posted
Because newspapers, former Presidents, Hollywood actors, Scandinavian countries, and Iran can endorse candidates for the Presidency of the U.S., I figure I should too. In doing so, I certainly realize that my endorsement could make or break the election for any given candidate, so I have carefully considered all possibilities (and by "all" I mean three of four) and come to the conclusion that there is one candidate that stands head and shoulders above the others. If you are highly astute, I bet you can guess who it is....
That person is not George W. Bush. Before I go into who it is, I will explain why it is not him, and why it is critical that we do not vote back into office for another four years. This particular election is not just a matter of who will make the strongest leader, who has the most admirable character, who holds the correct viewpoints on all the issues of the day, or (worst of all) who we’d like to have a drink with on a Friday night. It is more fundamental than that. This election is a referendum on a set of ideas that are new to this country - ideas that, I believe, threaten its foundations. This set of ideas are the principles of government that the Bush administration stands for. The Bush administration has proposed these new principles as an attempt to fight a war on terror that would have been impossible under the traditional rules we abide by as America. A vote for that administration’s reelection will be, more than anything else, interpreted as an endorsement for those policies - an endorsement that will last long after Bush leaves office.
However, while changes are necessary to fight the threat of terrorism, those changes must be made with a broad and open mind, balancing out the immediate needs of fighting terrorism with the long-term dangers those changes could pose to the foundations of America, as a nation and as a world power. While it may be convenient in the short run to make certain unethical, irresponsible, or unfair changes, in the long run such choices will inevitably come back to haunt you. The Bush administration has succeeded in changing the world, but by neglecting to treat American policy with sensitivity to the complexities of our situation, it has not changed the world in a positive direction. It has bought shortsighted goals (like removing Saddam from power or giving a tax cut) with much larger long-term costs (like our credibility in the world, our fiscal stability, or our fundamental American principles.)
The set of policies I am referring to is as follows:
1. The Bush administration has pursued a strategy that encourages terrorists. By invading nations in an arrogant, unilateral, anti-diplomatic fashion without proper justification, by using openly hostile rhetoric towards the Muslim world, and by encouraging anti-American anger across the world, the Bush administration has given terrorists the support they need to strengthen their cause. There is no evidence that the terrorists are any weaker today, but there is vast evidence that their cause is more popular, as a direct result of our policies.
2. The Bush administration has endorsed the illegal invasion of sovereign nations. Bush invaded Iraq before inspectors could finish determining that Iraq had no WMDs. He did so without the endorsement of the global community. He did so without any proof positive that Iraq was an imminent threat. He invaded a sovereign power that showed no signs of attacking us, had no proven connections to Al Qaeda, and had little relevance to the War on Terror.
3. The Bush administration has adopted a policy of misleading the American people. Bush spoke time and time again to America, stating that we knew Iraq had WMDs, when doubts existed within intelligence sources and no smoking guns had emerged. He based a war on this false evidence. Then, when no weapons were found, he revealed that his truest reason for invading was not WMDs (as he had misled us to believe) but rather because he wanted to bring "freedom" to Iraq. He has also repeatedly insinuated connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that don’t exist. And he has based his political campaign on misleading the public both about his opponent’s views and misleading the public about his own claimed successes.
4. The Bush administration has allowed the infringement of human rights in the name of fighting terrorism. The administration opposed applying the accepted standards of the Geneva Convention to terrorist suspects. It encouraged the mistreatment of prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan – an encouragement that may have led to the torture of Iraqis and Afghans, some of which who were innocent.
5. The Bush administration has allowed the infringement of our liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. The Patriot Act was passed in a fit of patriotic zeal, allowing for the possibility of many different types of abuses in the vague name of "security". Innocents have been thrown into prison without just cause simply because the government had suspicions about them. They have been kept there for indefinite periods of time, extending weeks or months.
6. The Bush administration has rejected our responsibility to lead the world and has taken advantage of our power to mistreat our allies. The administration invaded Iraq without a true international coalition. It refused to allow other nations to help Iraq in an effort to give the "spoils of war" to American businesses. It has broken or refused to participate in many treaties widely accepted around the world. It has rejected participation in the International Criminal Court, trying to exempt Americans from being held responsible for any war crimes they may commit. The administration has used terminology like "Axis of Evil", "Old Europe", and “Crusade Against Evil,” angering the allies we need in order to win the War on Terror. It has shown no concern for being a good citizen of the global community. Instead, it has given the world the political version of flipping the bird.
7. The Bush administration has acted fiscally irresponsible to an extreme. It voluntarily cut taxes in a time in which we had to massively increase spending. It chose to invade Iraq at a time in which we could not afford it. The result is that we now have the largest deficit ever, and a massive debt that we may be unable to pay off without damaging our country in the future. Bush has pursed big government without the budget to pay for it. He has pursued an economic strategy that shows no more judgement than a college student with a bunch of credit cards and no idea how to refrain from using them.
8. The Bush administration has abused patriotism and 9/11 in an effort to discourage dissent. The administration has invoked the theme of terrorism to advocate it’s own agenda, and inferred that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It has used images of disaster as propaganda for it’s own reelection. It has attempted to brand opponents as being weak, unpatriotic, or likely to cause another 9/11.
9. Above all, the administration has allowed ideology to trump facts. It has pursued the neoconservative ideology of raising taxes when the facts said we could not afford it, invading Iraq when the facts did not give us reason to, favoring American interests alone when the facts of war on terror demanded otherwise. Everything seems to indicate Bush’s decisions are driven by a faith in his ideas - a faith that may have no correlation with reality, and is not altered when reality makes it necessary to do so. Confidence and faith are useful when your beliefs are sound, but they become dangerous when you are mistaken and unwilling to admit your error or change your ways.
Each of these policies is dangerous not just in the short-term policymaking of the country, but also dangerous to the long-term stability of the country. Many will result in us becoming permanently isolated in the global community, unable to fight terror on a global scale. Others will make us financially unstable. Others will endanger democracy and the constitution itself, transforming us into a nation of fear-driven fanatics, willing to truly do anything in the name of security. These policies may have allowed us to cut through the political red tape of the world and take the battle to the terrorists in the quickest, most direct way possible, but because they have neglected all the subtleties and complexities of the situation, they have made it almost inevitable that (should we continue this course) we will lose that battle, and emerge worse off than we were even on 9/11. They will make us the bad guy, and no matter how convenient being the bad guy is for achieving our short-term goals, it is the most dangerous course of action in the end.
If we endorse the newly created ideology of the Bush administration, we will endanger the foundations on which America is built - we will endanger that which makes us America. If we do that, other issues will not matter. It should trump the likeability of the candidates. It should trump political affiliations. It should even trump the viewpoints of the candidates on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, health care, jobs, affirmative action, welfare, campaign finance reform, etc. If the roots of a tree are corrupted, attending to the branches is pointless.
Thus, we cannot reelect Bush. And that leaves us with John Kerry or a third party candidate.
Why not third party candidates? In this particular election, the most reasonable third parties seem to be Independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Michael Badnarik, but both of these candidates share two problems: Firstly, they are not remotely electable. Nader, in particular, has had plenty of chances to make a case for himself. That he has not illustrates that he’s probably not going to win today or ever, and that a vote for him might be somewhat wasted if there is another decent candidate available. Secondly, and more importantly, they are both too extreme, especially in a time where the country needs unity against critical issues. Badnarik makes an effective and noble case for putting the power of government back into the hands of the people, but he proposes going too far too fast. Were he actually to be somehow elected, he would clearly not be able to do what he is promising to achieve, and it seems likely he would have difficulty drawing support from congress in any way. Nader is in a similar position.
That leaves Democrat John Kerry. Kerry is in a position to win this election, and his stated positions are by no means extreme. More importantly, however, he offers three central advantages that answer many of the most critical mistakes made by the Bush administration. These advantages are as follows:
1. Kerry promises to return diplomacy to our foreign affairs policy, and to make the war on terror a global rather than American effort. He has promised to work to build alliances rather than damage them. He has promised to make Iraq into a multilateral effort as much as possible, and he has not (unlike Bush) lost credibility in the eyes of the foreign powers we’d need to help. He has promised to use war only as a last resort. He has promised to take a broader and more long-term view of our foreign affairs – as a long-term campaign to build the trust of the war and unite them in our efforts against terrorist and other threats. This is the only way to ultimately win a war on terror and, though it may be difficult, Kerry has shown he is committed to making it a priority once again.
2. Kerry promises fiscal responsibility. He has promised to make reducing the deficit a top priority. He seems to be willing to take the political risk of not cutting taxes when we cannot afford it. He has, in the past, shown willingness to cut unnecessary programs. And as a Democrat, he is a member of the party that was able to eliminate the deficit completely before Bush came to power.
3. Most important of all, Kerry offers a more complex, sensitive, truth-based administration, rather than a simplistic, ideological, and misleading administration. In nearly everything Kerry has said, he has made this clear, if not obvious. When he comes across as boring, it is because he is trying to give a factual and reasoned argument. When he comes across as flip-flopping, it is often because he is trying to illustrate nuances in his view or in reaction to new facts. He offered, quite opposite the Bush administration, to create a ‘sensitive’ war on terror, paying attention to the subtleties of foreign politics, rather than bluntly marching through without clear plan or purpose. He has proposed significant changes to the way America fights terror, but they take into account the broader picture of how those changes can alter our role in the world in a positive, rather than negative way. He specifically called for a more cordial and less attack-based political campaign in his convention speech - a call the Republicans would not reciprocate at their own convention. He has shown a willingness to bring multiples sides into the issues, courting even John McCain to be his Vice President. He has shown a real willingness to be bipartisan. He has shown a real willingness to be multilateral. He has shown, in every respect, a real willingness to understand the complexities of America’s situation today, and a willingness to relay that complexity back to the American people.
It is for these reasons that I endorse John Kerry in 2004. It is true that he is far from the perfect leader. He has definitely spun his position in a "flip-flopping" manner. He has definitely shown that he is a politician, and has many of common drawbacks of career politicians. He can’t offer the specifics of a plan to solve all our problems any more than Bush can right now. And he doesn’t seem to be the most fun person in the world.
But these are not what should matter in this election. Kerry stands far above Bush in the most critical issues - those issues that endanger the foundations of the country. A vote for Kerry will be an endorsement for an American policy that lasts well beyond Kerry’s time in office. It will be an endorsement for complexity in thinking, truth in politics, sensitivity in foreign affairs, respect for American liberties, leadership in global politics, and a refusal to surrender American values to the threat of terrorism. This, I believe, is good enough to warrant a vote, even by itself.
posted
*applause* Yes! That is it! You expressed exactly what I wanted to express in the best terms possible. That is the exact reason why I am against Bush and for Kerry!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
