Politics
Lunch today was probably a pretty good harbinger of the next two months for me. As usual, I was the sole Democrat at a table full of Republicans (except for Michael who insists that he is "undecided") and the sole moderate at a table of conservatives (even Michael would probably admit that he is a conservative). Ignoring the obvious comment that, in Dallas, Texas, a very moderate person like me is constantly called a "freaky liberal" (or, as my friend in college used to call it, a "liberal pantywaist"), I have to say that the political discourse in this election is abysmal.
Actually, I suspect that the political discourse in this country has been abysmal for most of my lifetime. I remember thinking during the elections for my High School class officers that I couldn't wait to become an adult, when the elections would actually be "about" something instead of a glorified popularity contest. Now I realize that government elections are just a really glorified popularity contest.
Cynicism aside, I have been thinking about why I should vote for John Kerry. Normally, I would just point out all of the reasons why I don't like George Bush, but that's not really a satisfactory answer. So I've been pondering which issues I think are important and which I think aren't important in deciding who to vote for as President. So here's my breakdown:
Important Issues:
The environment: There are those would would have us believe that we don't really need to worry about the environment because things aren't that bad, global warming is just a myth, we have plenty of clean water and air, and corporations are doing a fine job of regulating themselves. Well...not really. As I write this I am gazing at the brown sludge-like haze that covers the Dallas skyline about 360 days out of the year. And you would be hard pressed to find a respectable climatologist who doesn't think that global warming is a reality. Yes, things are not as bleak as the "bad old days" when Lake Erie caught fire, but that's because we've had decades of clean air and water laws. Laws that are being gutted by the current administration. Bottom line: I have never talked to or heard any "ordinary" person (read: non-politician) who has said that, environmentally speaking, things are as good as we could ever expect them to be. Even my Republican friends (and I have a lot of them, I live in Dallas, remember) will only say "Things really aren't as bad as those prophets of doom make them out to be." Even if that's true (and I really don't know for sure), that's a far cry from saying that it would be OK for things to get worse. But that's exactly what the current rollback on environmental legislation is allowing.
Integrity and Charisma vs. Character: Why would I list "Character" as unimportant but think that "Charisma" is important? I'm sure that some people would think that I'm being shallow, especially since "Character" seems to be the buzzword of late 20th century and early 21st century politics. My problem with "Character" is that it's too vague. Does it mean "morality"? "determination"? "truthfulness"? Ultimately, in my experience, discussions of "Character" rapidly deteriorate into statements like "Bill Clinton has no character because he had sex with an intern in the White House" or "George Bush has character because he emerged as a stong leader following 9-11." In reality, neither of these statements are determinative factors of character. Yes, Bill Clinton showed his moral flaws in the Lewinsky matter. Yes, George Bush put on a fine, inspiration mien following the terrorists attacks. But those are just snapshots of a much, much bigger picture that involves a lot of events that are open to interpretation.
I like the term "Integrity" much more, in both senses of the word. First, in the sense of the structural soundness of a building or vessel. I want a President who will stand beside his convictions and values and make a decision based on what he or she decides is best, not based on opinion polls (bad) or what the party line is on the issue (worse). I think that Bill Clinton had this sometimes (in economic and international policies), but not in others (like gays in the military and national healthcare). Ronald Reagan had it and, as a result, molded the Republican party in his image until its bloody takeover by the religious right and the arch-conservatives. I used to think John McCain had it, and I would have voted for him because of it, but I fear that he has decided to ditch it so that he can move up in the party.
I also mean the term "Integrity" in the sense of honesty. I don't really like politicians who lie. So, I guess I really don't like politicians. When public officials make mistakes, they should admit them. When those associated with a public official act improperly, the public official should admit the misdeeds and denounce them. Have any Presidents ever done this? Not that I can remember.
Now the Charisma bit. Who cares, right? Charisma doesn't matter, does it? I think that it does. Since the advent of mass media in the late 1940s and 1950s, the worst years in terms of GDP growth have been during the presidencies of Eisenhower (1957), Nixon (1969, 1973-1974), Ford (1974), Carter (1979), Bush (1991-1992) and Bush II (2001-2002). What do all of these Presidents have in common? They are bland and uninspiring. Best presidents for GDP growth during the same period: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton. What do they have in common? Charisma. It doesn't really seem like coincidence to me.
Abortion: This is the biggest non-issue of the last 30 years, especially in a presidential race. The President can only nominate Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Senate. In order to affect Roe v. Wade, three presumptions would have to be true:
"Terrorism" v. National Security: What's the difference. Well, I don't think that we are going to wipe out terrorism, just like we haven't been able to wipe out drugs, despite our 20+ year "war" on them. Why? Because it's part of human nature. There will always be those who are willing to hurt innocent people in order to get what they want or to make a "statement". Even if we wipe out al Qaeda (or Qaeda, or whatever it's called), there will be new nuts who are willing to do extreme violence to prove their points. So how do we avoid being attacked by terrorists? By (1) maintaining sound national security through a strong, effective military and intelligence and instituting real security at potential terrorist targets, like airports, public venues, and government buildings; and (2) trying to avoid acting in ways that will cause terrorists to want to attack us.
Does that mean that we will continue to be inconvenienced by heightened security, probably for the rest of our lives? Yes. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or a liar. Get over it. The U.S. had its head in the sand on our vulnerability to terrorism for decades. I remember hearing pundits say in 1982, when I was in 6th grade, that the U.S. would one day suffer a horrible terrorist attack because we were not being sensible about security. And they were right. Go to Europe sometime and look at their security measures. What we go through right now is a joke compared to the amount of security they have over there. We need to face reality.
Immigration: As long as we are properous and free, immigrants will want to come here. The only way to stop it is to (1) turn the U.S. into an undesireable place to live or (2) make the places where they live better. Option (1) is not a good idea and Option (2) is pretty hard. Bottom line: the vast majority of immigrants, even the illegal ones, come here and work hard doing jobs that most of us don't want. Who is the guy who mows my lawn taking employment away from? Nobody. If he wasn't here, I'd do it myself. Who are the immigrants who work at McDonalds taking jobs away from? Teenagers who probably wouldn't stay in that job more than 2 months anyway. Let's get on with our lives. These people work here, earn money, and put it back into the economy, and making their presence a big issue isn't accomplishing anything.
"Big government:" What does this even mean? Apparently, "big government" includes the programs that any given party likes, but excludes the the programs that that party doesn't like. Why are education programs on George Bush's "big government" list but his SDI program isn't? This is a stupid phrase that adds nothing to the discussion of the issues.
Gay marriage: Under our Constitution as it is written right now, marriage is clearly a matter for regulation by the individual states. The only way to change it is to amend the Constitution. The President doesn't do that. In fact, the President isn't even mentioned in the amendment procedure for the Constitution. So why do the parties keep talking about it in connection with the presidential election? Beats the hell out of me.
Having decided what I think are the important issues, which candidate is the right one for me (I know that this is probably a big mystery to everyone)? Unfortunately, I'm out of time right now, so I'll have to continue this tomorrow.
Turn in tomorrow for the thrilling end to this exciting blog entry!
Actually, I suspect that the political discourse in this country has been abysmal for most of my lifetime. I remember thinking during the elections for my High School class officers that I couldn't wait to become an adult, when the elections would actually be "about" something instead of a glorified popularity contest. Now I realize that government elections are just a really glorified popularity contest.
Cynicism aside, I have been thinking about why I should vote for John Kerry. Normally, I would just point out all of the reasons why I don't like George Bush, but that's not really a satisfactory answer. So I've been pondering which issues I think are important and which I think aren't important in deciding who to vote for as President. So here's my breakdown:
Important Issues:
- Foreign policy
- The war in Iraq
- National security
- The economy
- Civil rights
- The environment
- Integrity
- Charisma
- Abortion
- "Character"
- "Terrorism"
- Immigration
- "Big government"
- Gay marriage
The environment: There are those would would have us believe that we don't really need to worry about the environment because things aren't that bad, global warming is just a myth, we have plenty of clean water and air, and corporations are doing a fine job of regulating themselves. Well...not really. As I write this I am gazing at the brown sludge-like haze that covers the Dallas skyline about 360 days out of the year. And you would be hard pressed to find a respectable climatologist who doesn't think that global warming is a reality. Yes, things are not as bleak as the "bad old days" when Lake Erie caught fire, but that's because we've had decades of clean air and water laws. Laws that are being gutted by the current administration. Bottom line: I have never talked to or heard any "ordinary" person (read: non-politician) who has said that, environmentally speaking, things are as good as we could ever expect them to be. Even my Republican friends (and I have a lot of them, I live in Dallas, remember) will only say "Things really aren't as bad as those prophets of doom make them out to be." Even if that's true (and I really don't know for sure), that's a far cry from saying that it would be OK for things to get worse. But that's exactly what the current rollback on environmental legislation is allowing.
Integrity and Charisma vs. Character: Why would I list "Character" as unimportant but think that "Charisma" is important? I'm sure that some people would think that I'm being shallow, especially since "Character" seems to be the buzzword of late 20th century and early 21st century politics. My problem with "Character" is that it's too vague. Does it mean "morality"? "determination"? "truthfulness"? Ultimately, in my experience, discussions of "Character" rapidly deteriorate into statements like "Bill Clinton has no character because he had sex with an intern in the White House" or "George Bush has character because he emerged as a stong leader following 9-11." In reality, neither of these statements are determinative factors of character. Yes, Bill Clinton showed his moral flaws in the Lewinsky matter. Yes, George Bush put on a fine, inspiration mien following the terrorists attacks. But those are just snapshots of a much, much bigger picture that involves a lot of events that are open to interpretation.
I like the term "Integrity" much more, in both senses of the word. First, in the sense of the structural soundness of a building or vessel. I want a President who will stand beside his convictions and values and make a decision based on what he or she decides is best, not based on opinion polls (bad) or what the party line is on the issue (worse). I think that Bill Clinton had this sometimes (in economic and international policies), but not in others (like gays in the military and national healthcare). Ronald Reagan had it and, as a result, molded the Republican party in his image until its bloody takeover by the religious right and the arch-conservatives. I used to think John McCain had it, and I would have voted for him because of it, but I fear that he has decided to ditch it so that he can move up in the party.
I also mean the term "Integrity" in the sense of honesty. I don't really like politicians who lie. So, I guess I really don't like politicians. When public officials make mistakes, they should admit them. When those associated with a public official act improperly, the public official should admit the misdeeds and denounce them. Have any Presidents ever done this? Not that I can remember.
Now the Charisma bit. Who cares, right? Charisma doesn't matter, does it? I think that it does. Since the advent of mass media in the late 1940s and 1950s, the worst years in terms of GDP growth have been during the presidencies of Eisenhower (1957), Nixon (1969, 1973-1974), Ford (1974), Carter (1979), Bush (1991-1992) and Bush II (2001-2002). What do all of these Presidents have in common? They are bland and uninspiring. Best presidents for GDP growth during the same period: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton. What do they have in common? Charisma. It doesn't really seem like coincidence to me.
Abortion: This is the biggest non-issue of the last 30 years, especially in a presidential race. The President can only nominate Supreme Court Justices with the approval of the Senate. In order to affect Roe v. Wade, three presumptions would have to be true:
- There are qualified nominees out there who will overturn Roe v. Wade, despite 35 years of stare decisis (a Latin term that means, "let the opinion stand")
- These nominees would be affirmed by the Senate. This would be unlikely, even in a Republican controlled senate, because most senators know that the majority of their constitutuents don't want an absolute ban on abortion.
- If these hypothetical justices were affirmed they would cast the deciding vote on the case to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justices have a nasty habit of voting their concience on issues like abortion instead of voting the way that people expect them too.
"Terrorism" v. National Security: What's the difference. Well, I don't think that we are going to wipe out terrorism, just like we haven't been able to wipe out drugs, despite our 20+ year "war" on them. Why? Because it's part of human nature. There will always be those who are willing to hurt innocent people in order to get what they want or to make a "statement". Even if we wipe out al Qaeda (or Qaeda, or whatever it's called), there will be new nuts who are willing to do extreme violence to prove their points. So how do we avoid being attacked by terrorists? By (1) maintaining sound national security through a strong, effective military and intelligence and instituting real security at potential terrorist targets, like airports, public venues, and government buildings; and (2) trying to avoid acting in ways that will cause terrorists to want to attack us.
Does that mean that we will continue to be inconvenienced by heightened security, probably for the rest of our lives? Yes. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or a liar. Get over it. The U.S. had its head in the sand on our vulnerability to terrorism for decades. I remember hearing pundits say in 1982, when I was in 6th grade, that the U.S. would one day suffer a horrible terrorist attack because we were not being sensible about security. And they were right. Go to Europe sometime and look at their security measures. What we go through right now is a joke compared to the amount of security they have over there. We need to face reality.
Immigration: As long as we are properous and free, immigrants will want to come here. The only way to stop it is to (1) turn the U.S. into an undesireable place to live or (2) make the places where they live better. Option (1) is not a good idea and Option (2) is pretty hard. Bottom line: the vast majority of immigrants, even the illegal ones, come here and work hard doing jobs that most of us don't want. Who is the guy who mows my lawn taking employment away from? Nobody. If he wasn't here, I'd do it myself. Who are the immigrants who work at McDonalds taking jobs away from? Teenagers who probably wouldn't stay in that job more than 2 months anyway. Let's get on with our lives. These people work here, earn money, and put it back into the economy, and making their presence a big issue isn't accomplishing anything.
"Big government:" What does this even mean? Apparently, "big government" includes the programs that any given party likes, but excludes the the programs that that party doesn't like. Why are education programs on George Bush's "big government" list but his SDI program isn't? This is a stupid phrase that adds nothing to the discussion of the issues.
Gay marriage: Under our Constitution as it is written right now, marriage is clearly a matter for regulation by the individual states. The only way to change it is to amend the Constitution. The President doesn't do that. In fact, the President isn't even mentioned in the amendment procedure for the Constitution. So why do the parties keep talking about it in connection with the presidential election? Beats the hell out of me.
Having decided what I think are the important issues, which candidate is the right one for me (I know that this is probably a big mystery to everyone)? Unfortunately, I'm out of time right now, so I'll have to continue this tomorrow.
Turn in tomorrow for the thrilling end to this exciting blog entry!