Why I'm a single-issue voter

And it's not gay marriage (despite my support for it)

Published on March 8, 2004 By IanTyger In Politics

I'm going to list some of the reasons I am not only going to vote against Kerry (despite my numerous problems with President Bush's policies), but encourage as many people as possible to vote against him. I'm relying on the words of those who are much better writers that I.

"That isn't enough. Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies – if any – are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for." - Steven den Beste, USS Clueless (Read the Whole Thing)

This is my biggest peeve with Kerry; as near as I can tell, his policies are "whatever gets me elected", "whatever is the quickest way to capitalize on a mdia-fenerated hot topic", and finally "whatever Bush is against, unless the voters are for it". All of this is subject to change, without notice, at will. I know to a certain extent, this is politics, but I expect the president to have a vision. Bush has one (I don't care for large chunks of it, in the domestic arena - but in the domestic arena, there are a lot of checks and balances between a vision and a law).

This post of James Lileks' Bleat has too many goodies for me to quote just one. The second half (after he's done talking about his daughter) sums up my position pretty accurately. We are at WAR, people. (We're successfully defending the nation, too. The most dangerous attack at the Super Bowl caused a Wardrobe Failure... Internationally, there have been attacks (Bali and Iraq most notably). But it's not a war against Al Qaeda, nor Afganistan, nor Iraq. They were (or still are, in some cases) enemies in the war.

I'm not quite sure how to define our enemy for a sound bite, but I can point out characteristics:
Our enemies are those who seek to destroy by force our society and way of life.
They strike from hiding, against the weakest targets they can hit.
If they cannot directly harm the United States, they strike at our allies. If they cannot harm our allies, they strike at innocents.
They are aided by nation-states, but usually are not in control of nation-states themselves.
They desire the most destructive weapons possible to use against civilians.
They benefit from the underground trade between nation-states who for their own geopolitical reasons seeks weapons of mass destruction.
And their warriors come from nations where brutal oppression leads them to believe their lives are worthless, so that their leaders can convince them that a worthwhile use of their life is as a guidance mechanism and fuse for a bomb.

The above list of characteristics informs our target list, and our strategy against those targets. And sometimes, our targets see the writing on the wall. Libya believed the US would start cracking down on the national players in the international WMD market, and got out of that business. Iran seems to think that the Iraq/North Korea approach (pretend to cooperate to the bare minimum until the world turns away, while keeping the programs ready to reactivate) is the best way - despite US forces on two borders and rising tension at home. I guess the Mullahs are hoping they can get the Bomb soon and use it as a shield while they crack down on their rebellious populace.

It is this that makes me a single-issue voter. And one thing more; John Ashcroft is being fought by the ACLU. The Musgrave Amendment is being fought by all kinds of people (liberal and conservative alike). Various groups are fighting "for the environment". I may oppose certain positions of the ACLU, of the environmentalists, etc. But I know that they are there to protect against the excesses of the US government, and that they will always be pro-active in defense of their issues. President Bush is being pro-active in the War on Terror. Kerry want to go back to the days of reacting to terror and WMD, prosecuting terrorists as criminals after they strike, and relying on sanctions and international outrage to prevent the spread of WMD. Bush wants to stop the terrorists before they strike, and stop the international market in WMD components by forcing the developers to stop developing on pain of a Marine Expeditionary Unit landing. The American People can look after themselves when it comes to domestic issues. Looking after the American People in the world takes a leader with a strong vision and strong principles, because the American People don't pay attention to the world, they're too busy making America a better place in their own way.

UPDATE: Corrected link for the first quote to go directly to the article in question

Comments

Robert Guinness

on Mar 08, 2004

Kerry has a steady policy. I have actively researched his presidential campaign policy since about November 2002, and I have not seen any major changes.

Yes, Kerry's policies have changed over a 35 year span of service to his country. But so too has the world changed. If his policies HADN'T changed, I'd be worried.

Dynosoar

on Mar 08, 2004

Best I've seen is that Kerry has a consistent policy, that being a policy of consistent change.
He has come out on both sides of so many issues it's clearly his policy to change his opinion based on what his audience at the time appears to want to hear.
This up-coming election is being promoted as a mandate against Bush, with Kerry being the least worst Democrat to run against our President, I do not forsee many waffle votes going his way.
RUN RALPH, RUN !!!!!!
Nader will not win, but will insure another Republican Administration, and perhaps a cabinet position for "Capt. Consumer" .

MortyJ378

on Mar 08, 2004

"Looking after the American People in the world takes a leader with a strong vision and strong principles, because the American People don't pay attention to the world, they're too busy making America a better place in their own way."

A typical American viewpoint - ignore the rest of the world, only care about Number #1. Bush has done SO much damage to the foreign opinion of the US - unfortunately for America it is not the only country in the world, it relies on trade and surprisingly enough other countries in the world *do* make a difference. The dollar has been falling because the rest of the world is loosing faith in America - dislike and hatred towards the US in schools and colleges here in the UK has dramatically increased in modern years, thanks to Bush (Clinton had a better foreign policy... i.e he didn't p*ss off the rest of the world as much).

"Kerry want to go back to the days of reacting to terror and WMD, prosecuting terrorists as criminals after they strike, and relying on sanctions and international outrage to prevent the spread of WMD. Bush wants to stop the terrorists before they strike, and stop the international market in WMD components by forcing the developers to stop developing on pain of a Marine Expeditionary Unit landing."

Bush wants to cut off the rest of the world to impose a fake safety. Kerry looks like he is trying to satisfy the needs of the rest of the world while trying to protect America. While the rest of the world may seem unimportant to some people in the US it is beneficial to America and is logical for foreign policy. Bush, with his campaign of war, is purely trying to get the average America to side with him - if you research about Afghanistan then you will learn that a bombing and invasion campaign was the worst way to handle it; the country could have been restored from its state of civil war and the Taliban could have been ousted (BEFORE September 11th) WITHOUT US troops [do a bit of research on Abdul Haq] - the irony was that the US outsourced its intelligence to Pakistan who the US gave funding to; the Pakistan government then gave the funding to Al Quaeda... You see, September 11th could have been avoided IF AMERICA had a GOOD foreign policy. I do not demean the lives lost in September 11th AT ALL, but it could have so easily been prevented if the US had a better foreign policy and the CIA hadn't outsourced vital intelligence. It's a bit hard to justify a war that was itself caused by a major fault of the US itself - undermining the UN to achieve war was also NOT good for foreign opinion.

This was not meant as a dig at the US - but from the point of view of an outsider (here in the UK) Kerry is by far the best choice based on current knowledge of him. Through good communication and foreign policy America can gain from it - trying to hold out and maintain a viewpoint that the rest of the world is unnecessary will only lead to further hatred and, unfortunately, further attacks against the US. Benefit your country, your safety, the world and yourself by voting for Kerry - he may be bad [I don't know enough about him], but another term for Bush will wreak untold havoc on world opinion and subsequently damage the US economy further.

PS - I registered specifically to post on this because I felt so strongly... I don't know a lot about Bush's domestic policy, but I know of his foreign policy (including illegal steel tariffs, etc - you can't just try to protect your own interests!) and that is literally shocking. Oh, and sorry this was so long.

IanTyger

on Mar 08, 2004

I'll say it again - I don't care for many of Bush's policies. I would like to vote for someone else. The War on Terror as he is prosecuting it is working. It isn't perfect, but it is working. Kerry seems to want to go back to the previous administration's policies on terrorists - which led us to 9/11. And that prevents me from voting for him.

As for trade etc - I want free trade; from both sides. We don't have it now. I don't know what the idea behind the steel tariffs were - I think they were a bad idea. Having said that, the US does not *NEED* the rest of the world - we can be self-sufficient in almost everything (there are some so-called "strategic" minerals that the US does not have in quantity). But the US could IF NECESSARY get away with a bare minimum of trade wtih the rest of the world - and the rest of the world would fall apart. (This is a Bad Thing). The value of the dollar is fallign for several reasons, very ew of which have to do with international relationships being strained. The EU is, for reasons of their own, is pushing the value of the euro up, the chinese are playing funny games with their currency, etc. Internally, of course, right now a low dollar is good - it makes US products more competitive on the world market, and at home.

MortyJ378

on Mar 08, 2004

"But the US could IF NECESSARY get away with a bare minimum of trade wtih the rest of the world - and the rest of the world would fall apart."

That's not really true... if other countries were to withdraw funding from America then the US couldn't sustain themselves (and vice versea), but that's how a world economy works. I think the key to building upon the US's current success (it being a world power) is to build on foreign policy and if that's between Bush and Kerry then I think Kerry would do the better job. America in general has a poor history in terms of world relations to non-western countries - many of the wars and skirmishs America's recent past have been to protect their own interests (oil being a recurring issue), often against the best interests of the people of the particular country (look at activists such as Rage Against The Machine - in their music videos they show examples of this). The US has been know to support dictator governments against rebels to protect their supply of oil. For instance, no proper infastructure was put in place to protect Iraq from looting post-war - the only building protected being a key oil refinery; while I understand that people targeting that could undermine the countries economy it also has a large affect upon America, whereas protecting museums, etc does not affect America but does undermine Iraq (hence, the US did not protect them).

While I understand your dislike for Bush (and I have a strong dislike for Tony Blair here in the UK) I cannot see why you would support him when fighting wars is only unifying the Middle-East against America. Kerry seems to want to reduce US involvement in the East so that they do not unify under a common religion. You are basically pinning down your vote based on the policies they have on terrorists, and this is what I disagree with. I dislike Tony Blair for the UK and intend to vote against him at the next election - I don't like the opposition per se and they have policies I disagree with, but I believe that this is better for the country and for both internal and foreign policy.

I respect your opinion, you have that freedom - I just think that you sometimes have to make a concession in one area to benefit in many others. If someone has a firm viewpoint it is hard to shift - I believe strongly one way, and you the other. All I ask is that you consider everything when you make your decision - I have tried to put across the arguement against Bush. I just believe that Bush, with such strong connections to corporations and the oil industry, is not best serving the American people - I also dislike the way he tries to maintain that he's a war president; these are small scale wars that are neither here nor there - they don't have a dramatic effect upon stopping terrorist attacks and it can be aruged that they will only do the opposite.

Anyway, peace. I just wanted to put my view across - but in general I think it would be better if the average American had a better understanding of the world outside of America. Afterall, it has been said that the American people only find out about foreign countries when they declare war on them

Don Bemont

on Mar 08, 2004

Having said that, the US does not *NEED* the rest of the world - we can be self-sufficient in almost everything (there are some so-called "strategic" minerals that the US does not have in quantity). But the US could IF NECESSARY get away with a bare minimum of trade wtih the rest of the world

I honestly believe that you are wrong there, and that the people in the Bush administration would be the first to disagree with you.

It is no accident that the 9/11 target was the World Trade Center, nor that our country's response was not narrowly against the group that initiated this atrocity.

We may say that we are fighting for democracy or for security against WMD or even, narrowly, for oil. But the truth is that we are fighting for free trade, or at least our version of it. It is clearly vital to American business that the world be made safe for what has been termed globalization. And militant Muslims are opposed to the byproducts of that process.

It is the nature of our system that business must expand to survive -- there must always be growth, thus the insatiable desire for foreign markets.

Further, American business is at a crossroad. If they can make the transition away from dependence on domestic markets, they can then free themselves from the long running need for a very large affluent middle class. In fact, they probably see such a transition as vital, since the the willingness of foreign workers to work for so much less will undermine domestic workers' positions, regardless.

In any case, the thinkers behind America's business see the foreign markets as the highest priority, and the current administration represents those interests above all else.

stevendedalus

on Mar 09, 2004

Doesn't strike me as a one issue election. You cannot ignore domestic issues because we are engaged in a "police action." Your approach to this war is that anything Bush does is to protect the nation, even though he puts us in a harrowing situation in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Furthermore, the buck stops here--9/11 was on Bush's watch.

IanTyger

on Mar 09, 2004

The war is THE issue for me because war is in the purview of the Executive. It's up to the Congress to take care of domestic issues (and it's up to the states even more).

As for trade, I'd surely hate to live in this country if we didn't have free trade - the Great Depression wouldn't begin to describe it. I'm merely pointing out that the US does have the resources to get by, not that being self-sufficient would be easy or a good idea.

I disagree with the premise that US business moving overseas will destroy the middle class; I'd expect it to create much more of a middle class overseas. That's been the pattern so far in history, anyway. Besides, if they destroy the middle class, who's going to buy their stuff?

mrsizer

on Mar 09, 2004

stevendedalus: I don't understand your opinion, which I've heard many times, that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

Did Sadaam have a direct role? No. However, the point you're making ignores strategy and focuses entirely on tactics. 9/11 was a symptom. The fact that it enraged Americans so much was almost certainly unforseen. It was meant to be a PR stunt (I can dig up the links, but don't have them handy). It was a small strike in a broader conflict. Those who argue that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 see only 9/11, not that broader conflict.

The invasion/liberation of Iraq was/is a strategic move. For any number of reasons, Iraq made a good target: Violating UN resolutions, attempting to get WMDs (whether it had them or not), the no-fly zones, the looting of the aid program, an army in disarray, etc... The point is to establish a democracy, or at least something close, in the middle of a region filled with hate and repression. It has very little to do with 9/11 as an event. It has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11 as a symptom of a broader problem. Iraq was handy and has good odds for success (Afganistan will not be a "modern" country for much longer - it doesn't have the educated population base required).

MortyJ: How is the Middle-East unifying against the US? That is a media fueled canard. Read the stories, not just the headlines. Iran has a flourishing dissendent movement that is very US friendly. Libya is moving very quickly toward normalizing relations. Even Syria is experiencing rumbles of discontent. Saudi Arabia is _very slowly_ starting to change. Qutar (sp?) and the UAE are US friendly and liberalizing. Turkey is concerned with the Kurdish issue but basically supportive.

Draginol

on Mar 10, 2004

Realistically, US foreign policy has had no negative impact on the US that I can see.

The dollar falling in value has nothing whatsoever to do with world opinion. It has to do with Bush's effort to try to get exports stronger to help the US economy. A lower valued US dollars helps the United States, harms Europe and Japan. So even there it's an example of Bush trying to do what's best for the US at the expense of the rest of the world.

The question is, what is the incentive for the US not to do what is in its own best interest? What specific value is "World opinion"? I am not saying the US shoudln't care about world opinion, I mean the question literally, what would have been the net benefit to the US of having people like the US more?

Personally, I prefer having Saddam out of power and the US having taken the battle to the terrorists over sweating that France is unhappy or something.

jeblackstar

on Mar 10, 2004

Actually because of the way that the world economy works, i.e. one country buying products from another country, the dollar falling has everything to do with world opinion.

Cheers

samkit

on Mar 10, 2004

world opinion means nothing. people hate us, so what? so long as they don't try to kill us, they can fuck off and die. i don't care what you think. i don't care what france thinks. i don't care what someone on the other side of the world thinks. these countries that say they hate us, they are weaker than America. you really think they're going to LIKE us for being more powerful? many of these countries that say they hate us, they oppress their people. when we bring democracy to countries near them, we threaten their way of life. this is as it should be.

Robert Guinness

on Mar 11, 2004

in case you haven't visited it already, the rest of the world is pretty nice, and I certainly care what they think of us. It's called pride.

Pat Berry

on Mar 11, 2004

I care what the rest of the world thinks, too. Specifically, I want them to think that the U.S. is powerful and not afraid to use that power to protect itself. I want the rest of the world to believe that attacking the U.S. leads to swift and deadly retaliation, and that states or organizations who do so will be overthrown or annihilated. I want my country to be respected, and if that means it has to be feared as well, then so be it.

I do not, however, care very much about whether my country is LIKED. There is no pride in groveling before corrupt bureaucrats, appeasing dictators, negotiating with bloodthirsty thugs, or begging France for permission to fight our enemies. That sort of behavior will earn us contempt, not respect. The U.S. behaved that way through most of the 1990s, and the result was September 11. NEVER AGAIN.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!