Change of Heart

"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

 - Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Back in May, blogger Andrew Sullivan writing for the gay and lesbian magazine, The Advocate, announced that he could no longer support George W. Bush for president in 2004:

"I endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2000--very narrowly. It was more an anti-Gore decision than a pro-Bush one. I really wanted John McCain to win. I still support the president's war on terror. But it's time to say something very clearly: Bush's endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can't endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked."

Sullivan's reversal has elicited varied reactions from his readers, many of which are posted in the "Letters" section of his weblog, The Daily Dish. If you take a look at his readers' reactions to his decision, you'll gain some new insights and be entertained in the process.

I've been reading Sullivan's blog for a long time. I feel that he brings a balanced view to most subjects he posts, and I respect his feelings regarding Bush's stance on gay marriage. I, too, have issues with many of our president's policies, and am regularly writing my representatives to express those concerns. At this point, however, I have not joined Andrew in letting my dissatisfaction become a deal-breaker in my support of President Bush. I haven't because my feelings about the war on terror supersede anything negative I might feel about how the president is handling some of the nation's other problems.

There are many reasons I believe that terrorism is the most crucial issue we face today. I think that our country is at a historical juncture now, and that how we ultimately deal with the situation we have in Iraq is going to set the tone for our foreign policy for years to come. If we fail there by withdrawing prematurely, we'll send a message to the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, that the U.S. can be attacked with impunity. Our allies will know they cannot count on us for any extended period of time, and our enemies will know that if they can just hang on in any conflict for a year or two, we'll get disenchanted and leave them to plan their next attack. I believe that Bush knows this and will stay the course. I'm not sure that Kerry does, despite what he's telling us in his speeches today. His anti-war record speaks more loudly to me than his campaign rhetoric.

I found one letter among the dozens written to Sullivan that echoed what I'm saying. It's titled "If Bush Loses," and can be found under the June 17, 2004 correspondence that Sullivan posted. You'll have to scroll a bit to find it. Here are excerpts for your consideration:

"I sympathize with your (Sullivan's) diminished enthusiasm for Bush. And I understand but do not share) your willingness to hinge your vote on the FMA issue. For I, too, have decided that my vote will be based on a single issue this year: The Iraq War.

If Bush loses, every president for a generation (or more) will refuse to undertake the kind of mission that Bush (rightly) undertook in Iraq. The lesson will be clear: the American public will not support a president who undertakes an ambitious, potentially world-changing mission...

I stand by the justness of the cause in Iraq, the need to take the war to the jihadists, the doctrine of preemption, and the critical long-term goal of bringing democracy and liberation to that troubled region. You (Sullivan) have never wavered from these, even as you have wavered in support of Bush. If Bush loses, not only will we be ousting a president who failed to most effectively implement his goals, but we will be practically ensuring that future presidents don't even try...That is too high a cost to pay just topunish this president...

The big point is not whether the next president will continue to carry on this mission, though that is important. The big question is whether future presidents would consider undertaking any such mission in the future, and whether the dictators and terrorists of the world can be made to believe that future presidents would do so. Electoral defeat for Bush would teach a lesson not just to future presidents considering the risks of large, potentially world-changing undertakings. It is a message to all the enemies of the U.S. that when a threat comes from the White House, it is backed not just by the short-term commitments of an effectively lame duck president, but also by the people of the strongest nation in the world. The credibility of the U.S.'s threats is critical to advancing U.S. interests without having to resort to military action in the future."

It, and all the others, pro and con, are interesting thought-provoking reads. I hope you'll take the time to visit Andrew's blog and take a look at the correspondence he's been receiving since he wrote The Advocate article. Who knows? Maybe something you see there will make you consider changing your vote. Yeah, right.