Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Leadership
To be a leader, one must have followers. A person who claims to be a leader, but has no followers, is properly regarded as a buffoon, a poseur, or a madman. Today, we in America elect our president. The question is whether we will elect a leader.
Mr. Bush is a proven leader, and he is followed by about half the registered voters in the country. He has led our country through some difficult times in the last 3 3/4 years. He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, and has dealt with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath, an unprecedented event in the history of the world. He responded boldly, with tax cuts to bolster the economy, and with military action to unseat the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest supporters of terrorism. Mr. Bush's boldness and initiative have produced tangible, and favorable, results. Today the perpetrators of the attack are running and hiding, their former base has conducted the first democratic election in its long and tortured history, and in Iraq we stand on the verge of establishing the first true democracy in the Middle East.
Through it all, Mr. Bush has led -- he has determined the goals and the strategy to achieve them, and then has convinced others -- the UN Security Council, the United States Congress, and more than 30 foreign allies, to support his goals and strategy. To be sure, there have been mistakes and setbacks -- what great human enterprise does not encounter, and overcome, such things in accomplishing what it sets out to do? At every point, Mr. Bush has been out in front of the effort -- he has taken immense political and diplomatic risks to achieve the goals that he established, and has suffered immense criticism all along the way from those who oppose him, including "the coalition of the bribed," i.e., France, Germany and Russia, who were all on the take from the UN Oil for Food program, and who are no doubt irritated that the golden goose no longer produces eggs, and the Michael Moores of the world, who are either fools who don't recognize the nature of the enemy, ideologues who think of nothing but advancing their own philosophies, or selfish opportunists who seek profit from any available source.
If Mr. Bush is re-elected, we can expect more of the same, but probably with a few surprises. Because Mr. Bush will not have to worry about being re-elected, he will have greater freedom of action, particularly on the domestic front. It is clear that there will be no letup in the war against Islamofascism. Iran and North Korea will get more attention as Iraq moves closer to democracy. The message to the rest of the world will be, "Don't mess with US." We will also be telling the world that we will stand by our commitments.
What can be said of Mr. Kerry? What indicia can we examine to determine whether he is a leader, and what kind of leader would he be?
The earliest indication is his military service. He served well enough as a junior officer on a destroyer, before he volunteered for swift boat duty. At the time he volunteered for the PCFs, their mission was relatively safe -- patrolling the coastline of Vietnam to prevent smuggling. By the time he had completed his training, however they were engaged in the much more dangerous duty of river patrol. The enlisted crew that served directly under Mr. Kerry on the swift boats mostly support him. However, the other officers in his squadron -- his peers -- are mostly aligned against him, primarily because of his activities with the VVAW after he returned from Vietnam. He was awarded medals for valor, which suggests that Mr. Kerry exhibited boldness and initiative, but it appears that at least some of the awards were based on after-action reports that Mr. Kerry wrote himself. The SWVT claim that Mr. Kerry exaggerated the facts to make himself look better, especially in the incident that led to his second Bronze Star, in which Kerry retrieved Mr. Rassmussen from the water. Mr. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, which under the regulations at the time made him eligible for early transfer out of the theater. None of the wounds for which he received the Purple Hearts was serious -- he never missed a day of duty on account of a wound. Some have been described as "a scratch ... barely broke the skin." There are conflicting reports about whether all of the wounds were in fact sustained as a result of enemy action. The important fact is that Mr. Kerry applied for the early transfer out of Vietnam after 4 months of service there, while other officers serving in similar duty chose to remain in-theater even after sustaining much more serious wounds that would have made them eligible for a shortened tour of duty. Bottom line -- Mr. Kerry has a following among his own crew members (with one notable exception) but not among his fellow officers.
After the war, Mr. Kerry famously served as spokesperson for the VVAW, testifying before the US Senate that the commission of war crimes by US military personnel in Vietnam was commonplace -- condoned if not encouraged by the entire chain of command. While he certainly had a following during this time, it seems to be based more on the idea of antiwar activism than on Mr. Kerry's personal character. It is unclear whether Mr. Kerry attended a meeting of the VVAW at which assassination of political opponents was discussed; it is clear that Mr. Kerry resigned from the organization about that time, but didn't report the discussion of assassination to law enforcement authorities. So Mr. Kerry was not able to shut down the discussion of unlawful activity, and did not report potentially criminal activity.
In his 20 years in the United States Senate, Mr. Kerry's record is remarkably bland. He seldom has been out in front on any issue, instead preferring to play a supporting role to the Democratic superstars like his colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. No major committee chairmanships, little public campaigning for any issue. Few bills introduced, none of great import.
If Mr. Kerry has the characteristics of boldness and initiative, if he has the ability to inspire that a leader must have, it has not been apparent over the last 20 years. Indeed, many polls have stated that Mr. Kerry's support comes, not from his followers, but from people who wish to see Mr. Bush defeated. These people don't much care who is elected to the Presicency so long as Mr. Bush is ousted, and their support for Mr. Kerry derives solely from their belief that he is the Democratic candidate who has the best chance of accomplishing their goal. Upon winning the Presidency, Mr. Kerry's backing would melt away like snow in a January thaw. What, then, could we expect from a Kerry administration?
Mr. Kerry's record and his public pronouncements suggest that the watchwords of his presidency will be caution, indecision, endless negotiation, unclear vision for the future -- public approval and private contempt by foreign leaders. A sigh of relief from Europe: "They're just like us after all." In short, a combination of the worst features of the Clinton and Carter presidencies.
Because his campaign has been based on unseating Mr. Bush, rather than specific stated goals and strategies for the country, if Mr. Kerry is elected the near-50% support that he appears to enjoy will begin to evaporate on January 20, 2005, if not before. Realizing that Mr. Kerry is a compromise candidate with no clear following of his own, the various factions of the Democratic Party will be maneuvering to increase their influence within the Party. They will each call in their respective political chips and Mr. Kerry will be under immense pressure to submit to their will. As a result he will bend like a straw in the wind depending on the direction and the force of the pressure being applied. Seeing this, North Korea and Iran will be emboldened. Other countries will cut their own deals with little attention being paid to the United States. Even though Mr. Kerry believes that diplomacy will accomplish everything the US needs, we will become more isolated from the "international community" than we are now, because other countries will understand that the United States does not have the will to lead. We will be like Gulliver in Lilliput. Kofi Annan will rejoice.
This is why today's election is so important. God bless the United States of America.
UPDATE: ARRGH! This is what happens when you are rushed. I meant to make the point set out in boldface, above.
Mr. Bush is a proven leader, and he is followed by about half the registered voters in the country. He has led our country through some difficult times in the last 3 3/4 years. He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, and has dealt with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath, an unprecedented event in the history of the world. He responded boldly, with tax cuts to bolster the economy, and with military action to unseat the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest supporters of terrorism. Mr. Bush's boldness and initiative have produced tangible, and favorable, results. Today the perpetrators of the attack are running and hiding, their former base has conducted the first democratic election in its long and tortured history, and in Iraq we stand on the verge of establishing the first true democracy in the Middle East.
Through it all, Mr. Bush has led -- he has determined the goals and the strategy to achieve them, and then has convinced others -- the UN Security Council, the United States Congress, and more than 30 foreign allies, to support his goals and strategy. To be sure, there have been mistakes and setbacks -- what great human enterprise does not encounter, and overcome, such things in accomplishing what it sets out to do? At every point, Mr. Bush has been out in front of the effort -- he has taken immense political and diplomatic risks to achieve the goals that he established, and has suffered immense criticism all along the way from those who oppose him, including "the coalition of the bribed," i.e., France, Germany and Russia, who were all on the take from the UN Oil for Food program, and who are no doubt irritated that the golden goose no longer produces eggs, and the Michael Moores of the world, who are either fools who don't recognize the nature of the enemy, ideologues who think of nothing but advancing their own philosophies, or selfish opportunists who seek profit from any available source.
If Mr. Bush is re-elected, we can expect more of the same, but probably with a few surprises. Because Mr. Bush will not have to worry about being re-elected, he will have greater freedom of action, particularly on the domestic front. It is clear that there will be no letup in the war against Islamofascism. Iran and North Korea will get more attention as Iraq moves closer to democracy. The message to the rest of the world will be, "Don't mess with US." We will also be telling the world that we will stand by our commitments.
What can be said of Mr. Kerry? What indicia can we examine to determine whether he is a leader, and what kind of leader would he be?
The earliest indication is his military service. He served well enough as a junior officer on a destroyer, before he volunteered for swift boat duty. At the time he volunteered for the PCFs, their mission was relatively safe -- patrolling the coastline of Vietnam to prevent smuggling. By the time he had completed his training, however they were engaged in the much more dangerous duty of river patrol. The enlisted crew that served directly under Mr. Kerry on the swift boats mostly support him. However, the other officers in his squadron -- his peers -- are mostly aligned against him, primarily because of his activities with the VVAW after he returned from Vietnam. He was awarded medals for valor, which suggests that Mr. Kerry exhibited boldness and initiative, but it appears that at least some of the awards were based on after-action reports that Mr. Kerry wrote himself. The SWVT claim that Mr. Kerry exaggerated the facts to make himself look better, especially in the incident that led to his second Bronze Star, in which Kerry retrieved Mr. Rassmussen from the water. Mr. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, which under the regulations at the time made him eligible for early transfer out of the theater. None of the wounds for which he received the Purple Hearts was serious -- he never missed a day of duty on account of a wound. Some have been described as "a scratch ... barely broke the skin." There are conflicting reports about whether all of the wounds were in fact sustained as a result of enemy action. The important fact is that Mr. Kerry applied for the early transfer out of Vietnam after 4 months of service there, while other officers serving in similar duty chose to remain in-theater even after sustaining much more serious wounds that would have made them eligible for a shortened tour of duty. Bottom line -- Mr. Kerry has a following among his own crew members (with one notable exception) but not among his fellow officers.
After the war, Mr. Kerry famously served as spokesperson for the VVAW, testifying before the US Senate that the commission of war crimes by US military personnel in Vietnam was commonplace -- condoned if not encouraged by the entire chain of command. While he certainly had a following during this time, it seems to be based more on the idea of antiwar activism than on Mr. Kerry's personal character. It is unclear whether Mr. Kerry attended a meeting of the VVAW at which assassination of political opponents was discussed; it is clear that Mr. Kerry resigned from the organization about that time, but didn't report the discussion of assassination to law enforcement authorities. So Mr. Kerry was not able to shut down the discussion of unlawful activity, and did not report potentially criminal activity.
In his 20 years in the United States Senate, Mr. Kerry's record is remarkably bland. He seldom has been out in front on any issue, instead preferring to play a supporting role to the Democratic superstars like his colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. No major committee chairmanships, little public campaigning for any issue. Few bills introduced, none of great import.
If Mr. Kerry has the characteristics of boldness and initiative, if he has the ability to inspire that a leader must have, it has not been apparent over the last 20 years. Indeed, many polls have stated that Mr. Kerry's support comes, not from his followers, but from people who wish to see Mr. Bush defeated. These people don't much care who is elected to the Presicency so long as Mr. Bush is ousted, and their support for Mr. Kerry derives solely from their belief that he is the Democratic candidate who has the best chance of accomplishing their goal. Upon winning the Presidency, Mr. Kerry's backing would melt away like snow in a January thaw. What, then, could we expect from a Kerry administration?
Mr. Kerry's record and his public pronouncements suggest that the watchwords of his presidency will be caution, indecision, endless negotiation, unclear vision for the future -- public approval and private contempt by foreign leaders. A sigh of relief from Europe: "They're just like us after all." In short, a combination of the worst features of the Clinton and Carter presidencies.
Because his campaign has been based on unseating Mr. Bush, rather than specific stated goals and strategies for the country, if Mr. Kerry is elected the near-50% support that he appears to enjoy will begin to evaporate on January 20, 2005, if not before. Realizing that Mr. Kerry is a compromise candidate with no clear following of his own, the various factions of the Democratic Party will be maneuvering to increase their influence within the Party. They will each call in their respective political chips and Mr. Kerry will be under immense pressure to submit to their will. As a result he will bend like a straw in the wind depending on the direction and the force of the pressure being applied. Seeing this, North Korea and Iran will be emboldened. Other countries will cut their own deals with little attention being paid to the United States. Even though Mr. Kerry believes that diplomacy will accomplish everything the US needs, we will become more isolated from the "international community" than we are now, because other countries will understand that the United States does not have the will to lead. We will be like Gulliver in Lilliput. Kofi Annan will rejoice.
This is why today's election is so important. God bless the United States of America.
UPDATE: ARRGH! This is what happens when you are rushed. I meant to make the point set out in boldface, above.
Comments:
Post a Comment
