Monday, February 16, 2004

A few posts down, Carlton and I have been discussing the relative merits of mainstream Democrats in general (and Kerry in particular) and the mainstream Repugs in general (and Bush in particular). Sort of.

Carlton took a justified poke at me for seeming to equate Bush and Kerry. My immediate reaction was to deny it, but then I thought a little harder. I sortof mean it.

Here are what I see as the significant differences between Kerry and Bush.

* Kerry seems to be far more intelligent than Bush.
* Kerry seems to be less interested in shoving his personal religious beliefs on the rest of us.
* Kerry seems to be more inclined than is Bush to allow people to continue do any number of things with their own bodies without fear of prosecution (except, tellingly, any sort of fun drug).
* Kerry seems to be more interested than is Bush in maintaining good and 2-way relationships with other countries (more Frances and less Britains in Kerry's world, in other words).
* Kerry seems less likely to be hard on the Lorax (he's no Green, but neither is he James Watt).
* Kerry is more likely than is Bush to nominate somewhat reasonable folks for Federal Court positions.

Those are the things that jump out at me. If I'm missing a big difference, please do point it out.

Given this, and the things already posted, can any of my reader honestly say that the differences between Bush and Kerry (mainstream Repug and mainstream Dem) are, on balance, profound? Istn't the biggest difference really style?

Put another way, what actions (not rhetoric) have made the last 3 years so different from the 8 years of Clinton? And how many of those actions has Kerry supported?

My tears may be spoiling my aim on this one, and I sincerely would love to be set straight(er).


Post a Comment

<< Home