A Question for Marjorie

Marjorie Williams, one of my favorite people on the planet, has written a column in the March 7 Washington Post that is unremittingly hostile to John Kerry. She calls him "Flipper," a nickname that I have a deep foreboding will be enthusiastically embraced by the GOP. A question for Marjorie and for other liberal journalists: Is this the time to afflict our friend and comfort the enemy? Isn't Bush a far worse threat to everything they care about than Kerry at his worst?

It's not as if the traits Marjorie identifies are such unredeemed failings that they disqualify him from the presidency. Indeed, the same characteristics appear in a considerably more favorable light in an article headed "Kerry Dots Deliberation with Decision" that appeared on the front page of the same edition of the Post that carried Marjorie's column. Its author, Laura Blumenfeld, finds that Kerry "researches and analyzes carefully before choosing. He always deliberates, even if only for a second. What differs is how close he is to the ground."

She tells a story of how a plane was plunging towards the Nevada desert. "10,000 feet, 6,000 feet, 2,000 feet and falling. Young Kerry, sitting next to the pilot, reached for the controls. 'Give it to me,' Kerry said, over the screams of the engine," and landed the plane safely. His brother Cameron explained to Blumenfeld: "It's the deadline thing. He is not going to act when he doesn't need to. He's incredibly decisive when he needs to be."

Kerry is a relentless questioner, often playing devil's advocate with his staff--a quality especially esteemed by presidential historians, and the very opposite of George W. Bush, described in The Price of Loyalty, who dislikes arguing with himself, who is profoundly incurious, and who does not encourage his staff to provide him with carefully researched alternatives, disliking the kind of debate that would explore options.

Another op-ed appearing the same day as Marjorie's, Bruce Reed's in The New York Times, described how Kerry's apparent waffling can simply mean that he sees the merit in both sides and wants his decision to reflect those merits, in the case of welfare reform, for example, this meant voting in flavor of reform while making sure the bill included more child-care money and other improvements that would make it more humane.

In addition to Marjorie, I have another close friend, Mickey Kaus, who has become relentless in his criticism of Kerry. One thing he shares with Marjorie is that neither of them knows Kerry. I would urge them to stop and consider the fact that people who know him well have a better opinion of Kerry. This is most significantly true of people who have worked closely with him, from the battlefields of Vietnam to the floor of the Senate, and who have rallied to his cause.

Consider the number of Democratic senators who joined his campaign before the nomination was clinched, and the number of comrades from Vietnam who did the same. When you hear Ted Kennedy speaking about him, you know he's not talking about the same man Marjorie and Mickey see in their minds' eye.

To be sure, Kerry needs constructive criticism during the campaign and thereafter. But it should be accompanied by an awareness that Bush is the only other choice we now have, so that liberal journalists do not do unto Kerry what they did unto Al Gore--such a splendid job of tearing him down that they leave the Republicans little or nothing to add. They should be careful not to make the same mistake twice.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Washington Monthly Company
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group