Both John Kerry and George Bush, George F. Will argues, share the \u201cliberal expectancy\u201d of the retreat of religious fanaticism and ethnic conflict in the face of \u201ceducation, science, secularism, [and] prosperity.\u201d But therein lies an important difference. Citing University of Virginia political scientists James W. Ceaser and Daniel DiSalvo, Will points out that \u201cBush says that \u2018liberty is the design of nature\u2019 and that \u2018freedom is the right and the capacity of all mankind\u2019 and \u201cnot since Lincoln has the Republicans’ leader \u2018so actively sought to ground the party in a politics of natural right.\u2019\u201d Now one can certainly argue with this characterization of Bush foreign policy. One could point out for instance that the administration has no argument, in the sense that it has taken no action and spoken no words, against the anti-modern political systems on whose mineral wealth we rely, or whose form of anti-modernist dictatorship conveniently breaks in favor of our political strategies. But that\u2019s another matter. And besides, this is not really what Will is writing about anyway. For immediately after the above cited passage, he turns his attention to Kerry: <\/p>\n
\u201cKerry is the candidate of the intellectually vain — of those who, practicing the politics of condescension, consider Bush moronic. But Kerry is unwilling to engage Bush’s idea.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While we have a fairly charitable reading of the philosophical<\/em> and political<\/em> motivations of the Bush administration, we have a ruthlessly uncharitable characterization of the psychological<\/em> state of the Kerry supporter<\/em>. The comparison of Kerry-supporter to Bush philosophy wholly out of place, the more logically sound comparison would consider items that belong in the same category\u2013Kerry political philosophy versus Bush political philosophy, for instance, or psychological state of Kerry supporter versus psychological state of Bush supporter. But aside from the perplexing nature of this apples-oranges comparison, Will makes matters worse by his doubly abusive assault on the position of the Kerry supporter: he is intellectually vain, and he practices the \u201cpolitics of condescension\u201d by considering Bush \u201cmoronic.\u201d This neat, but devious, rhetorical trick hypocritically embraces the fallacy it condemns: Kerry\u2019s supporters are intellectually vain (attacking the person not the argument) because they\u2013and here is the kicker\u2013attack the person and not the argument! Disengaging himself from the rhetorical underhandedness of the first sentence in the passage just cited, Will turns for the rest of the essay to making the case for his initial comparison: <\/p>\n
Hence he is allowing Bush to have what he wants, a one-issue election. The issue is a conflation of the wars in Iraq and on terrorism in the single subject "security." Kerry is trying, and failing, to pry apart judgments about the two. But even if he succeeds, he continues to deepen the risible incoherence of his still-multiplying positions on Iraq. In his speech last week to the American Legion convention, Kerry said that in Iraq he, as president, would have done "almost everything differently." The indisputable implication is that if he had been president since 2001, America would be in Iraq.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again, the more logically sound comparison would be between Bush political philosophy and Kerry political philosophy, not, as it is here, between Bush political philosophy and Kerry\u2019s position on the management and execution of the Iraq war. Whatever their positions on the source of human freedom (and one can fairly suspect that they both agree to the view that freedom is a natural right or something of that sort), Kerry\u2019s argument that Iraq should have been handled differently and<\/em> that Iraq might still be considered to have had something to do with \u201csecurity\u201d are not \u201crisibly incoherent.\u201d But it certainly appears that way when it is posed against something it should not rightly be compared with (Bush\u2019s writ large political philosophy). Kerry\u2019s position, however poorly it may be articulated by him, his surrogates and supporters, concerns the execution not, as Will has it here, the philosophical foundation<\/em>. Now in the end, of course, Kerry\u2019s arguments might fail. But they should be challenged for what they are (apples), not for what Will would like them to be (oranges). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Both John Kerry and George Bush, George F. Will argues, share the \u201cliberal expectancy\u201d of the retreat of religious fanaticism and ethnic conflict in the face of \u201ceducation, science, secularism, [and] prosperity.\u201d But therein lies an important difference. Citing University of Virginia political scientists James W. Ceaser and Daniel DiSalvo, Will points out that \u201cBush … Continue reading Valencia or Granny Smith?<\/span>