posted
This election should not be about who is more patriotic, or who you'd rather go have a beer with, or who flip-flops more, or who is less of a politician, or who is more angry at the terrorists, or who is "tougher", or whose military record is more suspect, or what people were doing 30 years ago, or who voted more against the military, or who fits under which labels, or who has a better campaign. These are all very bad reasons to select George Bush to be president, and if I hadn't heard them coming from actual Bush voters I would consider them strawman arguments. Why must his supporters float such poor explanations for their choice so often? I am not a Bush supporter, but it seems to me there is a defensible reason to vote for Bush, even though it seems to be drowned out by all the other conservative and neoconservative noise. Bush supporters rarely seem to give a reasoned explanation as to why his views could be right. Bush himself doesn't even do it, more than just short catch phrases and rhetoric. So, I'm going to do it for him.
But first some clarifications...
The Iraq War was not about getting oil for Bush. Bush is not a total idiot. Cheney is not a puppet of Halliburton. Bush cares about more than the richest 1% of the population. There's no reason to believe Bush is a racist. Cheney isn't the real president. Karl Rove isn't the real president. Stuttering doesn't make one unfit to be president. Neither does scowling. Bush really did serve in the military. Bush's alcoholism is an issue of the past. The Bush family is not conspiring with the Bin Laden family. Bush does not want a totalitarian state. Bush is not Hitler. Bush is not evil. Bush really did win the election of 2000.
These are not real issues - or, at least, they shouldn't be. The real issue is how effective the policies of this administration have been, how effective their future policies will be, and whether Bush is the man who can best solve the problems facing the Presidency. First and foremost among those problems today, at least among those that the President has the power to effectively deal with, is our international security - terrorism, wars, and foreign affairs. It is on these grounds, I believe, that the best argument for Bush rests - it is on these grounds that his supporters should be supporting him, and it is on these grounds that his opponents should be attempting to refute him.
When I was in shop class in middle school, we had a project in which we had to build a bridge capable of holding as much weight as possible, using only a few pieces of balsa wood. It was a contest. Whoever built the bridge that could hold the most weight would win. Designs were varied and complex - most included slicing up the balsa wood into a series of pieces and gluing them together into triangular or diamond-shaped formations. The idea was to distribute the weight across all the beams in a balanced in well-planned fashion - that whoever did this the best would win.
All of those bridges failed. Many broke immediately. Instead, my partner and I won, using a very different plan. We made no complicated designs, and we didn't try to distribute weight at all. Instead we just glued all the pieces of balsa wood, unaltered, together side-to-side to make one thicker piece of balsa wood. There was nothing to it at all - and our bridge held the most weight. The idea behind it was that, although the complex plans of the other students would work in theory, they would not work in practice. Because every joint could destroy the whole bridge if it was made poorly, every single part of the complicated designs had to be done exactly right for the bridge to hold. Nobody had the shop skills to achieve that. Our bridge, however, had no joints because it was so simple, and thus offered few possibilities for error.
The moral of the story is this: Complicated plans may work well in theory, but every level of complexity adds another possible weak spot. A single strong beam is far more effective than a multitude of weak ones.
John Kerry's plan for fighting terrorism and for America in general is much like those more complicated bridges. They sound good in theory, but they are based on a faith in many many different junctures - the failing of any of which could collapse the entire policy. Kerry's policy is based on trust in France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China, and even nations like Iran and Syria. Kerry's policy is dependent on the U.N. to act reasonably. Kerry's policy is dependent on every law enforcement agency in the country working right - any break in the system could let terrorists in. And Kerry's policy is dependent on our intellegence and understanding of our enemies being correct. If a senstive war on terror is going to work, we must be capable of being sensitive enough to understand how the world will react to our actions. If we misjudge, the plan fails.
Bush points to the past to illustrate that this is insufficient. We have taken a sensitive approach to the Middle East for decades, and look where it has gotten us. We carefully balanced powers, propped up regimes, and avoided any outbreak of war, yet there is still no peace in the middle east. Not only is there no peace, but the middle eastern people have come to resent us - they have come to attack us.
The Bush strategy is to cut through the red tape of our foreign affairs policy with a simpler, more direct strategy. Instead of relying on a thousand different things, we rely on one - ourselves. And in doing so, we are able to change things. We can begin working towards better regimes in the region. We can begin working on eliminating the threats of the region. And we can slowly work towards the eliminating the one thing that is most angering the terrorists - our need to control the region. Already we have been able to remove the troops from Saudi Arabis that have been so despised. By taking bold action, we put these things into motion in a way that we never could before.
The overarching goal is clear: Acting to transform the world overseas is the only way to ultimately destroy terrorism. Sitting at home will do nothing. We know with quite a bit of certainty that we can, at best, provide an incomplete defense. There will always be holes, and the terrorists will eventually slip though. Eventually there will be an attack - probably a big one. And simply killing terrorists also achieves little. More terrorists are being trained every day to replace the ones we kill. As long as the Islamic world is in a state that encourages terrorism, terrorists will be produced. Only through transformation of that world can we change things - only by changing the political climate can the Middle East grow flowers rather than weeds.
And only through blunt, direct, clear, American action can we achieve this, according to Bush.
Why not a more sensitive approach? Because that is what we've tried. We've tried to rely on the U.N. We've tried to be nice to everyone and make everyone happy. We've tried to balance powers. We've tried to tread lightly on the Middle East. And it has all failed. The sensitive bridge to a solution has collapsed - we need a more fundamentally sound one - we need a more direct and effective design for the war on terror. We need to rely on America, because we know we are motivated to get the job done, once and for all.
This is the argument for Bush, as I see it. It is a vision of transforming the world in a way we were incapable of doing under our previous standards. It is a plan of direct and potentially harsh action that will nevertheless ensure that the needed change begins. If people are going for Bush, I wish they would do it because they believe in this vision - not because they'd like to have a beer with Bush in a bar, or because they always vote Republican, or because they've bought into Karl Rove's attacks, or because they want a more religious leader, or because they can't stand anyone who is pro-choice, or any reason along those lines. This is the definitive vision of the Bush administration - a world transformed through a brand of American action we have never before seen in recent history.
And at the same time, if we are going to oppose Bush's reelection, we should be able to justify with real reasons on these grounds - not because we won't vote for any conservative, or because he "stole" the election in 2000, or because we believe this stuff about corporations owning Bush, or because we buy the rhetoric we see in ads or films, or because we think he is a moron. None of those are very strong arguments against him. If there is a reason not to vote Bush back, it should be because we disagree with his central vision - his best argument for his own reelection.
posted
I'm against him because his policies bother me. Mostly it's his domestic policies that disturb me, but something about his international policies disturb me as well. I am ignorant, I don't know nearly enough about politics but something about his central vision seems to wrong to me. I can't really describe it properly using intellectual terms that would make SENSE, but it seems like the wrong approach. This and things like trying to weaken section 8 housing, weakening meat inspection laws, environmental practices, the same-sex marriage amendment, large tax cuts for the wealthy during a war, the war in general, poorly planned and executed through my limited eyes all make me weary of Bush. His way seems to be to slap a bandange on a gaping wound and declare it healed, fixed, when there's still bones jutting out of it and so many things that are wrong, and yet he will still, no matter what anyone says try to tell you it is fixed and ok and somehow I don't buy it. Kerry is no Iorek Byrnison unfortunetly, but, he seems to have a pretty good plan, he's just... not what I want as a president. I want some white knight who will gallap on a white horse and will be strong, firm and wise. I want a sort of person that doesn't exist in politics these days. But, what is there to do but vote and hope for the best and maybe one day get involved, contribute something and do more than just complain about how much politics frustrates me?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm voting against Bush for the following three reasons:
1. I do not think we should have gone to war in Iraq. If we did go to war in Iraq, I do not the think we should have conducted the pre-war stuff the way we did. If we did go to war and conduct the pre-war stuff that way, I do not think we should have had such a shaky plan for what happens next. So I cannot vote for Bush based on practical leadership skills.
2. I think the reasons that convinced Bush to go to war were not the reasons that were presented to us as the reasons to go to war. I don't appreciate being lied to, and if I'm going to be part of something as big as going to war, I want my leaders to be honest about their motivations. I don't believe that Bush was, and I doubt we'll ever the real reason for the war, much less the haste. So, cannot vote for him based on character.
3. I voted for him the first time, based on the best I knew then. If I vote for him again, that's like putting my stamp of approval on what he did, which means I would be morally culpable for the wrongs I believe have occurred. We have thrown away our moral authority. I cannot vote for him based on his immoral use of power.
Of the field that is left, I'm not real thrilled by anyone, but Kerry has the most experience. I don't know that he will do a wildly better job, but Bush got his chance and is not getting another one. Vote for Kerry.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could never bring myself to vote for bush, he treats the people like fools. Every speech he has made sense 9/11 has been "we fight for freedom the terrorists hate us because they hate freedom" or "America=good" bullshit. I would never vote for a president who thinks more about manipulating the public into not fighting his terrible decisions (really its just that he does such a poor job of it that pisses me off...everyone does it). bush has removed the environmental safeties off of the oil refineries, he gives pocket change to research for alternate fuels (hydrogen cell prototype are actually in existence however they are working on a way to make them without the use of platinum as it is very expensive). If there is a problem he throws money at it...unfortunately he doesn’t through nearly enough money and comes up with some half asses plan. He created no child left behind, as someone who has had to go through that I can tell you it is not a good thing, many of my friends who are teachers call it in jest the "no test left behind" as all it is is a series of "benchmark" tests that are essentially the TAXS test for the end of the year during different times in the year. This takes an entire day each time for each class and they are completely useless. Bush says they are to let the parents and teachers know how their kids are doing. Well parents never see them, most of the time students don’t see them. Whoever devised the system came up with a new answer document that we don’t have a machine to grade so the students have to put in their own scores manually into the computer which takes yet another day. Not that it really matters with the state are schools are in, the tests are a joke and most students simply bubble in random answers because the test is ridiculous. The curriculum is defined to the letter so our underpaid teachers can’t teach they way they want, and yet the whole thing is dumped down so you learn nothing. No child left behind. I have yet to meet one who hasn’t been left behind.
now after saying all this about bush (noticed I avoided the completely unwarranted war in Iraq when there where countless other countries that made more sense to invade if we really needed our attention somewhere other than Afghanistan. as well as everything else he is openly criticized for. though he has been christened by many as the worst environmental president ever...not surprising I suppose seeing as he ran an oil company of his own, except he couldn’t keep it afloat for very long and it went under)
the final thing that steers me away from bush, and for me this is a big one, is that he is a Evangeline born again christen, for those of you not familiar with those beliefs I suggests you look it up, though the fact that it entails a belief that you go to hell if you are not a christen and do not find your way through Jesus Christ. But he also believes that Christ well be born again and that certain world events need to be in place before that can happen (I believe that one of them is that the Jews must be in control of Jerusalem and other such things…it is very dangerous to have someone with these types of beliefs in such a powerful office…even more so if he is waging unwarranted wars throughout the world. This is not why his beliefs worry my. It worries me because he is leading a country that is very religiously diverse and he is often making decisions for them, these decisions are often based on his religious beliefs (stem cell research and abortion for example) and he has no right to make those choices for such a religiously divers nation. I believe that in an interview he mentioned something about god telling him to go to war with Iraq and that he was the savior (another belief that ties into the Evangeline system of beliefs is that god speaks directly to you)
there is so much I can say about bush but it wont do any good so onto Kerry.
I am not a Kerry fan. Kerry is not a great choice but he does surpass bush. The man concern I have about Kerry is that he seems to believe that he can both fix our budget problems and yet his answer to every question seems to be I well give it more money/sufficient funding. Now I realize that bush has thrown way to little money in places just to get people to shut up and that he is still spending billions in places where it isn’t needed...but how is Kerry going to do that?
the other problem I have is that Kerry well not fight for the war in Iraq, and as mislead as it was he needs to do a little more than calm things down and get out of there...I think he well do this however I do not think he well do it well. I do however think he well does it better than bush.
I would now like to take this opportunity to address what Orson said about Kerry, that he wouldn’t vote for a president who had committed to loosing this war. Kerry did not commit to loosing it he committed to getting us out of it. He said what he believed which is "wrong place, wrong war, and wrong time" and he was right. I admire that he said what he believed was right even though I think it well probably end up loosing him the election. it worries me though, because he has in a sense condemned the war to be our responsibility and ours only (though in truth it was us that started it and us that said we would go in despite whatever the U.N. decided...which took a great deal of the power which it had built up away...so I suppose in a sense it is right for us to have to have to clean up our mess alone, though I'm sure we well keep our alliances and no one well back out because of a change in presidents.
Kerry has some head on his shoulders and that is why I well vote for him.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there is a reason not to vote Bush back, it should be because we disagree with his central vision - his best argument for his own reelection.
I'm confused. Are you actually saying that we should only judge Bush on the topics he says are most important? Shouldn't we make that decision for ourselves? As Synesthesia and chase have pointed out, Bush's domestic policies are just as suspect as his actions overseas. Don't we have the right/responsibility to take these into consideration as well?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if I totally ignore the situation in Iraq there are several reasons why I won't vote for Bush. These are of course, my own opinion, but here they are.
Bush's (lack of) environmental policies. I don't think drilling the Artic Refuge is an acceptable idea. My reason is twofold - one, it's a refuge, for pete's sake, and two, our resources need to be spent on developing and maintaining alternate energy sources, not continuing to wreck the environment for fossil fuels.
Bush's stance on abortion. He's too pro-life for me. I don't want women to get abortions, but I think until we put enough education and measures in place that jerking Roe v. Wade is a recipe for disaster.
Bush's support of prayer in schools. The man makes me nervous. I don't think he seperates church and state as well as he should. Along with this goes his policies on gay marriage. Now, I realize that Kerry doesn't "support" gay marriage either, but I feel he is much more sympathetic to homosexual rights issues. space opera
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
In all Texas schools it is mandatory that every child must say the pledge of allegiance. I don’t mind the under god part...if it bothers you to have someone say under god around you, you have serius issues. But it’s mandatory, every child must say it or risk being taken to court (they must also say the Texas pledge). I personally do not think this is right. I have no problem with it being said in school, but for every child to be forced to say it...I don't know it just seems that it’s taking a step backwards, I find it hard to have faith in an entity that forces faith in it upon you.
a nation should earn your faith and respect, not require it.
quote:if it bothers you to have someone say under god around you, you have serius issues. But it’s mandatory, every child must say it or risk being taken to court
A: You should actually study the reasons why people object to "under God". Open discrimination against atheists and government promotion of religion...that sort of thing.
B: No child is forced to recite the Pledge. If they choose not to say it, they can choose to either listen, or ostracize themselves and leave the room.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: A: You should actually study the reasons why people object to "under God". Open discrimination against atheists and government promotion of religion...that sort of thing.
its fine if they object to saying it. but to having it said? thats what I was refering to. it probably should be taken out of the pledge of alliegiance as we are not an entirly Christian country, I was simply stating that my reasons for objecting to it had nothing to do with under god.
quote: B: No child is forced to recite the Pledge. If they choose not to say it, they can choose to either listen, or ostracize themselves and leave the room.
no last year it was made mandatory, a letter must be written by your parrents and taken to the counceler inorder to get out of it.
posted
I think that when people pick their candidate, there are always two or three main issues of the heart that they must agree/disagree with that candidate on.
As a Radical High Centerist, I attempt to imagine and understand the directions that God would like us to go as a human race.
Bush is at the oppositte spectrums on my main Issues in this Election.
--- War and Wealth ---
I believe that Jesus was a magical empathist. His ability for empathy was GREAT, he could feel everything, He could look into peoples eyes and feel their actual lives. He wills for harmony and joy, glory and grace for all God's children.
This is why Jesus is the King of Kings and Prince of Peace. He wants harmony and joy, glory and grace for all God's children.
A man who is of the Path of Christ must avoid killing another man at all cost, and the taking of a life may only be done in the Gravest and most Serious of situtations, it must only be done as a TOTAL LAST RESORT.
George W. Bush does not give me any indication that he believes this or feels this.
Since our Invasion of Iraq 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. If you piled the bodies together that would be a mass grave.
If these 100,000 people asked to give their lives for "freedom" that is one thing, but for them to unwillingly sacrafice their life so Bush and his Cabinet can Force American Freedom onto their Nation is bizarre and scary.
I cannot support a man who is so quick and easy to go to war.
--- WEALTH ---
Jesus was not a man who spoke at the Richest of Chruches, he walked amongst the poor. Jesus did not surround him self with wealth and posessions, He surrounded himself with God, Friends, The Word and People.
I do not at all for the life of me under stand how any Christian man can stand for TaX CuTs for Billionaires.
When our nation was founded, it was supposed to be built on a nation of checks and balances, but capitalism has been stronger than any checks and balances system.
To allow a very, very small percentage of individuals to control the main portions of Wealth and Land is not a free society.
How can you choose to give a single man who owns 30$$$$ BILLION dollars in wealth MORE wealth when BILLIONS of people are starving everyday?
Bush believes making rich people richer is better for America.
No.
No Way.
Those are the main two reasons I will not vote for Bush and have spoke out against him.
posted
Committing to getting out of this war as quickly as possible is a committment to drastically hurt this country. We are committed to this war, and we can't just erase what we've done. We have to stick with it.
Posts: 550 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, while I don't agree with you that the war on terror is the only issue in this election, or that it's the only criterion on which Bush should be judged, I do admire the fair-minded presentation you've given to a set of ideas that I know are anathema to you. This is the sort of thinking that all people of good faith should bring to political decision-making.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: it probably should be taken out of the constitution as we are not an entirly cathlic country
o_O Um... wow. First, the Pledge of Allegiance isn't in the Constitution. And second, what does being Catholic have to do with it? As far as I know, God is an idea that all Christian denominations have in common.
quote: B: No child is forced to recite the Pledge. If they choose not to say it, they can choose to either listen, or ostracize themselves and leave the room.
quote:I missed the part in the gospels where Jesus took money from rich people by force and redistributed it to the poor.
That's a good zinger, Dag. I don't agree with the sentiment, but I must acknowledge the wit.
Of course Jesus would never have done anything by force. This has always been one of my misgivings about the WWJD movement -- its members must either be hypocrites or very naive pacifists.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." - Jesus Christ
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: o_O Um... wow. First, the Pledge of Allegiance isn't in the Constitution. And second, what does being Catholic have to do with it? As far as I know, God is an idea that all Christian denominations have in common.
sorry that was a typo. I well correct it.
thank you for posting that Rappin
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, isn't it a bit worse to take money from the poor and give it to the rich? Like cutting programs that would prevent poverty such as section 8 housing, rehab for the poor, food stamps and claiming in a Victorian fashion that people are poor because they don't want to work. I can't help but feel that uncontrolled capitalism is contrary to Christianity. I don't believe in running to these people's houses and grabbing money from them and throwing it at a group of waiting poor people, but, it would still be a cool thing to do. But, I do believe these people should pay their taxes like everyone else and not use loop holes or anything like that, they should give back to their community. They would not be wealthy in the first place without the people who work for them and buy their products.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, I know writing that wasn't easy for you, but thanks for posting a sensible, down-to-earth look at one of the biggest issues of this election.
You'd make one heck of a journalist.
That was incredibly well-thought out, without any spin and probably more on the money than most of the analysis we ever get.
And in the end, it leaves the question, the real question that we need to answer before we leave the voting booth -- is this going to be the best course of action for our country to take or will a more complex solution be the one?
I am still waivering in my decision for certain on who will get my vote.
Would you mind doing one on the same subject for the Democrat's plan? Just as even-handedly as you've done this one?
I can't say it would sway my vote one way or the other, but it is refreshing to see someone do it this well.
My respect for you has grown.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Awesome post. I do not think I could have said my reasons for voting Bush any better than that. I also agree with Bush's domestic positions on just about every single issue. Are there some things I would like to see done differently? Of course there are. But Kerry does not even pretend to agree with anything I like to see in domestic policy.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Bok.
