Burnt Orange Report

Andrew Sullivan Comes to His Senses

By Byron LaMasters

Not a shocker, but here's his endorsement of Kerry. Not a glowing endorsement, but one nonetheless from a Bush supporter in 2000. I do fear not only for America, but for both parties should Bush win next Tuesday. I fear an inevitable, bloody, gut-wrenching fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, and I also fear a Republican Party out of control - with no regard for our budget deficit, and highly reliant upon religious conservative voters who will shape a dangerous social and foreign policy. Andrew Sullivan shares my concern:

And when you think of what is happening in the two major parties, the case for a Kerry presidency strengthens. If Bush wins, the religious right, already dominant in Republican circles, will move the GOP even further toward becoming a sectarian, religious grouping. If Kerry loses, the antiwar left will move the party back into the purist, hate-filled wilderness, ceding untrammeled power to a resurgent, religious Republicanism--a development that will prove as polarizing abroad as it is divisive at home. But if Bush loses, the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy; and if Kerry wins, the center of the Democratic party will gain new life. That, at least, is the hope. We cannot know for sure.

Finally, I think that Sullivan makes a compelling case for voters who supported attacking Iraq from the begining. Even if you believe that Bush was the right man for responding to 9/11 and dealing with Saddam Hussein, a clear arguement can be made for a Kerry presidency. The next four years will likely present America with complex foreign policy problems where a nuanced, rather than an absolutist approach is necessary. In this ever-changing world, John Kerry is best prepared for the task. Sullivan writes:

In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq--financially, militarily, diplomatically--Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military presence. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle--as much as the one on the battlefield itself--is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

[...]

Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.

For once (on a non-GLBT issue), I completely agree with Andrew Sullivan.