It has been said by many on the pro-Bush right and the hawkish left that this is a "single-issue election", or that they are "single-issue voters". Usually this is said in the context of the so-called "War on Terror", and usually with the implication that fighting terrorism is
the single issue by which their choice of President is weighed. I do not doubt their sincerity in desiring to keep America safe.
I, too, am a single-issue voter. But my single issue is not counterterrorism. Nor, like some, is my single issue abortion, either for or against. I do not judge a candidate solely on their support for or opposition to gay marriage, nor on whether or not they'll balance the budget.
My single issue is this: will this person protect America?
This is not the same as stopping terrorists, although it includes it. I believe that both George Bush and John Kerry want to protect America. But I do not believe that Bush cares about protecting
America--by which I mean not just its people, its buildings, and its economic strength, but also the things which make men and women of every nation want to come here and make a new life, while inspiring those of us who live here to every once in a while realize how damn lucky we are.
Protecting America requires more than a belief in the rightness of democracy and freedom, and more than a bold and daring plan to transform the Middle East by the sword. It requires a diligent ability to balance necessary protective measures against the freedoms Americans take for granted every day, and--I must stress this, because to me it is paramount--to vigorously challenge any suggestion that in order to feel more secure we must give up a measure of freedom, a notion which is poison to the heart of this country. It requires a genuine respect for both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, demonstrated both by word and by action: Bush speaks loudly and often of democracy and freedom, but takes actions which undermine freedom at home while assuring us that these sacrifices are necessary to fight terrorism.
Protecting America requires a commitment to open and accountable government--which includes a respect for the solemn duty that patriotic Americans have to voice dissent when they feel their country or their President are doing wrong. Openness is anathema to this administration, which cloaks itself in unprecedented secrecy, asking that we trust them to know what they're doing while failing time and time again to earn or honor that trust. Nor has Bush demonstrated any regard for opposing views--we saw this most keenly in the first debate, and we see it too in the loyalty oaths you must sign to attend his rallies, and in the appalling way Congressional Democrats have been shut out of the decision-making process wherever possible. Accountability, too, is a word foreign to Bush and his cabinet: no one, not even the most blinkered partisan, disputes that the Bush administration has made at least a few staggeringly inept mistakes in Iraq. Yet to this date, out of all the people responsible for the missteps, exaggerations, falsehoods, wishful thinking, and outright crimes that have occurred in Iraq, the only ones being held accountable are a handful of Reservists from Abu Ghraib. Accountability is a cornerstone of our political process, and when an administration will not hold itself accountable, the American people have a duty to do so.
Protecting America requires more than just saying we are the good guys, it requires being the good guys. When presented with the White House counsel's memos rationalizing torture, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and our rampant circumvention of the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo and beyond, I hear a variety of defenses, each weaker than the last. "It was just a few Reservists." "These are necessary measures for fighting terrorism." And my personal favorite: "Things were much worse under Saddam." Is the highest bar we can set for our conduct as a nation truly a weak protest that at least we're not as bad as Saddam? Is the torture of a human being, suspected terrorist or otherwise, truly consistent with who we are as a nation, a people? Can we turn a blind eye to the extradition of another human to a country likely to torture him--or worse, do so as a matter of policy as a way of circumventing our own laws and treaties against torture? For those in this administration, the answer to one or more of these questions is yes--and because of that they can not, must not be allowed four more years to degrade who and what we are.
I do not question the patriotism or sincerity of those who make counterterrorism their one single issue in this election. Fear is a powerful motivator, and the Bush administration has made fear one of their most potent campaign tools. No, what I question is their myopic definition of what it means to protect this nation. Suppose for the sake of argument that Kerry will be weaker against terrorism than Bush--something I do not believe or stipulate, but which many Bush supporters do--I still believe passionately that Kerry will do a better job of protecting America. Terrorists will still be trying to kill us under either man's leadership, and one or the other of them may be more effective at preventing those tragedies--but terrorists cannot do lasting harm to this country unless we allow them to. They cannot take ground or occupy territory, they cannot win anything by strength of numbers--they can only kill, and die in the process. Their only ability to do widespread harm lies in the use of nuclear weapons, and nonproliferation is not among this administration's strong points.
Our leaders, however, can do lasting harm to this country--and the Bush administration has done so and continues to do so. The state of the environment matters. Our long-term dependence on foreign oil matters. Our fiscal solvency and increasing financial dependence on China matters. Our freedom matters. Our soul as a nation which should never condone the torture of another human being matters. Blithely uttered scaremongering about how these things don't matter if we're not around to enjoy them are nonsense which betray a stupefying ignorance of what terrorism, as a tactic, can and cannot accomplish.
This is a single-issue election, all right. It's about preserving who we are and what makes us great.
It's about protecting America--something George W. Bush is either unwilling or unable to do.