SENATOR JOHN KERRY, THE DEMOCRATS AND "REGIME CHANGE"
Sen. John Kerry has painted himself in a corner, having said that the United States should undergo "regime change." Kerry is running for president, and from the party opposite the current chief executive, so it's natural to assume that he wants a change at the top. But regime change? Judging from the lack of smile or other normal indicators of humor or irony on display as he said this, it seems that he meant what he said. Which raises a host of issues.Kerry's remarks, as loaded as they obviously are, speak to three areas of serious concern for anyone considering electing him our next president. The remarks speak directly to Kerry's judgement, his understanding of the United States' form of government, and to his fitness to become president.
Judgement
How could Sen. Kerry not have anticipated the criticism his "regime change" remarks would draw? That phrase has been official US policy for dealing with Iraq since 1998, and was part of the justification for fighting the present war. And he made this remark as US troops stood on the doorstep of changing the regime they're fighting. To link that action--a war against a foe bearing strong similarity as well as historical connection to the Nazis of half a century ago--to dealing with a president from the party opposite his exhibits extremely poor judgement.
One of the many things a president has to do it gauge his remarks not just in terms of their content, but in the impact they're likely to have. President Bush could privately theorize that a nuclear strike may be necessary to end the Saddam Hussein regime once and for all, but to publicly discuss that option would be insane. The reaction around the world would be deafening, and would probably lead to America's isolation in an instant. Even stalwart ally Tony Blair wouldn't stomach talk of nuking Iraq. In calling for "regime change," Sen. Kerry has shown a disturbing inability to gauge his remarks in terms of the reaction they're likely to create. In a senator that usually isn't a huge problem--in a president, it may cause incredible damage to America's reputation, to its international standing and to its relationships around the globe.
Understanding of the US' form of government
This one's simple: The United States doesn't have "regimes," it has administrations which come and go with the electoral tide of public opinion or by term limits. A regime is normally understood to be a form of government. The Nazis were a regime, the Soviets were a regime, the Castro government is a regime, and the Ba'ath governments in Iraq and Syria are regimes--they own the entire apparatus of state and brook no opposition. In fact, they usually kill their political opponents. The Bush administration is the current group of people representing the American public in having been duly elected according to the law of the land, the Constitution. The regime, if you want to use that term in application to the US, is our constitutional form of representative democracy. In calling for regime change, Kerry is by the normal understanding of that phrase calling for the end of one form of government--representative democracy--and the implementation of another, presumably led by himself. It's the talk of a revolutionary, not a democrat.
Either Kerry doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't understand the implication of his campaign rhetoric--or he does. You make the call.
Fitness to be president
Anyone who cannot gauge to some extent the consequences of his words, and who demonstrates such a poor understanding of (or respect for) America's republican form of government is not fit to hold the highest office in the land. It's that simple. And anyone who uses such obviously loaded language at a time when American troops are on the ground in a war, fighting to prosecute an actual regime change, demonstrates an utter lack of respect for those troops and for the elected officials who have decided to embark on a course of war. As a combat veteran, Sen. Kerry should know better. Since he doesn't, he's not fit to lead this nation in peace or war. His judgement is not sound.
Finally, one should note that Sen. Kerry is hardly alone in calling for "regime change" since President Bush took office. In fact, the phrase has come into common use among the president's Democrat opponents. The Drudge Report has put together a rundown of the Democrat officeholders and activists who have used that phrase. They include Jesse Jackson, John Conyers, Louis Farrakhan, Barbra Streisand, and Ramsey Clark. All are either from the far left of the Democrat party or are openly anti-American (Farrakhan). There are others from the far left who have also used the "regime change" language to oppose President Bush's policies--the so-called "peace movement." The fringes of that movement have called for American troops to shoot their officers, have called President Bush "Hitler"--and have called for "regime change" in the United States.
Which leads to another wrinkle in this whole affair. It has been demonstrated that today's peace movement is heavily influenced, in the form of funding and organization, by the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP has used the "peace movement" as a way to drive up its membership and weaken America's standing around the world. The SWP is an openly revolutionary organization, and seeks a real regime change around the world: It wants Communism to replace democracy everywhere. It also happens to be a known Communist front, and is openly allied with the North Korean regime, among others. It was openly supportive of Joseph Stalin's regime when he was ruling the USSR, and has openly supported Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein--the man at the center of the very regime our troops are changing in Iraq.
And Sen. Kerry borrowed the language of this organization when criticizing President Bush. Either Sen. Kerry knew what he was doing, or he didn't. He either knowingly parroted a Communist front, or he just dumbly stepped into doing so. You make the call.
UPDATE: Chris sends me this story about Dem reaction to those of us who've chosen to criticize Sen. Kerry's remarks. These people need reminding that freedom of speech runs both ways--Kerry had every right to say what he said, and others have every right to disagree with him and criticize him. Criticism does not denote any form of limits on speech; it is in fact the exercising of that right.
What's most worrisome about this affair is the utter contempt Kerry and others on his side display for our language. Regime means a form of government; calling for regime change means calling for a change in a form of government. When criticized, Kerry and his supporters retreat to accusations of censorship and the like, and go on the offensive against anyone who questions Kerry's "patriotism." But none of his critics have questioned his patriotism, just his judgement and fitness for office. I question his command of English, and his commitment to our democratic ideals.
It is noteworthy, I think, that the same people calling for regime change here in America are also seeking to stifle free criticism of their stance, and resort to tactics of demagoguery and intimidation when criticized. All we critics are doing is taking Kerry et al at their word. They call for regime change; we're examining that call to see what they might mean, and criticize if we disagree. If we're not supposed to take them seriously about this comment, which comments are we supposed to take seriously? The man is running for president--he should understand that his words are under scrutiny by an interested public.
UPDATE: I've already been questioned on this whole thing, and whether I actually think Kerry meant changing the form of government when he said "regime change." Honestly, I have no idea what he meant. His remark could probably be excused if he wasn't merely the latest in a long series of Democrats who have said exactly the same thing, and the majority of them know exactly what the phrase means in the context of US policy vis a vis Iraq. But several Dems have used that phrase and continue to use it. Does it mean that they're advocating overthrowing the government, as opposed to merely promoting a change at the top? Probably not, but at what point have they earned the benefit of the doubt? These people were among the forefront of accusing Sen. Trent Lott of being a crypto-racist when he lauded Sen. Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat past last year. The plain meaning of Lott's words was that he supported segregation, yet it's highly unlikely that that's really what he meant. But I joined in calling for Lott to step down from his position as Senate majority leader precisely because his remarks demonstrated unsound judgement and drew unnecessary criticism to himself and his party. Kerry's remarks have done the same thing--he probably didn't mean to advocate tossing out representative democracy, yet that's the plain meaning of his words. His remarks have drawn unnecessary criticism to himself and his party, and have exposed an interesting pattern of political speech in that party. Those defending him and his remarks are actually doing him a disservice--they're defending his worst moment, and thereby giving him terrible advice as to future conduct. If I were advising Kerry, I'd tell him to issue a little mea culpa and move on. Until he does that, the content of his remarks stand, as do the connections he has drawn between himself and the liberal wing of his party and the radical anti-war movement that actually advocates regime change as we commonly understand that phrase. His defenses do him no good--they only show how weak and desperate the Democrats really are. They can dish out the heavy-handed criticism, but they obviously can't take it.
By the way, for our purposes I'm using the Webster's definition of regime, below:
2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government (a socialist regime) c : a government in power (predicted that the new regime would fall) d : a period of rule
Just so we're all on the same page.