KERRY FOR PRESIDENT
Editorial de “The Washington Post” del
24/10/2004
Por
su interés y relevancia, he seleccionado el editorial que sigue para incluirlo
en este sitio web. (L. B.-B.)
Con un
comentario a pie de título: EL "POST" SE EQUIVOCA (L. B.-B.,
25-10-04, 10:30)
Se equivocan: aunque haya cometido algunos errores, Bush no debe
perder, si se quiere evitar dar la impresión a los terroristas y compañía
antioccidental de que pueden vencer, porque las democracias son débiles. El
"post", después de varias incertidumbres y vacilaciones, opta por la
peor solución: en estos momentos hace falta un liderazgo fuerte, frente a un
enemigo inhumano, con el que estamos enfrentados en una guerra no deseada ni
buscada, y cambiar al líder que ha comenzado a hacer frente a esta agresión es
un error gravísimo. Además de que, por otra parte, Kerry no da la impresión de
moverse con orientaciones y criterios claros.
Experts
tell us that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's
presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for
George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry --
or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in
this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much
to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We
find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and
positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On
balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness
tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the
nation's trust to lead for the next four years.
The
balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His
record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or
nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his
own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in
the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical
Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring
rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably
Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.
But
Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the
practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to
reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly
dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor
nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.
The
campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and
obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire.
Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid
nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so,
Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and
U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.
In
Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him
believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We
supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that
had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a
representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer
and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.
We
do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence
given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we
fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The
damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no
guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented
postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and
transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would
have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit
sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture
scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not
decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world,
in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's
high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
These
failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek
advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the
unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president
but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit
his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
ON
THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed
as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote
accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas
may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more
control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might
better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce
pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from
slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay
for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.
Which
brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus
but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims
on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was
gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11
attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of
circumstances.
But
Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record
levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and
that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from
the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no
matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted,
but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the
cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the
national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for
capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending
discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting
farm subsidies he signed into law.
In
2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with
the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has
been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed
a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting
reforms that everyone knows are needed.
SO
MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the
challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.
Mr.
Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs,
but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's
tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals
if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that
helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.
On
many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to
provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent
a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit.
Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at
the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful
champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the
Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay
marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and
respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is
likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more
hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.
None
of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely
than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well
equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé
that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the
dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored
relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically
risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in
Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he
supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.
As
with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses.
The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before
making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance
of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to
give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of
open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist
rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of
inconstancy.
We
have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his
swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges,
Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire
confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly
pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would
be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain
there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a
well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the
strategy more effectively.
Mr.
Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from
terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two
divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials
around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack.
There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in
slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states,
but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those
challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of
sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be
firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.
We
do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the
other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable.
He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down
terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the
right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.