America Can't Afford an Ex-President Kerry
Fast forward to November 3, 2004. In this possible future we've just elected John Kerry as President. We Republicans retire to lick our wounds and consider what went wrong. We resolve to accept the outcome with greater class than the Democrats did four years ago.
Taking office Kerry promises to rebuild our stature in the world. But he finds it a struggle to differentiate his Presidency from that of Bush. He finds he is unable to bring in "Old Europe" allies to help in Iraq. In fact, many present coalition partners peel away early.
Although he'd like to resurrect Kyoto, he finds it is utterly dead.
Terrorists, emboldened by his election, begin to regroup and plan major operations again. And so he has to preempt those plans – even he can't completely abandon the Bush doctrine.
He finds he can't recognize the International Criminal Court - and on and on. In short he is unable to do most of the things his supporters on the left would like him to do.
I'm not suggesting that a Kerry Presidency would be indistinguishable from Bush. In fact, much of what makes the Bush positions work is the resolve of Bush himself. The threat of force is not much of a threat if it is not believed.
But we survive it. We might or might not be hit again by a major attack. This attack might or might not have happened under Bush. Kerry might or might not respond forcefully enough. Whatever. We get through the next four years, we as a country realize our mistake and replace Kerry with a moderate Republican like Rudy and get back to the "hard work" of winning the War on Terror.
Then what? How would our position in the War on Terror be worse then, at the beginning of a Rudy administration, than it is today under Bush? We'd be worse off in many ways.
The War on Terror would be prolonged. Even among Kerry supporters, few are convinced that Kerry would fight the war as energetically and with the same resolve as Bush. Kerry would get bogged down in nuance and endless diplomacy with parties that do not wish our country well. During his tenure he would have failed to enthusiastically support the emerging democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He would not have been much of a friend to Israel. It is likely that during his tenure he would have pressured Israel to take down the security fence (even though it proved its value in ending an intifada). He'd no doubt set up "peace" summits pressuring Israel to bargain for peace by limiting it's defense. His positions would have weakened Israel.
Real allies – the "bribed and coerced" – like Britain, Australia, Poland, and Italy would feel burned. Whether through omission – failing to finish the job in Iraq – or commission these alliances would be damaged. If the people of these countries conclude their sacrifices were rendered worthless by American leadership under President Kerry, it would be hard to rebuild those alliances later.
Having lost present allies and having failed to recruit new ones, American would be standing alone.
But that's not all. At some time during the intervening years Jimmy Carter's post-Presidential career would be winding down. Just in time John Kerry, a new Presidential Appeaser, would be ready for Nobel prize winning coddling of dictators.
America can ill afford another ex-President as disastrous as Jimmy Carter. Time and time again, Mr. Carter has shown that there is not a dictatorship too odious to appease. Whether it's in Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba. He has attacked American foreign policy during times of war and actively counseled countries against cooperating with the Bush administration in the War on Terror. Carter sought to legitimize the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party by pulling out a chair for Michael "they didn't deserve to die, they voted for Gore" Moore.
John Kerry would be exactly that kind of ex-President. Why? Because he has a track record of doing exactly these kind of things. As a private citizen he met with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris during the Vietnam war. His voting record in the Senate is one of appeasement. His campaign rhetoric is untempered, as it should be, by wartime considerations. And, also like Carter, he has shown an unwillingness to reign in irrational elements of his party like Whoopie Goldberg.
Our country does not need another Jimmy Carter either in or retired from the White House.