The American Gazette

Commonsense political and social commentary from "Flyover Country"

Location: Rural Michigan, United States

Monday, October 11, 2004

New York Times Magazine interview with John Kerry

Please read the whole thing. I realize that not everyone will take from it what I do, but here is my opinion nonetheless.

Kerry seems to equate the war on Terror to something like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Not a real war, but something that we can handle by going back to a time when terrorism was simply a nuisance. Of course that "nuisance" managed to kill many, many people prior to 9/11. The author of this article seems to suggest that if we did not have so much fear following 9/11 than the idea's of John Kerry would be a slam dunk, and Bush's way of doing things would never gain ground.

So let me go from those two things. First of all I would very much like to return to the "old" days too, though probably not to the old days that John Kerry refers to. I would like to return to days where kids jumped rope on the playground, instead of doing drugs. When songs did not get air play that called women bitches and ho's. When a line was drawn between right and wrong fairly clearly, instead of having a discourse as to rather a cartoon book put out by Planned Parenthood has pictures with explicit sexual acts depicted given to children as part of sex ed is proper or not. A time when I didn't have to scan even the cartoons my child is watching because of the adult and inappropriate content. A time when my child would learn that the founders of this country were not stupid dead white men, when personal responsibility meant something and when those who had to take charity had a least a bit of shame behind it, instead of being some God given right to have 3 children by 3 different men and never to be married. At time when men still were important to the family structure and to their children's lives, instead of an incidental means to have a child. Those things are gone, and for many of us that is infuriating.

The "rights" era did much to call this nation to fulfill the promise of the Constitution, it also brought out some deep radical elements that believe in moral relativity, mass victims, a clear hatred of the founding principles of this country and historical revision. What exactly does this have to do with how I view John Kerry and his interview? Because I look at John Kerry as one of those who helped in the building of those radical elements that have interjected deeply into how I and my family live our lives. His call to go back to Sept. 10 2001 is nothing more to me than a refusal to see clearly what his brand of politics has brought to this country.

I believe deeply in toleration. Had I mouthed words that were clearly racist or anything that could have been construed as humilating or harming another person my mother would have slapped those words right out of my mouth. I grew up in a family that put a premium on morals, and racism/sexism was immoral. So this is not about whether I am a tolerant person or not. This is about other people who do not wish to have my morals forced on them, and the fact that I would appreciate the same courtesy. I do not see abortion as a government issue, that is an issue between the woman and God, and them alone. I don't care what color or creed someone is as long as they abide by the laws of this country, one of which is religious law may not supersede civil law. I don't think being critical of certain cultural norms within various groups should be construed as racist, to believe that way allows for things that are truly heinous no matter who is practicing them. I also do not believe in treating people who sole goal is to kill others as insurgents, freedom fighters, militants or gunmen, and I surely do not believe that the problem can be solved with a primarily diplomatic approach involving the UN, the same UN that put Sudan as head of the Human Rights Commission of the UN this year. While a law enforcement approach is a component of this fight, it is not the only answer. Again John Kerry seems to be searching for nirvana and as far as I know that does not exist. To equate Jihadists to mobsters or prostitutes is to me incredibly pathetic. It also shows a clear lack of understanding where those jihadists come from, and the religious element that is so very clearly there no matter who says it really is not.

Next let us go to the fear that 9/11 generated. While I certainly cannot speak for millions of American's who feel differently, I have little fear. I do have much anger. The fear of losing the precious freedoms that we have is much larger than the fear I have of another attack. I do not see Americans as some quivery bowl of Jello, or living in perpetual fear. I know the part of the country that so many journalists dismiss as fly over country.

I also found it ironic that one of the first things in this article is John Kerry's citing his reaction to 9/11. He wonders to himself, where is my gun? Is this the same guy who pandered to the anti gun lobby?

In the end, perhaps more than anything it is John Kerry as a young man whose views do not seem to have substancially changed that causes me concern. War is bad, no matter the cause, no matter the reason. I also cannot under any stretch of the imagination vote for a man for Commander in Chief who denigrated American soldiers as he so clearly did, or who meant with the enemy, clearly in violation of US law.

Had the Democratic party put up a candidate who was not so clearly very left of center, and one who did not have the baggage of the past that Kerry has, I may have voted for the Democrat, I am not a dyed in the wool Republican by any means. But there seems to be a fight within the Democrats for the soul of the party and at this time the Democrats may have lost my vote forever. I am not and never have been keen on the far right wing either, both sides should understand that neither should use the government on issues of personal responsibility, or personal life. I will always prefer the candidate who believes in what the US Constitution allows, and what the Federalist papers are all about. Not the one who uses nuance to interpret those things attempting to discern meaning where none exist.



Post a Comment

<< Home