BUSH vs KERRY

With just a day left before the American Presidential Election I thought I might post a few thoughts on who I'd like to see elected. Now those of you who have read my comments earlier will probably expect that the decision is easy for me - I'd pick George W Bush. And you'd be both wrong and right to say that - right in the sense that I would prefer Mr Bush to Mr Kerry (Mr Incompetent to Mr Incoherent to use The Economist's words), but wrong in that it is an easy choice. It certainly isn't, and unfortunatly this isn't due to the excellence of the two.

It's obviously true that what I've written on these pages have been pretty pro-Bush. I still stand by those things, of course, but the reason for writing that and not writing about the things I don't like about him is that there are so many people, especially in this country, who already writes about all of his bad sides. Some of what has been written is true, a lot is far from it.

In the 2000 election I hoped that the American people would've chosen Al Gore. Mr Bush just didn't appear to be presidential material with his lack of experience, and Mr Gore had been vice president under Bill Clinton, so I thought he would carry on in the same manner. Not perfectly, but at least all right. Today, I'm glad Mr Gore wasn't chosen. While Mr Bush started off weak, with a policy of isolation and non-interference (much like many Europeans would've prefered him to stay, I'm sure) the events of 9-11 change the way he saw his job. The war in Afghanistan was well conducted - the horrendous Taliban regime fell, and today Afghanistan has held it's first general election ever. It's still not a western style democracy, of course, but it has taken it's first important steps towards becoming one.

I also supported the Iraq war, and I still think it was the right decision to take. Despite the fact that the intelligence has turned out to have been shaky at best, Saddam Hussein's history of playing with the weapons inspectors didn't make it reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. And also, the fact that 25 million Iraqis are now free from his tyranny is nothing but good. However the post war planning has been far from optimal. Many mistakes have been made, and the constant changes of tactics have confused everyone - Iraqis as well as the Allied soldiers on the ground. The administration seems to have learned from their mistakes - even though they haven't really admitted to having made any - and I still think that there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of Iraq - in fact more reason with Mr Bush still at the helm.

As for the domestic policies it's all been a mixed bag. As a person who'd prefer Nozick to Rawls, or Friedmann to Keynes, I am quite displeased by the large increase in spending that Mr Bush has brought on. And while I have nothing principal against the tax cuts, one could argue that their design and timing hasn't been perfect. The debacle with the steel tariffs wasn't impressive either. On the other hand, Mr Bush still is a free trader at heart, and I think I'd still prefer an insecure free trader to a secure protectionist like Mr Kerry.

On other issues, like social rights, issues like homsexuals rights and so forth, Mr Kerry has a vastly more tempting program than Mr Bush does. This is also the case in many other questions. However, when comparing presidential candidates personality is as important as political programs. The reason for this is the fact that the only thing one can be sure of is that the president - unless he's killed or something of the kind happens - will sit for four years. And if there's anything these past four years have shown, it is that it is impossible to foresee what will happen in a time span that long. A crisis can develop quickly and when they do, the personality of the President is the only way we have of guessing what his response will be. And I have the feeling that Mr Bush is more likely to do what's necessary, even if that would mean doing something impopular in the international community, than is Mr Kerry. The Democrat, who'd probably do a perfectly decent job if nothing out of the ordinary happens, doesn't strike me as a man who will take personal risks to do what needs to be done. Mr Bush has shown that he is. And in a time when Iran might develop nuclear arms, and when international terrorism may strike without notice I think the world would be better of with a man that is prepared to do that. I agree with David Frum, the former speech writer of President Bush - Mr Bush isn't the right man for any time. But he is the right man for this time.

--