![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A few US political thoughts
- Dubya has made it clear that, in his mind, the Muslim has no rights that the Christian is bound to respect, and his administration has argued in court that nobody has any rights that the President of the United States is bound to respect. What was that about the Dred Scott decision, again?
- The people of the United States have the right to know whether their president is a crook.
- No, Kerry isn't perfect. That's not the standard. The standard is that he is the best available choice. It doesn't matter that I think my mother might do a better job--she's not eligible. It doesn't matter that I'd rather be voting for Howard Dean. The point is to get Bush out of there, so we can have a chance to choose again in 2008.
no subject
Yes, yes that's it.
no subject
I appreciate the sentiment that people should vote for a better candidate rather than just giving up in despair because there is no perfect candidate. But I don't understand this motivation. I mean, isn't it the case that Bush (should he unfortunately happen to win the election) has to step down in 2008 whatever happens? So therefore if 2008 is what matters, it seems as if the outcome of this current election is utterly irrelevant, which I thought was the view you were arguing against.
In 2008 there will be no need to vote for a poor candidate on 'anyone but Bush' grounds, because anyone but Bush will happen anyway. So the Democrats will be in a position to choose a better candidate than Kerry or vote independent or whatever. What am I missing here?
(I could completely understand an argument which says, vote Kerry so we have a tolerable four years rather than a terrible four years. But that seems not to be what you're saying here.)
no subject
The argument is that another four years for the current regime to become entrenched leaves them sufficiently solidly in, and with sufficiently well-established methods of democracy-circumvention, that it will be impossible to vote them out in 2008.
Myself, I wonder whether this point is not already past.
no subject
Ah, so you're talking about the Republican party in general, not Bush personally? From the outside the situation looks like a conflict between two individuals more than two parties. And the liberal types seem to be more of the opinion that Bush is evil and disastrous for America and the world, not so much that Republicans are evil. (The latter opinion would be frighteningly anti-democratic, I think.)
But if hypothetical-you don't like the Republican government right now, it makes far more sense to vote Democrat now, than to wait four years until the Democrats might hypothetically field a better candidate.
no subject
Really, to some people this current regime gives us an impression of Germany between the wars. Ever read A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood?
no subject
Indeed I do not; hence my question. Thank you for taking time to explain some of the background to me.
they may change things such that somehow there effectively IS NO 2008 election
Is there any precedent for this sort of outcome? There have been corrupt politicians and attempts to rig voting before now, after all.
And no, I haven't read the Atwood, though it's on my to-read list.
no subject
In other countries, plenty. (Hitler was democratically elected...) This country has managed to spend its first 230 years as a republic. The Roman republic lasted about 425 years before essentially becoming a dictatorship.
From the outside the situation looks like a conflict between two individuals more than two parties.
That's how the press dramatizes it- it makes a simpler story that way. The individuals are fielded by the parties (and other backers), with the hope that they are popular spokesmen who can win an election, then be influenced to push through policies favored by these backers. Do you really think Bush is smart enough to have gotten where he is without wealthy and powerful people behind the scenes?
Really this is how all such systems work, and checks and balances are supposed to keep it reasonably fair.... it's just that the band of ultra-right-wing neocons and wealthy corporate types behind Bush seem extra-willing to circumvent the rules to get and hold onto power.
no subject
no subject
Re: A few US political thoughts
but while i am not worried about the neocons turning us into a dictatorship just now, i am worried that something might happen to affect these elections, and anything like that will IMO strengthen bush. there are enough terrorists out there wishing the US ill that they might have plans, and there are also enough nutcases native to the US to get it into their skulls that this might be a good time to grind their axe. and if that happens, i wonder what this government would do, and i do not trust them as much as i would like. neither do i trust the electorate to keep its calm.
that's new for me. i've never before been worried that elections would be screwed with in any western democractic country i've lived in. i've been worried that things would happen (i grew up with an active terrorist threat), but not that any such action would seriously disturb the democratic process. i think elections in the US can ill afford that; they're still limping from the florida disaster, and if anything, they need the opposite -- an extremely well-run, accountable election without scandal and without fear. i am definitely hoping for 2008 in that regard, and i am sure wishing that all the bad pre-election press doesn't indicate that 2004 will be as scandal-ridden as 2000.
no subject
I'm not at all confident this isn't the case. It seemed to me that the only hope would be a landslide against the incumbents, such that it wouldn't be plausible for electroral chicanery to determine the result.
I really hope I'm wrong.
no subject
However, I don't agree that there's no chance of the outcome changing who holds power, because it's clear that Kerry has a good chance of winning. That's part of the problem: the race is so close, people get even more excited and agitated about making sure their side wins.
no subject
Is it so far from believable that a slim majority would elect Bush? It was only a slim majority of the popular vote that Gore got, last time. There really are a lot of people in this country who are more accepting of Bush than of Kerry. We'll see whether it's a majority or not.
Even though I am voting for Bush, I would still object strongly to the electoral chicanery you fear. I want a fair and clear win for the next president, whichever it is.
no subject
OK, you're being more pessimistic than I'd realized. Sorry for missing the import of your original comment, and thank you for explaining your thinking. But, ouch, though.