![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
What I consider to be a pair of pretty apt op-ed pieces today.
Krugman speaks to the nature of Bush's governance, his campaign, and the questionable manipulation of Patroitism and Patriotic imagery. Probably not revelatory for many of the readers of this list, but well articulated nonetheless.
Brooks, speaks to Kerry's past record, which seems at odds with his current public persona. I don't entirely agree with how strongly Brooks carries the assessment, but I do think about it with respect to Kerry. On the one hand, he's always been center-to-left and I've wondered whether he might be too liberal for the public to vote for. On the other hand, the reason I'd want to vote for Kerry in the first place was what I saw of him during Iran-Contra, and what I know of him from the 1971 hearings. Where is that guy? I bet a lot of people would vote for him. But it's hard to recognize that guy and the 2004 Kerry as the same person. I'm all for candidates who can see and deal with shades of grey. I am worried that something is missing.
I link the two articles, because the John Kerry of 1971 and 1986 made a strong and convincing case against the "Rambo" ideal that the Bush Administration hangs itself on. And a John Kerry of 2004 could beat them over it if he could display the qualities he showed in the earlier cases. The dividing line, I suppose, is a question of whether Kerry's still got that in him. The election is still two and a half months away, but it's getting to the point in the cycle where I'm going to have to stop waiting. Oh, I'm gonna vote for John Kerry, but I do think it's what people are looking to see from him. To not just tell about being a War Hero and Man of Conscience, but to show it more...
Paul Krugman: The Rambo Coalition
In this election, a man who plays the action hero is questioning the patriotism of a man who risked his life in war...
David Brooks: The Vietnam Passion
The John Kerry who argued passionately against the Vietnam War is a man who no longer exists...
Krugman speaks to the nature of Bush's governance, his campaign, and the questionable manipulation of Patroitism and Patriotic imagery. Probably not revelatory for many of the readers of this list, but well articulated nonetheless.
Brooks, speaks to Kerry's past record, which seems at odds with his current public persona. I don't entirely agree with how strongly Brooks carries the assessment, but I do think about it with respect to Kerry. On the one hand, he's always been center-to-left and I've wondered whether he might be too liberal for the public to vote for. On the other hand, the reason I'd want to vote for Kerry in the first place was what I saw of him during Iran-Contra, and what I know of him from the 1971 hearings. Where is that guy? I bet a lot of people would vote for him. But it's hard to recognize that guy and the 2004 Kerry as the same person. I'm all for candidates who can see and deal with shades of grey. I am worried that something is missing.
I link the two articles, because the John Kerry of 1971 and 1986 made a strong and convincing case against the "Rambo" ideal that the Bush Administration hangs itself on. And a John Kerry of 2004 could beat them over it if he could display the qualities he showed in the earlier cases. The dividing line, I suppose, is a question of whether Kerry's still got that in him. The election is still two and a half months away, but it's getting to the point in the cycle where I'm going to have to stop waiting. Oh, I'm gonna vote for John Kerry, but I do think it's what people are looking to see from him. To not just tell about being a War Hero and Man of Conscience, but to show it more...
no subject
And I definitely think that more voter turnout will be a plus for Kerry. I hope that's the case anyway!