Dave Peck's Blog

In a recent white paper, Dyske dissects how the intellectual Left has alienated both the poor and the rich with its broken attempt to merge philosophy and politics.

Dyske argues, strongly, that the urban middle class operates under a false illusion of meritocracy. As a member of this class, I’m inclined to agree. In my world, economic stature can be explained rationally: the more we work and the more talented we are, the more likely we are to get ahead. However, in the world of the poor, no amount of work or talent may be sufficient to move beyond living day-by-day. And in the world of the rich, it was simply the luck of the draw that brought them good fortune. For both the poor and the rich, the world is clearly not rational. The intellectual left attempts to bring this same sense of rationality and logic to bear on its political efforts, a mistake which often has disastrous consequences. (See, for example, our current president.)

I wonder if this same line of thought helps explain why religion seems to be largely ignored by the urban middle class. Embracing religion requires tacit acknowledgement that the world is inherently irrational. The urban middle class sees no need for the structure of religious theology since the world can be explained more simply without it.

It's always good to keep up with the latest conservative thinking. So check out Crush Kerry, a website that I feel objectively represents the viewpoint of the other half.

(Okay, it ain't objective. But it sure is entertaining and strange!)

My Dad is a staunch Republican: he served as a presidential appointee under the Reagan administration and has supported Reagan's executive progeny ever since. So it came as a surprise yesterday when Dad told me that he's thinking about voting for Kerry.

Dad's concerns probably reflect those of many other thoughtful Republicans. He's worried that Bush has made a mess of Iraq and fanned the flames of Middle East hatred. He's disturbed that Bush has been less-than-forthcoming with a rationale for the war. And he's concerned that Bush has alienated America from much of the rest of the world.

Despite this, Dad isn't sold on Kerry. He feels strongly that Kerry hasn't offered a viable counterpoint to these concerns. Rather than demonstrating his leadership potential, Kerry has focused on attacking Bush and chastising "special interests" (a topic both Dad and I agree is absurd, as Kerry is simply beholden to a different set of special interests than Bush.)

As Dad's thinking goes, Bush may be a bad CEO for America, but at least he's a known quantity. Kerry could prove to be a much worse CEO. I tend to flip the argument around: a vote for Bush guarantees bad leadership, while a vote for Kerry gives us a shot at something better.

A quick visit to the Kerry website shows that he has a plan for peace in Iraq. Kerry even made a recent radio address to the nation on the subject. It's a start, but Dad and I would probably both agree that Kerry's position statement and radio address lack necessary detail: America's engagement with Iraq is complex and subtle; a few paragraphs don't do it justice.

Unfortunately, Bush hasn't articulated a coherent policy for Iraq, either. What's telling is that neither his official re-election website nor his White House website have even a paragraph to offer on the subject. We all know that Bush wants to "build a better Iraq" but we don't know how he intends to do this.

So I issue a challenge to the Driving Votes community-at-large: on the basis of Bush and Kerry's official position statements, help me convince my Dad that a vote for Bush is bad for our future, and wrong for America.