For whom should I vote? (part 1 of 2)


This is the first of two blog entries that I will write, outlining the process by which I have decided for whom to vote come November 2. In this entry, I will describe the arguments for and against placing my vote for President George W. Bush.

I admit it: I didn't vote for Bush in the year 2000. I went to bed before any final decision on election night had been declared, but when my roommate opened my bedroom door at about 3 am to inform me that Bush had won, my response was a single-word expletive that is best not suited to this forum.

But on that same token, my vote for Gore was the first one in my voting life where I actually voted against a candidate, rather than for one. Gore did not inspire me, and, if I were to have cast my vote on the basis of who ran the better campaign (rather than on the actual issues) Bush would have received my vote.

I think the best place to start is the discussion of willingness to compromise. To be willing to see both arguments to an issue, and occasionally appease neither side. Even when I disagree with the net result, I will never fault someone who seeks to achieve a compromise between two diametrically opposed sides. Bill Clinton was roundly criticized for his compromise on gays in the military, resulting in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. On the one hand, there was a side that was by and large unwilling to change at all, and another side that wanted the policy completely thrown out. Clinton offended both sides with the compromise. That he was able to achieve this compromise is a good thing, and, for those who wanted the old policy completely thrown out, it can always be seen as a reasonable first step.

In Bush's entire term to date, he has shown a willingness to compromise with any seriousness on exactly one issue: stem-cell research. On the one hand, you had the "religious right" asking for an all-out ban on federal funding of this kind of scientific research. On the other hand, you had the community of people who see reason for hope in this kind of research to cure diseases of all sorts. Advocates ranged from Nancy Reagan, whose husband died of Alzheimer's Disease in June of this year, to Christopher Reeve, paralyzed from the neck down in a horse riding accident nine years ago, and who passed away yesterday.

Bush struck a compromise: limit federal funds for research only to those lines of stem cells that we currently have, with no funding on new stem cells.

Although I, personally, side with those who would prefer to allow the government to fund all scientific research to the extent that it is requested, I do not fault him for this compromise. Unfortunately, this is the only noteworthy example of compromise (outside of spending bills and the scope of directed tax cuts) in his term.

It is impossible to discuss the Bush administration without mentioning the response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In a time of tragedy, we expect our leaders to be there with words of compassion and consolation. In my lifetime, the two most noteworthy such speeches were the ones given by Ronald Reagan on January 28, 1986 after the space shuttle Challenger exploded, and by Bill Clinton on April 19, 1995, after the bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Although both of those events were tragedies, they pale in comparison to the scope and emotional need resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, and once again, we, the people, looked to our leader for words of strength and comfort.

Unfortunately, we got a president who was whisked around the country, with the news media being fed the brazenly unbelievable information that someone had access to the secret codes for Air Force One. I realize that the Secret Service might have been more in charge of Bush's whereabouts for the better part of that day, than he himself was. But I have little doubt that he could have put his foot down and said to at least take him back to Camp David. When compared with all of the members of congress standing on the steps of the Capitol singing "God Bless America," Bush looked more cowardly than like a leader.

To be fair, he had the opportunity to right perceived wrongs by his speech to the nation that evening. There are three aspects to his speech where I find complete and total fault. First is the still-repeated platitude that the terrorists who attacked us "hate us for our freedom." Causes for resentment of US policy and hegemony run very deep and I would just as soon hear nothing than hear something as meaningless as this statement. Even admitting that you don't know why we were attacked makes more sense than this statement.

Second was the decision to declare the flags flown at half-mast for two weeks. By tradition, when a former president dies, the flag flies at half-mast for a month. If the purpose of flying the flag at half-mast is for the country to properly mourn the dead and show the world that you are in mourning, I find it hard to believe that we could heal from the wounds of September 11 faster than we can heal from the wounds that came about as a result of the death of a president. Four weeks would have been more appropriate.

Third was the call for a national "day of prayer." I do not begrudge Mr. Bush for openly displaying his faith, but when you consider that it is a religious fervor that feeds the hatred and anger of the terrorists, I do not necessarily think that the best response is with a religious expression.

Mr. Bush calls himself a "war president." If that's the case he is not displaying the leadership or the responsibility of past war presidents. He is the first president, in a time of war, to call for cutting taxes. All past war presidents have either kept the tax rate the same, or increased it. Regardless, all past war presidents have called on the American people to make some kind of sacrifice towards the war effort. Not only has he not done this, he has encouraged us to take vacations, go to Disneyworld, and otherwise go about our normal lives.

The process by which we have unseated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the false pretense for the military action in Iraq (since it hasn't been declared a "war" I refuse to call it that in this blog) show that Mr. Bush simply does not know how to plan for the outcomes of his actions, and this brings me to my next point:

Although his administration has not had as many scandals as the Reagan and Clinton administrations, it bears mentioning that the only high-level members of his administration who have left have done so because they said something that contradicted the official word coming out of the white house. Mistakes have been made by this administration, but it has yet to cost anybody their job. They include being caught off-guard by September 11, faulty intelligence and/or poor planning in Iraq, and numerous embarrassing press leaks.

I also strongly disapprove of the practice of squelching dissent, labeling anyone who disagrees with the president as emboldening our enemies and being generally unpatriotic. You want something that will embolden our enemies? How about the call to "bring them on"?

Many of Bush's non-tax related domestic policies are steeped in his religious views and roughly conform with those of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. To that end, I draw no moral distinction between Christian conservatism and Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden, the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the current regime in Iran.

Other than the single example of compromise that I give Bush credit for, the only other thing I can say that's good about this man, is that he does convey strong leadership. Granted, the word "strong" in this context can also be interpreted as inflexible or otherwise unwilling to modify tactics when they prove to be wrong, but I do not deny that the man conveys strength.

Just like Osama bin Laden.

Posted: Tue - October 12, 2004 at 11:42 PM        

©