How I Will Vote This Year
I've decided that I will vote for John Kerry. This will most likely be no surprise to some, but, in honest fact, it is a decision I've come to only in the last few days. I'll admit that I'm voting more with the purpose of removing Bush than installing Kerry. Not that I dislike Kerry. I would even say that I'm on the positive side of ambivalent, which, if you know me, is pretty good. But I think Bush has made enough mistakes for one presidency and I am hoping that his time has come.
Before I explain myself, here is some background: There are a small number of issues that I care about when it comes to electing the president, maybe five on which I usually base my voting. These are roughly based on areas where I perceive the president to have real influence. The ones that immediately come to mind are foreign policy, taxes/social services, the environment, abortion, and education.
I've got a bit to say on each of these categories and a die-hard Republican reader or two who will most likely provide you with a vociferously opposing view. Make some popcorn, turn off the TV and stick around for the fun...
9 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey Peter,
Good thoughts and i appreciate your list of issues that you care about...I would hold a similar list...
I have stumbled across some global polls about the election and what the world thinks...it is astounding how united the rest of the world is on their dislike of GW. Why do you think this doesn't seem to matter for Americans? Big question, I know...
Hey Matt
As someone who likely fits into your category of people who aren't worried about the world vote, maybe I could give my perspective. Though as this is a wee bit late, you likely won't see it.
Basically, the world has not recently gone bad. It's been messed up for a very long time, and still is messed up in certain parts of the world in ways which were started long before America came onto the global scene. I look around and I look at history and I wonder not about the world's opinion in the present, but what the various parts in the world have done.
America is what it is because after decades of isolationism we were drawn out. Even after WWI we wanted to withdraw back into our shell. But WWII came and we spent almost 300,000 American lives because the Europeans couldn't work things out. Finally, now, we're fed up with it.
We don't worry about global opinion because for the most part Americans don't think anyone else has a better grasp on what to do than we do. We think we are doing the right thing, and those that disagree we think are wrong. Like they think we're wrong. Our success and power in this moment of history suggests (though certainly does not demand) that our methods are better.
I also think we don't care because we know that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of American motives, and a bias in foreign presses in how we are portrayed.
And, more arrogantly, I think we don't care because we Americans are a proud people. What we do, and what we have done has put us on the top, left us as the sole superpower. It is like expecting a succesful investor to take economic advice from a bankrupt businessman. We see our position and trust that our instincts have gotten us here.
We act much as our Westerns portray us... using often irregular means to insist on justice in an unjust environment. So, of course we mess up. But what's the alternative? What we started with? The world demands that we as a superpower act, but disagrees with how we act. But now that they've invited us onto the stage, we get feisty when they then want to manage us as their puppets.
Personally, I think that after the election is a great time to continue this kind of conversation. Electoral politics is always messy, and gets in the way of a good dialogue. Hopefully, these kinds of insightful and substantial posts as on this page can continue even if we don't have to now choose who is going to lead the country.
"We don't worry about global opinion because for the most part Americans don't think anyone else has a better grasp on what to do than we do."That's exactly it. And history is littered with kings and world leaders who thought they knew better than anyone else. If just about EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD is telling you you're making the wrong decision, shouldn't that make you pause just a little bit?
"It is like expecting a succesful investor to take economic advice from a bankrupt businessman."I would expect there are a significant number of countries whose citizens would take issue with being characterized as "bankrupt businessmen." Being the biggest and the loudest and having the biggest bombs strike me as a peculiarly American criteria for success.
I would argue (with countries like Switzerland and Norway) that caring for your citizens, maintaining a high standard of living for all and being at peace with your neighbors is a much more honorable and sustainable success. And, then there's always that inconvenient Apostle Paul going off about that "make every effort to live at peace with all men" theory of his.
Remember that the Apostle Paul got decapitated.
More in a bit.
Of course it should make you pause, and consider, and wrestle with the reality. But simply because the world says something doesn't mean they are right. History is indeed littered with kings and world leaders, from the very places you want us now to listen to.
And, it's not everyone. Putin, curiously, supported Bush. Blair risked his entire political career on America. Berlusconi, and others all jumped on board. Yeah, we had trouble convincing some populaces. That's an issue, but an issue to be resolved exactly like Reagan resolved it.
He was despised, absolutely hated around the world. But, had a lovely funeral because it turned out the way to peace was through a surprising path. Same here. They didn't trust Reagan, only those in Europe couldn't protest as much because the real evil was on the other side of the wall.
Norway and Switzerland are interesting examples. I doubt anyone in the world would let us enact the kinds of measures they use to keep themselves neutral. And we tried it. Early 20th century we were just like those two. Until it turns out that there the world called us out. So now we're out, and when the folks who caused the problems and couldn't fix a thing require our help we go to help in a way which solves the problems.
I imagine citizens would take issue with my characterization. But, let's look at the foreign policies and the history of their success. Europe exists as a peaceful continent for the sole reason of American military power showing a massive presence in their countries since WWII. Switzerland exists because America first stopped Germany, and later stopped the USSR. Germany exists as a country able to argue with us, because we still have a massive military presence. They are allowed to do what they do because we do what we do.
But, they ignore this reality and think it was purely because of their own isolated success. And they also reject any other place in the world finding the same kind of success. Europe and Asia were significantly more challenging than the middle East, the Europeans were significantly more brutal than the Iraqis.
We stopped them, and forced them down a different path. Now, the world is against us because we think other evils around the world should be stopped.
The fact is that everyone in the world is a selfish bastard, looking out for their own promotion. We look to our interests and ignore the world because they could care less about our success.
Oh... having a society where people live in peace, and have challenging but successful elections, and are able to have good paying jobs, thriving families, and not be in constant fear of corrupt authorities raping and maiming is the US model of success. Success to us is freedom, and while it would be a lovely world if all leaders thought the same, many don't.
Europe simply would rather be left alone to selfishly enjoy their success. The US learned that it is impossible to enjoy this kind of success without having the whole world have a part in it. So, we do what we can, because the world, at its core, insists that we do.
Here's a good use of the imagination, by the way. Imagine, if you will, America was like Norway and Switzerland, if we stayed neutral through WWII, and had not a single bit of military presence anywhere outside our borders.
Take a moment. Go through your inventory of geopolitical history over the last fifty years to the present.
Is the world better or worse off?
Honestly, what do you think.
Most Americans think the World is better off because at any given moment in time we defied Global opinion to help another part of the world. That is why Americans, in general, aren't bothered by world opinion. If the world would have been better off with our taking the route of Norway and Switzerland, then maybe the 51% of us are wrong.
If you'll notice, I am not arguing that we should become Norway II. I am suggesting that we would do well to consider some of their basic values, which strike me as more honorable and more Christian than the ones we seem to have adopted.
And, of course, I am also not suggesting here that we remain neutral and withdrawn from the world. We are long past the time when it was possible to maintain an isolationist agenda. In fact, the problem i see with GWB is that he thinks like an isolationist but acts globally.
And, finally, you're not going to get anywhere with me by comparing WWII with Iraq. Vastly different dictator. Vastly different world opinion and situation.
Ah, I didn't notice that. But, I stand by the fact that Norway can pursue it's values because we have ours. We were a strong shield, a mighty wall, behind which they could recover from being occupied by Germany, and kept from being occupied by the Soviets. I think given the size of our nation and related problems we do a good job. Of course it can be better. Though Norway also has the benefit of a very small population and a whole lotta oil.
Of course, Norway has a very strong state Church, so maybe that's the answer. I do know that their oil revenue vs. population, and very extreme immigration restrictions gives them a huge amount of cash per person. They do not need much of a military, because of us, so they can shift their money towards different values. But, unlike us they aren't too accepting of anyone else sharing the wealth.
I think I agree with you on the Bush being an isolationist who acts globally. But, I see this as a bit of a Western tendency to go out an settle the neighborhood so that he can rest at home. Bush, in 2000, was totally an isolationist. The terrorists, like Japan did earlier, knocked him out of it. This partially explains that while I agree we ultimately did the right things, someone more globally minded may (may I say, given the apparent corruption involved) have gotten some more support.
With WWII I guess we'll have to disagree. I see Iraq as being not like WWII as it was but as it may have been had the leaders not coddled Hitler. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and Iran, and the Saudis called us in so he would't take over. He, unlike Hitler, was resrained, but he would have burst out at the soonest chance.
The core of the disagreement with this is the fact that you do care about global opinion, so of course you will disagree with the perspectives of those that do not. I was just answering why people wouldn't care, if it seems logical to care.
I certainly could never convince you. Though, I was heartened to see that the Amish in Ohio apparently went quite strong for GWB. Maybe there's hope in that blood of yours after all.
And I guarantee, if I'm wrong about my assumptions this time around, and this turns out to be another 1994 Republican win where they leap into lunacy, I certainly will consider voting for Dem in 2008.
Post a Comment
<< Home