This bothers me a great deal

In a Tech Central article (via Instapundit), Forcing Democrats to 'Get Real' vs. The Spectre of Declinism, Carroll Andrew Morse discusses the practical results of supporting Kerry in the hope that it will force the Democrats to face terrorism head on. Morse discusses the two previous waves of declinism in America and describes the third wave thus:

Now, a third wave of declinism is taking shape. The new declinists, like the first wave, assume that the idea of pursuing victory is too risky to be considered -- the world is too dangerous, and outright victory over terrorism is not possible for any President. Instead, the primary function of the President should be to manage the damage created by terrorism. Kerry expressed this view in his New York Times interview with Matt Bai, saying "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance". Senator Kerry is not alone in this belief. Just one year after September 11, for example, Arthur Schlesinger wrote an op-ed where he said, "Americans can learn to live with minor terrorism, as the people of Britain, Spain, India, Ireland, Italy, Russia, Sri Lanka and most of the world have already learned to do."

I don't know about you, but the idea of sacrificing myself or my children on the altar of "managing terrorism" is not an acceptable national strategy.

It's easy for leaders and elites to think this way. They can afford the best protection (bodyguards, armored vehicles, 24 hour surviellance, etc.) in the world. For the rest of us, it's purely the luck of the draw. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, well, they'll try to capture and try your killers. If one of your children happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, well, that's an unfortunate outcome of living in a dangerous world.

Is that how you want the world of your future to be? Where you never know what lurks around the next corner and your heart leaps into your throat every time the phone rings?

Morse points out that this theory hasn't held water in the past.

Sullivan and Hitchens are correct in their assertion that winning the Presidency will give John Kerry and the Democratic Party a renewed seriousness about dealing with the security of the United States. But they are mistaken in assuming that a renewed seriousness will automatically translate into the pursuit of victory over terrorism. The office of Presidency did not make Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter, leaders honestly concerned about the security of the United States, serious about winning the primary global conflict of their era. John Kerry is the heir to that tradition. Senator Kerry and his political allies have given every indication that they would use the Presidency to turn the energies of the United States towards most effectively incorporating a constant threat of terror, a threat regarded as too dangerous to be confronted, into a permanent part of day-to-day life.

Vote for Kerry if you don't mind losing someone close to you from time to time.

Vote for Bush if you think we should kill these people before they kill us.