National Unity Dies
Kerry's war: Bush first, terrorism later.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, March 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Remember the remarkable coming together Americans experienced after the terrorists' mass murders of September 11? It's dead. It sank beneath the ever-churning waves of America's presidential politics. Global terror may be a big problem, but not bigger than winning the presidency.
Here is an excerpt from John Kerry's speech this week to the firefighters' union:
"After September 11th, President Bush went to New York, stood at Ground Zero, stood with our firefighters. I wish the president would go back now and ask whether he has stood with you since that day. You should never have to worry about getting the health benefits and collective bargaining rights that you've earned. And President Bush should never forget that the 343 heroes that we lost on 9/11 were not only parents and children, brothers and husbands, fiancés and best friends; they were also proud members of Locals 94 and 854. They never forgot it, and neither will we."
In a paragraph, the Democrats' candidate for the presidency has conjoined September 11, the response to the collapse of the two World Trade Center Towers, collective bargaining, health benefits and the most basic ties of family to membership in a union local.
One may argue, as many will, whether this is more or less different than President Bush's TV ads that include September 11. Nor is it entirely bad that democracies press society-rending events such as this against the template of national politics. We are doing precisely that now with gay marriage. We would rather take our chances with a vote than a system of government in which autocrats can send people into hopeless, purposeless war.
What should be troubling to anyone who thinks that homicidal terror is a clear and present danger each hour to the life of innocents everywhere is to see how easily our politics has been able to reduce September 11 and terrorism to the level of union-hall politicking. The reconstruction of Ground Zero, for instance, has pretty much disappeared entirely into the familiar swamps of New York's politics. Given the almost daily reminders of terrorism's toll on innocent life, one might have hoped this to be one center that would hold.
When a city is hit by earthquake, flood or fire, with many dead and parts of the city in ruins, normally everyone agrees that the city is in ruins and all must pull together to do something about it. Not so the war on terror. There is barely any aspect of this phenomenon today that is not subjected in the U.S. to political challenge. The rumored news yesterday that Pakistan had surrounded al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri recalls accusations that the administration had "failed" to capture Osama bin Laden, or alternatively, had him and would announce it closer to the election. At this level, terror has become an abstraction serving the perceived realities of politics.
For the better part of a year, the Democratic candidates have been walking a fine line on this issue. They have a large party constituency that generally opposes the exercise of U.S. military power anywhere. Yet polls suggest most Americans support the war in Iraq and against terror generally, and do so in numbers greater than their support now for President Bush. Thus the party's stockpot of candidates, now reduced to John Kerry, have had to argue that we all agree it is a "good thing" that Saddam is gone, but--what? Somehow, on this the first anniversary of the Iraq war, Mr. Kerry is in the position of holding that pretty much everything else having to do with Iraq has been all wrong. And that everything George Bush had done to fight terror elsewhere since September 11 is all wrong.
So reduced, the subject of terror in U.S. politics is barely distinguishable from any other partisan grievance--Halliburton, John Ashcroft, the reimportation of drugs from Canada. Politics is always rough and tumble, and no complaint there. It is, however, a complaint about Mr. Kerry tossing out the terrorist baby with the opposition bathwater.
The Kerry campaign so far hasn't elevated much above the tenor or level at which the Democratic presidential contenders politicked for nearly a year. Then as now, Mr. Kerry suggests there is nothing in the Bush presidency--not one moment, utterance or act since George Bush took the oath of office--that does not deserve to be opposed and reversed.
This total, rejectionist stance is relatively new in American politics. The conventional explanation is that the Democrats' constituencies demand it, but that's been true for 25 years. The deeper reason is younger than that. It flows directly from Democratic anger over the outcome of the Florida legal challenge in 2000. For Democrats it remains the fire that can never be extinguished. They are set against the Bush presidency in its totality--its policies, its personalities, its existence. Like Irish nationalists, Democrats harbor Florida as the event they will never forgive, and it has had the effect of turning American politics into a kind of Northern Ireland.
In his firefighters speech (which is at johnkerry.com and deserves to be read in its entirety), Sen. Kerry said: "This administration has put a tax giveaway for the very wealthiest of our nation over making sure that we do all that we can to win the war on terror here at home. . . . America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue."
This is a serious charge. It clearly is accusing George Bush of acting in bad faith every day since the towers fell and an airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. Not everyone needs to love George Bush, but delegitimizing America's 2 1/2-year effort against terrorism is a dangerous game. For my money, the presidential debates can't come fast enough.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES E-MAIL THIS TO A FRIEND PRINT FRIENDLY FORMAT
HOME TOP OF PAGE BOOKMARK THIS SITE AUTHOR BIO ARCHIVE
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE OR TAKE A TOUR
Kerry's war: Bush first, terrorism later.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, March 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Remember the remarkable coming together Americans experienced after the terrorists' mass murders of September 11? It's dead. It sank beneath the ever-churning waves of America's presidential politics. Global terror may be a big problem, but not bigger than winning the presidency.
Here is an excerpt from John Kerry's speech this week to the firefighters' union:
"After September 11th, President Bush went to New York, stood at Ground Zero, stood with our firefighters. I wish the president would go back now and ask whether he has stood with you since that day. You should never have to worry about getting the health benefits and collective bargaining rights that you've earned. And President Bush should never forget that the 343 heroes that we lost on 9/11 were not only parents and children, brothers and husbands, fiancés and best friends; they were also proud members of Locals 94 and 854. They never forgot it, and neither will we."
In a paragraph, the Democrats' candidate for the presidency has conjoined September 11, the response to the collapse of the two World Trade Center Towers, collective bargaining, health benefits and the most basic ties of family to membership in a union local.
One may argue, as many will, whether this is more or less different than President Bush's TV ads that include September 11. Nor is it entirely bad that democracies press society-rending events such as this against the template of national politics. We are doing precisely that now with gay marriage. We would rather take our chances with a vote than a system of government in which autocrats can send people into hopeless, purposeless war.
What should be troubling to anyone who thinks that homicidal terror is a clear and present danger each hour to the life of innocents everywhere is to see how easily our politics has been able to reduce September 11 and terrorism to the level of union-hall politicking. The reconstruction of Ground Zero, for instance, has pretty much disappeared entirely into the familiar swamps of New York's politics. Given the almost daily reminders of terrorism's toll on innocent life, one might have hoped this to be one center that would hold.
When a city is hit by earthquake, flood or fire, with many dead and parts of the city in ruins, normally everyone agrees that the city is in ruins and all must pull together to do something about it. Not so the war on terror. There is barely any aspect of this phenomenon today that is not subjected in the U.S. to political challenge. The rumored news yesterday that Pakistan had surrounded al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri recalls accusations that the administration had "failed" to capture Osama bin Laden, or alternatively, had him and would announce it closer to the election. At this level, terror has become an abstraction serving the perceived realities of politics.
For the better part of a year, the Democratic candidates have been walking a fine line on this issue. They have a large party constituency that generally opposes the exercise of U.S. military power anywhere. Yet polls suggest most Americans support the war in Iraq and against terror generally, and do so in numbers greater than their support now for President Bush. Thus the party's stockpot of candidates, now reduced to John Kerry, have had to argue that we all agree it is a "good thing" that Saddam is gone, but--what? Somehow, on this the first anniversary of the Iraq war, Mr. Kerry is in the position of holding that pretty much everything else having to do with Iraq has been all wrong. And that everything George Bush had done to fight terror elsewhere since September 11 is all wrong.
So reduced, the subject of terror in U.S. politics is barely distinguishable from any other partisan grievance--Halliburton, John Ashcroft, the reimportation of drugs from Canada. Politics is always rough and tumble, and no complaint there. It is, however, a complaint about Mr. Kerry tossing out the terrorist baby with the opposition bathwater.
The Kerry campaign so far hasn't elevated much above the tenor or level at which the Democratic presidential contenders politicked for nearly a year. Then as now, Mr. Kerry suggests there is nothing in the Bush presidency--not one moment, utterance or act since George Bush took the oath of office--that does not deserve to be opposed and reversed.
This total, rejectionist stance is relatively new in American politics. The conventional explanation is that the Democrats' constituencies demand it, but that's been true for 25 years. The deeper reason is younger than that. It flows directly from Democratic anger over the outcome of the Florida legal challenge in 2000. For Democrats it remains the fire that can never be extinguished. They are set against the Bush presidency in its totality--its policies, its personalities, its existence. Like Irish nationalists, Democrats harbor Florida as the event they will never forgive, and it has had the effect of turning American politics into a kind of Northern Ireland.
In his firefighters speech (which is at johnkerry.com and deserves to be read in its entirety), Sen. Kerry said: "This administration has put a tax giveaway for the very wealthiest of our nation over making sure that we do all that we can to win the war on terror here at home. . . . America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue."
This is a serious charge. It clearly is accusing George Bush of acting in bad faith every day since the towers fell and an airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. Not everyone needs to love George Bush, but delegitimizing America's 2 1/2-year effort against terrorism is a dangerous game. For my money, the presidential debates can't come fast enough.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES E-MAIL THIS TO A FRIEND PRINT FRIENDLY FORMAT
HOME TOP OF PAGE BOOKMARK THIS SITE AUTHOR BIO ARCHIVE
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE OR TAKE A TOUR
