In the early days of the primaries I spent time analyzing political language, and recognizing the difficulty the progressives had entering into the mind set of the republican base. Since then the analysis in the press has deepened and broadened , becoming more humane, interesting, helpful and suggestive. We are beginning to see the emergence of a moral vocabulary about not only why Bush was wrong but why Bush was wrong for the country . The New York Times editorial endorsing Kerry and the article analyzing Bush's character , both in today's issue clearly reflect the emergence and can be contrasted with where the New York Times was at the time of the invasion and most of the times since. We also have
Bush 'goes against values I treasure' By Ballard Morton - Special to The Courier-Journal
For nearly 50 years, I considered myself a Republican. I usually voted for Republicans, and I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I have deep family roots in the Republican Party. My father, Thruston Morton, served as a Republican U. S. senator from Kentucky and also served as national chairman of the Republican Party. My uncle, Rogers Morton, also served as national chairman of the Republican Party, served as a Republican in the U. S. House of Representatives, and served in the cabinet under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
I cannot in good conscience vote for President Bush in this election. What he has done since his election in 2000 goes against the values I treasure both in terms of leadership and in our nation. He has not done what he said he would do. He has lost my trust and my respect.
He is not a strong leader. He is a creature of the neoconservative ideologues who surround him. He chose to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses, turning responsibility over to the military with no plan to win the peace. He refuses to admit mistakes, let alone learn from them. His campaign is based on fear.
Good leaders listen to others, ask questions and encourage dissenting opinions before making important strategic decisions. They know how to manage ambiguity. President Bush has no concept of ambiguity. Everything is black or white, good or evil. If you are not 100 percent for him then you are against him. A dissenting opinion is unpatriotic.
The purpose of political leadership is to govern -- wisely, prudently, and for the ultimate benefit of all citizens, not just those who agree with you or to govern -- wisely, prudently, and for the ultimate benefit of all citizens, not just those who agree with you or support you.
Virtually all thinking and knowledgeable people know that to fight terrorism, we need to have the help, cooperation and support of other nations all over the globe. This President has isolated the U. S. and mistakenly thinks we can fight terror through military might alone. We don't gain support in the world by being bullies.
On the domestic front, President Bush has shown complete fiscal irresponsibility. It is unconscionable to declare war and then to lower taxes for the wealthy. No other president has ever lowered taxes in time of war. The result is a deficit so large that we have endangered the well-being of our grandchildren. That is immoral and irresponsible.
President Bush refuses to take responsibility for his own actions and policies. Instead, he blames others. He talks in sound bites, uses slogans and misleading labels, relies on spin, photo ops and staged events, and brutally smears his opponents. That is not leadership.
Sen. John Kerry offers us a choice. He offers us hope and a new direction in dealing with global terrorism. He offers us hope for change in the war in Iraq. He offers us hope in protecting our environment. He offers us hope in restoring fiscal integrity to the government. He offers us hope in genuinely reforming health care and protecting those who need it most. Above all, he offers a return of decency and integrity to the White House.
I will vote for John Kerry. [end article]
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/14/oped-ballardmorton-5140.html
what strikes me with this article is that there is nothing in it that would be objectionable to most of what we call progress is today. That suggests that part of the emergence is a new kind of conservatism and Kerr is really a conservative candidate . this suggests that when he wins he will have a new base that is the moral side of progressive and conservative thought and this can provide some powerful leverage to deal with the problems he will face (and we with him) : environment, incomes, jobs, taxes, dwindling national resources, and a leftover messy unnecessary war that has become necessary , even if the immediate goal is to get out quickly .
