Thoughts on US Politics (17 February 2008)

A lot has happened since my last entry on this topic, and some of my thoughts have changed slightly, so I thought I would do an update. I'm going to organise this in several parts: 1) My thoughts on the Bush administration- including critcising some attacks against him. 2) My thoughts on Jon McCain and why I don't want him to win. 3) Why I want Obama to win

I. My thoughts on the Bush administration:

Bush is one of those people whom almost everyone either hates or loves. There's little middle ground. The people who love him aren't terribly popular these days- I don't think I have to spend too much time in this article on why Bush has been a really crappy president. Nonetheless, I want to make my opinion clear. The one part of his policy which I believe is utterly horrible and unforgivable, as I have written about in the past, is his approach to foriegn policy. He treats European powers (and the UN) with condescension. This is a problem for the following reasons: it weakens the UN if the most powerful country in the world won't lend it legitimately. The UN could POTENTIALLY be much more effective than it is now, but not when it lacks legitimacy. Secondly, pissing off European allies is not a good strategy just insofar as me might actually need their assistance some day- especially with the economy headed where it is now. It also demonstrates, in my opinion, an utter lack of class and finesse. More importantly, he treats hostile nations with equal hostility. It doesn't take a PhD in Political Science to realise this spells disaster. Bush lacks entirely an important thing called diplomacy. Making no effort to be diplomatic with your "enemies" only spells disaster for the protection of your country. So, actually, instead of keeping us "safe from terror", Bush has done the exact opposite. In order to keep your society safe, you have to negotiate and appease your enemies to such an extent that they don't have a desire to cause harm upon us. Failure to do that will piss them off.... and it's never wise to have people pissed off at you. And for goodness sake, anybody who thinks that the war in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the war on terror is horribly misinformed and ignorant. In 2001, Iraq was led by a guy named Sadaam Hussein. Admittedly, he was a cruel dictator. But he hated Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and fundamentalist Islam. Hussein himself was in fact a secularist. No 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Choosing to attack Iraq to end terrorism would be like starting a bacon-cheeseburger diet to loose weight. It simply makes no sense.

Of course, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so to speak. These days, especially in Montreal (and most parts outside the Southern US), it is increasingly trendy to be anti-Bush. Many people criticise Bush without really having an idea of what they're talking about. I think it's quite nïave to hate Bush without having a reason to. In fact, I can forgive Bush for a lot of things. His economic policies haven't proven to be successful- but his economic plan is not, in my opinion, insanity. It is reflective of a different ideology with its own set of logic to justify it. While a liberal would say that the gov't should spend more on the lower classes, a conservative would advocate the "trickle down effect". It's really difficult to say that either policy is necessarily better, and i see validity in both approaches. In terms of Bush's social policies- I personally don't agree with how he implements them, but his reasoning is quite valid.... and I admit that admire the guy for sticking to his principles.


II. McCain

I'm going to keep my discussion on McCain really short, because I don't feel my thoughts on him have changed much. As a person, I admire him. He seems liek a really cool man- one that I would love to share a beer with. He has been through a lot in his life, and I would even go so far as to call him an American hero. However, what people really fail to understand, is that being a cool person, or even a hero, are definitely not qualifications to lead a country.

III. Why I support Obama

I think I have said this before, but when I look at a candidate, I don't really care so much about past voting record, or different things they've said, or even experience. Each president has SO many people in the cabinet to help him out, and in fact, the Legislative branch of the US government actually has a LOT more power with regards to law-making. Such trivilaties really don't matter to me. What matters to me is their image. I know it sounds superficial, but I think it's really important. The president of the US is much more powerful on an international scale than on a domestic scale... another thing people fail to understand. His/Her domestic policies mean relatively little. After all, it's really the balance of the Senate/Congress that gets things done, and decides what SHOULD be done. Where the US president is really important is in his influence in global affairs. This office is unique in this regard.... what Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) says about XYZ really carries little weight for anyone outside Canada. But, with our world as it is, what the US President says about almost anything seems important to everyone. I'm not saying I think that's the way it SHOULD BE, but the fact is the US is the only remaining super-power in the world, and thus has the most influence.

Another way to think of this is that the President is in a sense like the ambassador to EVERY country. He represents the face of America as seen by everyone - Americans and non-Americans alike. So why does this bode well for Obama? McCain, as respectable as a man I find him to be, is a war hawk. He has been in war and has a very jilted impression regarding the nature of war. I expect that if wins the election, diplomatic relations with eg, Iran, will only get worse. He has a "no bullshit" personality and seems to have little patience. Clinton, while IMO better than McCain, has said that the President should not meet with "hostile" world leaders, lest it would jeapordise the "prestige" of the office. Again, I have a lot of respect for Clinton, and the success she has had thus far in her campaign. I think a lot of her domestic views are fantastic. But as I said, domestically, she would have little power, and to me the far more important thing is foreign policy. Her views on foreign policy don't represent much of an improvement over Bush.

So what about Obama? He has said that in his first year he will commit to meet with ALL of the "hostile" world leaders: including Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad. If he actually does that, it would be amazing! Of course, no one is to say that he WILL... but at least he expresses the desire to do so. I think that's EXACTLY what's needed, and I'm so relieved that a leading candidate has actually expressed interest in this. By ignoring people like the said leaders, the US succeeds only in isolating them further. The US should talk to these nations for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, it lowers the risk of any sort of threats or attacks against the US- which is really the way to make "America safer"- something Bush has clearly failed horribly at. Secondly, by having favourable relations with these nations, their development is promoted. A prosperous Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba is in the interest of everyone. Prosperity = Stability = less liklihood for attacks!

In my humble opinion, the best option by far is Barack Obama for 2008. This is the first time in a very long time that I could actulaly say I almost sort of liked a mainstream candidate. I also very much fear an America under McCain leadership. Clinton I could deal with... but I think her position on foriegn policy is less than fantastic. She is also rather weak in the charisma/rhetoric department, which I think makes her a liability in direct opposition to McCain. And I think, at all costs, we must not have another Republican in the white house.