can be straightened out over time, giving gays the right marry would be much harder to undo later and judiciary appointments are for life(the important ones anyway).
I sympathize SimonX. I’m a Democrat but I have fantasized about voting for Bush. I want him standing straight in front of the fan when the shit finally hits. I want him and his gang of naive imperialists, fiscally irresponsible piggies, and pompous pecksniffs publicly humiliated and discredited for the damage they’ve done to my country. I want zip-ties and perp walks and jail sentences. I want all of his supporters to have the consequences of their actions rammed down their throats until they choke on them. I want to witness the Republican party gnawing out its own guts like a box of starving rats.
I’m a grown up. I’ll do my civic duty and vote for the man I think can best salvage this sorry situation.
If they could do it without taking the rest of the country with them, I’d support it.
True. That only works if you’re a Republican. It’d be interesting to see if the Bush Administration still sticks to their “Blame Bill Clinton” strategy to cover up their messes if they win a second term…
Theres a lot to be said for the point that whomsoever wins the election is in for a world of shit. For partisan reasons, I agree that if one narrows one’s view to just political advantage, letting the other Party catch that shit makes a lot of sense. But given GeeDubya’s proven capacity for “catastrophic sucess”, that’s too much of a risk.
I am entirely persuaded that GeeDubya is a firm and unyielding leader. That’s the problem in a nutshell. I’ve had quite enough of firm and unyielding leaders, thank you very much.
Geopolitics-wise, Kerry is a better choice for another reason: any reasonable hope we may have for peaceful security is inextricably bound with international cooperation and trust. Allies are useful in conventional wars, but we are going to need friends more than allies. Dumping Bush give us more options, we can repudiate foolish and antagonizing policies. He goes and clears some brush, and we can mend fences. Works for me.
Lastly, there couldn’t be better propaganda. Its says that when we have foolishly belligerant leaders, we chuck 'em out. An example we hope to be admired, and then emulated. In America, we can do that. If you can’t do that where you live, you should give that some serious thought.
I just want to chime in along with other who have pointed out the problems with your strategy, SimonX. I see where you’re coming from, and I have to say: I agree to an extent. I really do.
But I am afraid that there will just be too much damage done in the next 4 years, if Bush carries through a second term. “Too much damage” meaning it would take 8+(16+) years to undo that which was done in 4(8) years. And, IMNSHO, this is a best-case scenario; one in which most people are actually convinced that Bush et. al screwed up.
In the more probable scenario, in which BushCo. can evade the blame yet some more, I would question whether or not we would ever be able to fully recover from the damage.
I am fully confident that Kerry will do a better job than Bush, as PotUS. Hell, a bologna sandwich would give the man a run for his money.
What Mtgman and jshore said and in particular I agree with this:
To be doomed, you have to pretty much do something that the great unwashed can understand, that takes one headline to say, and is undeniable.
“Clinton received blowjob from intern”.
Anything more complicated than that and Bush and his machine are just going to spin it in their favour, or at least muddy the waters sufficient to stay in office.
Obviously, YMV, but I don’t see the analogy as fitting. I’m not advocating destroying the US to save it. I’m just saying it’s better to let things run their course for the moment so that there aren’t future (worse) recurrences.
Kinda like what’s happened?
What was the situation in the early seventies?
Would you please elaborate on this ‘circuit breaker’ thing?
I can see why one would wonder. But no, I’m not advocating that other people do the same as me; however, I’m growing to consider this as my course of action.
I’ve had these thoughts in mind when I reached my conlusion. I’m postulating that less damage will be done to the country in the long term.
Actually, I make no such assumption. All that I’m assuming is that Kerry will be competent but not spectacular.
Thes kinds of thoughts are part and parcel of my considerations.
I’m assuming that will be a point where the fucktupedness of things will become utterly undeniable. So far we haven’t reached that point.
Excellent point. One that I have not fully weighed yet.
I’ll be voting in AR. Last I checked it was slated ‘somewhat Bush’
I don’t believe in sheeple. I think much of the electorate may be poorly informed, but not stupid. Certainly, there is a point at which even those singers with fingers in their ears will realize that all is very far from well.
Yes, this is the very grave risk.
Well, since I’m engaged in a conscious choice aware of what I’m doing, I don’t thinnk that CD is an accurate description of what’s going on.
I can see why one wouldn’t. It is a risky gambit (not that my one vote will make or break the election).
The electorate s the only hope for democracy in the US. There’re prob’ly hundreds, if not thousands of Kerry’s, but only one US electorate. If the electorate can’t be trusted to choose wisely enough, then American democracy’s already doomed.
The answer to this is simple- everybody join the GOP.
I don’t think that Kerry’ll be able to reduce them enough. Kerry may well be able to exercise more influence internationally amongst moderate Muslims etc. but I dobt if he’ll have any further impact ono those who’ve already been radicalized by recent US foreign policies.
No surprise to me. Beside Pat’s various bits of wackiness, he’s certainly pegged these fellas from the start. IIRC, he’s had professional experience working w/ some of these goons.
Not really the paleocons, but us, your future political overlords, the South Park Republicans. Paleocons have some funky ideas about trade, immigration etc. that just don’t seem realistic, IMHO.
This is a thought I’ll also consider.
I agree that this is a serious and real possibility. My strategy does count on the American electorate deciding that it is no longer rational to remain ignorant about the goings on in DC.
It’s this pushing back that I hope will make some of the consequences of the grand jury investigations stick.
While things continue to deteriorate. Kerry’s holding the bag. And neocon scions take an even more solidified control of the reins of power.
This may be the best way to prevent future mishaps of from the same crowd. The damage that’s benn/being done is not the worst it can get. If the electorate becomes even further endeared with the neocon vision thing then things will get much worse.
I didn’t come to this decision with the intent of seeing them suffer for it’s own sake. I’m thinking that it may be best for the country that familiarity with neocons breed contempt.
I think this is a bad bet. I think the electorate cares very little about foreign policy unless it is related to exporting jobs.
Two factors standing in the way of that. Firstly my addendum to my original post about the party insiders being forced to choose between their disgust at how foreign and fiscal policies are being handled and their fears of how a Democrat executive would handle social policy. Secondly, it is hard to bring accusations against the leader of your own party without it spilling out over the party in general. Were there blowbacks against the Republican party in general after Watergate? I found a study done on the issue(surveyed ~2,000 people across political lines in 1972, 1974, and 1976 to compare the impact of various issues on them) but the data is in some statistical analysis program format and I can’t access it. I think significant portions of the GOP are going to be extremely reluctant to take him down for fear of taking themselves down with him. Pretty hard to rubber stamp all the horrid shit he’s been doing and then not be implicated when it comes to light.
As bad as another four years of Bush et al would be, I think that the likely 8+ years of the neocon scions that come after Kerry presides over the coming shitstorms will be even worse. That’s the part that I’m trying to avoid. As bad as the next four years’ll be if Bush wins, I expect that what comes after Kerry shoulders the burdens for what comes on his watch will be even worse than the four years of Bush.
Whether it’s more probable or not depends on exactly how bad things get. I expect things’ll become un-ignorably and undeniably bad (that’s really bad).
Further, I think that things have already happenned that we won’t ever be able to recover from in my lifetime anyway. Who can say what the centuries ahead hold?