That was cute when Democratic presidential nominee John
Kerry started his acceptance speech by snapping a salute
and saying he was reporting for duty. Cute,
but not quite truthful. If he becomes president,
we will be expected to carry out his
commands. Its only in democratic folklore that
government is the servant and the people the master.
In the real world, alas, its the other way around.
True, occasionally the Supreme Court tells a president
hes gone too far. But that doesnt happen
nearly enough. In postconstitutional America the
president can pretty much do what he wants. Kerry knows
that. Hed be much less interested in the presidency
were that not the case.
The reporting for duty statement was supposed
to remind us of his deadly service in
Vietnam. The convention scene was surreal. There was
Kerry, a Vietnam war opponent before and after his short
stint in it, getting a raucous ovation from the
Democratic delegates, most of whom would say they are
anti-war, Vietnam as well as Iraq. Why were they
applauding a man who confessed to committing atrocities
30 years ago?
I can think of only one answer. They hope Kerrys
war record will blunt Republican criticism of perceived
Democratic weakness on security issues and propel him
into the White House. Now thats cynicism.
Cynicism was on grand display throughout the convention
week. Anti-war delegates were so eager to win
that they accepted a nominee who voted to give a
Republican president a blank check to make war on Iraq
whenever he felt moved to do so. Kerry now says he had no
idea President Bush would go to war before exhausting all
diplomatic avenues. Wasnt he watching the
administration? It was obvious that Bush wanted war and
was only going through diplomatic motions to keep from
alienating the entire world.
Kerry devoted part of his speech to denouncing divisive
campaign tactics (while running-mate John Edwards
complained of two Americas). As Kerry put it,
This is our time to reject the kind of politics
calculated to divide race from race, region from region,
group from group. I can agree, until he says
group from group. What American politics
needs is a heightened division between two particular
groups: those once called taxpayers and the tax-eaters
the people who produce wealth and the people who
either take it or live off it. The tax-eaters are not
mostly poor people. They are middle- and upper-class
types who include bureaucrats, consultants,
grant-collecting academics, farmers, corporate interests,
and other affluent recipients of government largess.
There is not nearly enough polarization of the taxpayer
and tax-eater classes. In his speech Kerry said, I
will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest
individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can
invest in health care, education, and job creation.
The line got wild applause because the Boston FleetCenter
was filled to the gills with government-employee union
members, the largest tax-eating group. It is not shy
about its designs on the property of others. When will
the productive people who are to be looted be equally
vocal in defense of their rights?
The Republicans are too busy trying to win at any cost to
realize that the campaign could use some real class
conflict, one that pits those who want to keep their
property against those who want to seize it. That would
be a campaign worth watching.