TOM NOBLE
Thank God George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election!
Do not mistake me for either a social conservative or a die-hard Republican. I'm a liberal Democrat. I liked John Kerry as much as the next Democrat voter, which is to say I absolutely loathe George W. Bush and would have done anything short of terrorism to get him out of office. In fact, my joy in Bush's re-election stems from a strategic sensibility and a heavy dose of deserved comeuppance.
Think back to 2004. The Coalition Provisional Authority (the transitional organization set up after the invasion of Iraq) had handed over power to the interim Iraqi government in July, Saddam had been caught the previous December and Iraqi elections were scheduled for January of 2005. Things were seemingly on track in Iraq and the Bush administration were the loudest supporters of this belief. Sure, there were setbacks - insurgents had murdered and mutilated four contractors in Fallujah, Muqtada Al-Sadr had led an uprising in and around Baghdad and sectarian fissures were beginning to erupt. But to make an omelet, some eggs will be broken, right? This was the political landscape (among many other issues) confronting Bush's challenger, Senator John Kerry, in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.
We all know the outcome. Bush won a mildly close election and two years later, we still have roughly the same number of troops stationed in Iraq. But what if John Kerry had won the election? In regards to Iraq, would things be any different?
There are three possible scenarios involving Iraq that could have occurred if John Kerry had beaten George Bush. One is that things would be better than they are now - better meaning less U.S. troops (or none at all) than currently are in Iraq, more international cooperation, or less Iraqi civilian casualties. If any of these areas fared better under Kerry's leadership, one could argue that the situation would be better than it is now. The second is that things would be worse than they are currently, implying higher death tolls (if that is even possible), less U.S. control in preventing civil strife (if that is even possible) and greater administrative incompetence and ineptitude (if that is even possible). The final possibility is that things would be exactly the same as they are now (i.e. daily bombings, sectarian violence bordering on civil war, 140,000 American troops on the ground). This is the most likely of the three scenarios.
Kerry's election might have signaled a change in tone - any shift from the Bush administration's abrasively arrogant and unilateralist tone would have been a positive development. It is much more likely that a Kerry administration could have marshaled international cooperation and support for the mission in Iraq, thus adding some modicum of legitimacy and support. At the same time, however, it is hard to imagine Kerry pursuing any option short of a thriving Iraqi democracy, which would have tied American troops to Iraqi soil until at least the end of 2005 with the culmination of Iraqi elections. By this point the unavoidable rise in sectarian tensions would have raised the same options currently plaguing Washington; for example: "If American troops are pulled out of Iraq, a civil war will erupt and the terrorists/insurgents/Baathists/Islamo-facists will win").
Regarding the second scenario, in which things would be worse in Iraq under a Kerry administration, if you believe this is likely, there's an ocean in Kansas on which I want to take you surfing.
The third scenario, in which the Kerry administration's policies would have led to a situation that parallels the current one, is the most likely in my opinion and the reason I wrote this article. It is fascinating to imagine the sort of claims former Bush administration officials and conservative pundits (I'm thinking of a certain blond bimbo in particular) would have been slinging in the lead up to the 2006 midterm elections. "Kerry's election signaled a shift in the 'plan to victory' in Iraq," they would argue. "If we had only stuck with Donald Rumsfeld's strategies, the insurgency would have surrendered," conservatives would contend. The possibilities are limitless and border on comical, until one steps back and visualizes the carnage and death surrounding the entire Iraq debacle.
With the glorious beauty of 20/20 hindsight and an acceptance of reality, we can rightfully blame the Bush administration for the huge mistakes they made in not only making a case for war, but in their execution of it as well. If Kerry had become president, skillful conservative strategists would have painted the failure in Iraq all over his administration. It is safe to say the Democratic party would not garner even a fraction of the anti-war support it currently does, and who knows if Democrats would be poised for taking back Congress, as they currently are.
I believe things happen for a reason, and the 2004 presidential election is a case in point. In the words of Bush's former chief of staff, Andrew Card, "The Bush presidency will be judged by three things: Iraq, Iraq and Iraq". Lets just hope that voters, textbooks and Lucifer take note.
Tom Noble is a senior in the School of Public Affairs.
PETER BRUSOE
I read Emily Freifeld's article on political party registration, campaign contributions and academic bias with a great deal of interest. There are some public comments that I wish to make regarding the story.
1. Why is this front-page news? President Mushnick addressing Tavern issues, AU winning a community service award. All of these are interesting stories worthy of the front page. An assertion that most of the faculty are Democrats? I am not sure if this was news, or if it was, if anyone was the least bit surprised by that, much less worthy of the front page. Are there no other events occurring on campus that could have been filled by that spot? A successful charity football game perhaps? Maybe an update on how the search for a new Athletic Director is going? Maybe an update on the tasty new Katzen Kaf?? Let's find other newsworthy events.
2. I am also left wondering how party registration impacts teaching? Ms. Freifeld's premise is a simple one: Faculty members will present their material in different ways based upon party registration. This is not, necessarily, a bad premise. However, Ms. Freifeld never makes the connection between registration and classroom teaching style. A better approach would be a systematic analysis of syllabi, or classroom discussion. For example, if the only books that are being assigned by a faculty member are by Noam Chomsky or Mona Charen, that presents a real problem. I think if we did a search, however, we would find that many faculty present works that offer contrasting views from one another. For example, a class may have the great Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, or the faculty member may assign textbooks that present both sides of the issues, such as "American Government: Continuity and Change." I suspect that party registration has little to do with the design of a course, or with the topics that are taught. However, I, like Ms. Freifeld, lack evidence.
3. My final issue is: I don't buy this notion of "academic bias." From time to time people sound up the alarm of bias, and grow atwitter to it. However, "academic bias" seems to be an urban myth. In my own experience, I am a registered Republican and with one exception in my entire academic experience (155 undergraduate credits, 32 MA Credits, I don't know how many PhD Credits) I have only had one situation where I felt my viewpoint was being denigrated, or not being given time or due consideration it deserved from a faculty member.
AU has worked very hard to become a place of diversity, where ideas come together and in a Kuhnian way synthesize to one another. I would hope we would be careful of sounding an alarm of political bias, and to only do so when we have evidence that can withstand scrutiny.
Peter Brusoe is a PhD candidate in the School of Public Affairs.
