HunterByrd

Hesitant to follow your heart and vote Bush?

The WSJ's Daniel Henninger makes a compelling case that W is the progressive visionary of this race, and that Kerry (through the same tired, old, progressive rhetoric) is the stalwart defender of a status quo in a world which no longer exists.

Enter China, India, and Brazil. These economic trains "have left the station."

All three are huge countries in the process of rapidly creating a smart, globally relevant business class. This country's biggest problem isn't "Halliburton" but the realization, just sinking in, that internal U.S. labor costs are being set by a suddenly thriving, truly global marketplace. This is the real cause of the famous "middle-class squeeze," and it's a force more powerful than any one person sitting in the Oval Office.

As Henninger says, most of the electorate have come to terms with the realities of the war. Whether we strongly support it or abide it, we understand it. However, it's quite another thing to acknowledge (and embrace) a new world wherein the old social safety nets have begun to take on water like the Titanic. Privatization of Social Security and management of one's own health insurance funds are a huge step forward into the 'unknown'.

The Kerry campaign is riding on the belief that the American electorate, at the margins in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, isn't ready to make the break. And they may be right. That to me is the meaning of the relentlessly close poll results that persist in this election. John Kerry is a fundamentally weak presidential candidate, but about half the electorate is uncertain whether it is able to sign up for all the risk and uncertainty implicit in the next Bush presidency.

Henninger makes a very good point: W didn't even bother to frame this vision in succinct terms until just a couple of weeks ago. That may turn out to be a strategic mistake on his part, because his vision comes on a very large plate -- it's a lot to digest in a little time.

The Ownership Society is the appropriate, 21st century replacement to the New Deal. It's about making it possible for the economy to turn on a dime, not once a decade. The bad news is that George Bush didn't bother to bring up the idea until a few weeks ago, in his convention speech.

Neither Mr. Bush, two anonymous Treasury secretaries nor anyone else in this administration has spent significant public time the past four years preparing American voters to make a change that I'm certain most of them know has to come. All those lunch-bucket Democrats carting DVD recorders out of Wal-Mart know those prices weren't delivered by the tooth fairy, or by a factory on the other side of town.

The piece is a very good read.

Totally Unrelated Fact: a recent study has shown that only 31 people out of 13,000 are truly adept at determining whether a person is lying. Would but that I were one of these "wizards"!