The Preacher vs. The Professor

As I was nearing 125th Street this morning on my bike ride, I saw a large billboard advertisement for Time Magazine. On it were pictures of Bush and Kerry from one of the debates. There they were side by side. And it hit me, we have a simple choice. The Preacher vs. The Professor.

These two pictures were so illuminating.

Bush was exhorting his parishoners to believe, to follow him to the promised land.

Kerry was standing upright and discussing the issues in his classic nuanced way.

This is our choice. Strong and wrong vs. nuanced and right.

I read Ron Suskind's Without A Doubt piece on Bush in the NY Times Magazine last weekend and it's been running around the back of my brain ever since.

No matter what political affiliation you are, this is a must read. Because we've got a preacher in the white house. If that's OK with you, then vote for him. In case you don't want to go read it, I'll quote just one paragraph where Bruce Bartlett, a close advisor to Reagan, speaks about Bush:

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.''

I was raised a Catholic. I spent my youth listening to priests tell me how to behave and what to believe every Sunday morning. Then I'd come home and hear my Dad, whose spirituality is much more personal than programmed, tell me how the Pope condemned Gallileo to his villa until his death for stating his belief that the earth was round. Well you can guess what I took from that experience.

Fast forward to the present. I don't believe in absolute truth. It doesn't exist. The search for truth is what makes life meaningful for all of us, but we'll never get there. Because there is no final truth.

George W. Bush, the preacher, believes in absolute truth. John Kerry, the professor, searches for it every minute.

That is why I will vote for the professor a week from Tuesday. And if you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Iowa, or Oregon, I sure hope you'll join me.

Comments

[David]

You spend a heck of a lot of time trying to give people reasons NOT to vote for Bush, but if you want a real challenge, give people a reason to vote FOR John Kerry.

The even bigger challenge is to defend John Kerry's past 20 year voting record compared to the promises that he is making on the campaign trail.

If a CEO of a company that you had invested in acted like John Kerry, you would 1) have him removed in a heartbeat and 2) would never had invested in the company in the first place.

David

[jackson]

I am very comfortable with John Kerry's voting record, it sounds like David believes the lies he's told by the republican spin machine. See it's okay to lie and kill when Jesus tells you to. Many people have said this is a one issue election. They mean the war, but for me this is the one issue. I will never vote for a zelot, no matter what particular brand of snakeoil he's selling.

[Ben]

Good point David.

Jackson touches on the your second point about defending his voting record, and has a valid reason (which I agree with) for not voting for Bush, but doesn't answer the why Kerry question. Not many people have.

Maybe thats why I found John Perry Barlow's post so refreshing:

http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/10/supporting_kerr.html

[Disgruntled Reader]

Could you put a marker at the beginning of the political opinion pieces? Maybe put them in a separate RSS feed? It would make them easier to ignore.

[Hector]

Better yet, when Bush wins will you promise to stop these childish political posts? They're half-witted, full of emotion, and extra-light on substance. I don't know how you provide value as a board member with this kind of approach to problem solving.

[Aswath]

"...Gallileo to his villa until his death for stating his belief that the earth was round."

I think you mean to say that the Earth goes around the Sun?

[Mandown]

You're wrong, Fred. It should read:

"John Kerry, the professor, doesn't believe it exists."

I also find it fascinating that you are so bigoted against religious people. Wow. The open-mindedness among America's Left is non-existent.

[Scot]

I remember watching Charlie Rose interview Jim Collins. Jim Collins wrote Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't. In the interview Jim revealed the disturbed feeling he got when he learned that very successful organizations often limited themselves to just a few principles -- and succeeded -- even if those principles seemed somehow wrong. Apparently it wasn't the principles themselves that led to success so much as it was the fact that they were simple to describe, understand, and get behind.

This seems to support the idea that nuanced, professor-type leadership is relatively ineffective and I think that's mostly true when it comes to an organization like the United States. Perhaps such leadership works in an organization of professors, but we are not a nation of professors. Most people are not made enthusiastic by statements that must be parsed several times in order that those statements be comprehended. Instead, many people seem to be motivated by great themes, missions, visions, and uncomplicated and easy to understand goals.

Now you might think after reading the above that I support Bush. I don't. I have to change the channel whenever he begins to speak. It's unbearable listening to him. But I don't support Kerry, either.

What I want, and what a lot of people want, are better choices. We should be arguing over better and best. Instead we're fighting over bad and worse.

[Fred Schoeneman]

I read the Suskind piece, until it got to the point where he was criticizing Bush for the stance he took on Sharon; In the piece, Bush was quoted as saying that he would take the man at face value, contrary to the views of State and other advisors. Suskind seemed rather perturbed by this, and certainly it would give me pause to have seen it when it happened.

However this was a couple of years ago, when he was having these policy discussions about Sharon. And of course, he followed through. He gave Sharon a free hand to do things with the pullback and the wall. And the results, according to an article in the New Republic from a couple of months ago, are in: No terrorist attacks of significance for five months.

So, yeah. Sometimes you just need to pick a strategy -- any strategy -- and follow through on it. You're the venture capitalist, man -- you should know that a mediocre strategy executed well beats an excellent strategy executed mediocrely. And I'm afraid that's what we're going to get with Kerry.

And, yes, I'm one of those disgruntled former military types who hates Kerry for the shit he did protesting Vietnam. And yes, I'd vote for almost any democrat -- maybe even Kucinich -- over Bush. But not Kerry.

[Fred Schoeneman]

For reference, you can go to the TNR piece from here:

http://www.fredschoeneman.com/archives/000525.html

you'll have to register.

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

I think on the economy, Bush looks pretty good: low inflation, low unemployment.
Remember Reagan's Misery Index? Bush today is better than Clinton in 96. Deficit IS too big (4% of GDP); but there IS a war on, and dot.com bubble pop.

On social issues, Bush and Kerry both say they're against abortion, both against gay-marriage. But we all know that Bush means it, and Kerry is just mouthing the words. If you favor abortion or gay-marriage, support Kerry, because you know he's lying about being against them.

That's the Dem Party idea of "Leadership" -- being a good liar. (BTW Clinton has joined the Kerry campaign) Electing Bush means a good chance that late, third trimester partial birth abortions will somehow be made illegal, despite elitist (professorial?) judges calling such killing of human fetuses a Constitutional Right. It perhaps means there is an actual vote on some form of Marriage Amendment.

On Afghanistan, Bush has already proved far more competent in 3 years than the UN in 5 years in smaller Kosovo. Elections a big success, we have a New Democracy in the world! What, no big headlines? ... oh, I forgot, big Afghan success supports Bush, the PC press wouldn't want to do THAT.

On Iraq, lots of criticism that there wasn't a lot more OCCUPATION troops, with US GI jackboots stomping on any and all Iraq terrorists, and their sympathizers -- without killing a single innocent. Unrealistic Perfection.

In fact, the only long term way to win in Iraq is for a majority of the Iraqi people to WANT freedom -- not in an academic (professorial?) way where they choose the right answer on a test. In a real way, where they are willing to fight, to kill, to die; yes, even to kill some innocent Iraqis -- in order to get Iraqi freedom. They have to BELIEVE in freedom, and also believe that they deserve freedom. The price of Iraqi freedom is eternal Iraqi vigilance.

Bush's Liberation, and the on-going fight against Iraqi and Arab (non-Iraqi) terrorists is creating that belief in the Iraqis. Yes, Bush has said, and acts like he believes, that Iraqi freedom is NOT America's gift; it is God's gift. That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator ...
America's gift was booting Saddam from power. To allow space for Iraqis to create their own democracy; with LOTS of American support and influence.

Finally, Iran and nukes. What is the chance that Iran will get nukes in the next 4 years? I've often said under Kerry 50%, under Bush 10% -- because Iran won't obey, nor believe, any Kerry ultimatum. Iran WILL believe a Bush ultimatum, and likely accept verification rather than invasion.

Maybe you don't care that Iran gets nukes. Recently, I've written that Israel will NOT accept Iran getting nukes -- meaning a vote for Kerry is a vote favoring an Israeli-Iran war. Prolly after Iraq elections.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1098656895#362715