TALLAHASSEE - In the nation that supposedly has the world's greatest health care system, millions of people will be sick and thousands will die this winter for lack of the flu shots they were ready, willing and eager to receive. The economy, it was estimated last week, will take a $20-billion hit.
Osama bin Laden must be wishing he had caused it.
In the only First World country without national health insurance - which, God forbid, would result in "rationing" - members of Congress can get flu shots, no questions asked, but elderly patients who called their doctors were told to get to the grocery store before dawn and stand in line. The vaccine ran out, of course, before the lines did.
So here is the question: Was it "liberal" or "conservative" to rely on only two manufacturers, when 10 years ago there were five?
Neither. It was mindless.
The flu fiasco is hardly the only current issue to which those exhausted buzzwords are irrelevant.
Is it "liberal" or "conservative" to be fighting a war and pocketing tax cuts for which our children and grandchildren will have to pay?
Neither. It is irresponsible.
Was it "liberal" or "conservative" to launch that war on dubious intelligence and rash presumptions, and to do it without sufficient troops or the equipment to protect them?
Neither. It was reckless.
Is it "liberal" or "conservative" to be waiting until Swiss reinsurers redline all our shores before conceding the existence of global warming?
Neither. It is senseless.
Is it "liberal" or "conservative" to spend billions of dollars deploying an untested missile defense when the clear and present danger is a dirty bomb inside an uninspected shipping container?
Neither. It is insane.
Is it "liberal" or "conservative" to be exhausting the reserve components as if they were regular Army divisions because the public wouldn't stand for a draft?
Neither. It is cynically expedient.
Is it "liberal" or "conservative" for someone who became head of government by the skin of his teeth to wield power as if he had been unopposed?
Neither. It is ruthless.
Is a president who would do these things "liberal" or "conservative?"
Neither. He is an extremist.
Karl Rove's favorite labels are as meaningless in this election as George W. Bush's pledge to be a compassionate conservative who would unite the nation, not divide it. We have not had a president who was so radically unconservative and divisive.
Genuine conservatives are the consistent kind who don't need the adjectives "social" or "economic" to qualify their conservatism. They're the threatened species, found most often in a New England habitat, who believe in a balanced budget, self-restraint in foreign affairs, a decent respect for individual privacy, protecting the environment and moderation in all things.
It's difficult, to be sure, for voters to come to grips with current realities when the side that's to blame for them uses its vast advantages in money, incumbency and access to corporate media to simplify the election as an easy choice between evil "liberals" and righteous "conservatives."
An excellent treatment of the snow job in its historical context is Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas? Middle Americans have nothing to show for their new Republican loyalty, he argues, but "lower wages, more dangerous jobs, dirtier air (and) a new overlord class." Commentators as conservative as Pat Buchanan and the Tampa Tribune's editorial board have outdone the liberal side in documenting how there is nothing conservative about the Bush administration except its positions on certain social issues.
(What happened at the Tribune is easily read between the lines. A majority of the editorial board wanted to endorse Kerry, but Media General headquarters at Richmond said no. The compromise was to recommend neither.)
It was a prominent social conservative, Pat Robertson, who confirmed last week what many had suspected: Bush attacked Iraq in the bizarre belief there would be no U.S. casualties. God told Robertson there would be. Common sense could have told Bush the same, as his generals tried to.
If you agree with Buchanan that none of the rest matters as much as reversing Roe vs. Wade - which is unlikely no matter who is president so long as the Senate has filibusters - then Bush is your plausible choice.
If you agree with the Tribune that Bush is a failed president but you can't bring yourself to like Kerry, it takes a little thought.
You can, of course, vote for Nader, but at the end of the day, Bush or Kerry will be president.
Bush betrayed the public's confidence. Though Kerry still needs to earn it, it defies belief that he could do as badly, let alone worse.
