A disappointing editorial in the Boston Globe today urges presidential candidates to be more guarded and boring. Jeez, is that even possible?

The Globe is bothered by Kerry calling for “regime change in the United States” and by Dean who. while “advocating a foreign policy that relies more on diplomacy,” said that “we won’t always have the strongest military.” The Globe thinks Kerry is guilty of “bad taste” and that Dean’s explanation, although “not contradictory,” leaves him with “the task of detailing his plans for the military.”

Aarrgghh. So, Kerry should always be tasteful, and Dean shouldn’t raise the obvious and important point that the US has not entirely slipped the bonds of history?

The editorial’s reasoning is that because presidents need to choose their words carefully. “it makes sense” that presidential candidates should be held to a similarly high standard.

It doesn’t make no stinkin’ sense to me.

The Globe’s example of why a president needs to be careful is W declaring a “crusade” against Moslem terrorists and the countries that harbor them. But the words of a president when making foreign policy statements can be performative: like saying “I do” at a wedding or “I promise” to your mother, such words are events. But the words of presidential candidates are not performatives. Candidates need to be permitted to speak casually, off the cuff and from the heart — for our sakes.

So, here’s the editorial I would have written:

No more mush from the wimps

Congratulations to Kerry and Dean for speaking out. Give us more! If sometimes their words may inflame or seem intemperate, our democracy is still stronger for their overall candor and frankness. So, as a responsible newspaper, we will provide you with the context as opponents quote one another out of context. Indeed, as a society, we need to give one another the permission to speak freely, because otherwise free speech just isn’t very interesting.

Categories: Uncategorized dw