My view on the presidential election
This November's election has inspired more passionate arguments than I have seen at any of the elections in my memory (basically since Reagan-Carter in 1980). People don't just feel strongly about one candidate, they seem to genuinely dislike the other guy, regardless of which side of the issue you are on. But for all the garbage that has been flung back and forth, I think I have broken it down to one sentence.
This presidential election is essentially a referendum on US foreign policy.
I know some people feel strongly about certain domestic issues, be they education, gay marriage, abortion, health care, the economy, the environment, and so on. But for the majority of voters, regardless of your stance on those hot button issues, your decision is going to be based on your foreign policy stance, because that is the most meaningful difference between the candidates. Allow me to explain.
EITHER you believe that US foreign policy should essentially be in the future what it has been historically. Namely we don't meddle with others if they don't meddle with us first and our primary focus should be to maintain stability in the world because our best interests are served by stable governments. This is the policy that is currently being employed by most other countries in the world and keeps us out of unnecessary conflicts that put the lives of Americans at risk. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- George Bush is a buffoon for deciding to change this policy without consulting anyone else.
- George Bush, by deciding to change this policy and focusing his energies on doing so, has been derelict in his duties domestically.
- Therefore, John Kerry is the only viable alternative.
OR you believe that the state of the world today (whether because of 9/11 or the advent of global telecommunications, or otherwise) has fundametally changed and therefore demands a more aggressive policy. This more aggressive policy states that we must be willing to intervene with other countries that are a potential threat rather just an "imminent" threat and that mere stability is not an acceptable end as much as democracy because totalitarian regimes are inherently unstable. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- John Kerry, who has stated that stability should be our primary goal in Iraq so that we can take out our troops quickly without the risk of more American lives, is making a fundamental mistake by undoing this new policy.
- George Bush, as the primary proponent of this new policy, must be given more time to implement this more fully because undoing it at this point is dangerous.
- Therefore, Bush's stance on domestic issues does not matter (even if you think they are better than Kerry's anyway)
If you think I am oversimplifying (ala GWB), consider this: How many people do you know who are in favor of the war in Iraq (which is essentially the ultimate decision that would have been made under the new policy but not under the historical one) but who are voting for Kerry based on his stance on domestic issues? Conversely, how many are voting for Bush but are against the war? I have a good friend who voted for Bush in the last election, but was against the war in Iraq before it started and is now deciding whether he will vote for Kerry or not vote at all. Pat Buchanan may not vote for John Kerry, but it's probably a safe bet he's not voting for W. Besides Joe Lieberman, I don't know of anyone on the other side.
This is also a counterintuitive conclusion because pundits always assume people vote their pocktbooks and foreign policy is not as big a determinant of that as domestic issues. But I really think this election is shattering molds. And as the Governator indicated during the RNC, I think one's stance on foreign policy is going to redefine (for the next 10 years at least) the two parties and who belongs to them.
But then again, the oldest lie on Wall Street is, "It's different this time," so who knows?
This presidential election is essentially a referendum on US foreign policy.
I know some people feel strongly about certain domestic issues, be they education, gay marriage, abortion, health care, the economy, the environment, and so on. But for the majority of voters, regardless of your stance on those hot button issues, your decision is going to be based on your foreign policy stance, because that is the most meaningful difference between the candidates. Allow me to explain.
EITHER you believe that US foreign policy should essentially be in the future what it has been historically. Namely we don't meddle with others if they don't meddle with us first and our primary focus should be to maintain stability in the world because our best interests are served by stable governments. This is the policy that is currently being employed by most other countries in the world and keeps us out of unnecessary conflicts that put the lives of Americans at risk. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- George Bush is a buffoon for deciding to change this policy without consulting anyone else.
- George Bush, by deciding to change this policy and focusing his energies on doing so, has been derelict in his duties domestically.
- Therefore, John Kerry is the only viable alternative.
OR you believe that the state of the world today (whether because of 9/11 or the advent of global telecommunications, or otherwise) has fundametally changed and therefore demands a more aggressive policy. This more aggressive policy states that we must be willing to intervene with other countries that are a potential threat rather just an "imminent" threat and that mere stability is not an acceptable end as much as democracy because totalitarian regimes are inherently unstable. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- John Kerry, who has stated that stability should be our primary goal in Iraq so that we can take out our troops quickly without the risk of more American lives, is making a fundamental mistake by undoing this new policy.
- George Bush, as the primary proponent of this new policy, must be given more time to implement this more fully because undoing it at this point is dangerous.
- Therefore, Bush's stance on domestic issues does not matter (even if you think they are better than Kerry's anyway)
If you think I am oversimplifying (ala GWB), consider this: How many people do you know who are in favor of the war in Iraq (which is essentially the ultimate decision that would have been made under the new policy but not under the historical one) but who are voting for Kerry based on his stance on domestic issues? Conversely, how many are voting for Bush but are against the war? I have a good friend who voted for Bush in the last election, but was against the war in Iraq before it started and is now deciding whether he will vote for Kerry or not vote at all. Pat Buchanan may not vote for John Kerry, but it's probably a safe bet he's not voting for W. Besides Joe Lieberman, I don't know of anyone on the other side.
This is also a counterintuitive conclusion because pundits always assume people vote their pocktbooks and foreign policy is not as big a determinant of that as domestic issues. But I really think this election is shattering molds. And as the Governator indicated during the RNC, I think one's stance on foreign policy is going to redefine (for the next 10 years at least) the two parties and who belongs to them.
But then again, the oldest lie on Wall Street is, "It's different this time," so who knows?
posted by Bronco Buddha at 1:18 PM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home