Being there

I sincerely wish I could like John Kerry more. I didn’t vote for GWB in 2000. The simple explanation is that I didn’t think it was a good time to have a president who was a Texas oil man who also happened to be a member of an aristocratic Eastern family.

The reason that I felt a Texan was bad is that I felt that immigration, particularly illegal immigration, was a serious problem and needed to be confronted in a serious manner. GWB’s experiences as a Texan necessarily color his view of immigration in a way that is not necessarily consistent with the problems faced by the rest of the country. This is still as true in 2004 as it was in 2000.

The reason that I felt an oil man was bad was that by experience and training an oil man was likely to see the solution to the U. S.’s energy problems as finding additional oil reserves. I believe that the solutions to the U. S.’s energy problems include new sources, conservation, and alternative sources but that the market can take care of most of this. Reducing our reliance on imported oil is a vital national priority. Given the political situation in Venezuela this is even a higher priority than it was in 2000. I believe in a slowly ratcheted-up gasoline tax to reduce consumption of gasoline. An oil man wouldn’t like this.

The problem with a president who is a member of an aristocratic Eastern family is illustrated by a definition I once heard of “upper class” in the U.S. Someone is upper class if they just can’t screw up badly enough to be allowed to fail. Although I believe that Mr. Bush is a decent, honorable man, I just don’t believe he knows what it means for the average American to struggle not just to prosper but just to stay in the same place. This is as true in 2004 as it was in 2000.

But the Democrats’ candidate is even worse off in this respect than Mr. Bush. In addition to the problems of an upper class background I’ve already written about, Mr. Kerry has never held anything but government jobs in his entire adult life. He will naturally see government as the solution to every problem.

John Kerry is the poster-child for much of what is wrong with the U. S. Senate. Where else but in the Senate would something like this make sense: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” (John Kerry, March 16, 2004)? The Senate has a well-earned reputation as being a rich men’s club. Not only is Mr. Kerry a millionaire many times over but his wealth is inherited wealth. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it does tend to insulate you from the day-to-day cares that are the lot of us mere mortals.

This goes a long way to explain Mr. Kerry’s rather haughty bearing. Apparently, this is attractive to the citizens of Massachusetts who have repeatedly returned him to office. And returned him to office despite his record of pretty much doing nothing.

Mr. Kerry’s advocates can point to his speeches in which he’ll advocate this maverick viewpoint or that bold initiative. But when you examine his voting record, he’s pretty much just followed the party line. He’s been very consistent. He’s been present.

Is just being there enough? Maybe it’s not so bad a time for a Texan to be president after all.