Andrew Sullivan endorses...
Well, before I mention that, let me point out that, as Sullivan says, our (stupid, black&white, blindered) definitions of liberal and conservative don't work.
Why is this election so hard for so many people? Here's one theory. It's not so easy to tell who's the liberal and who's the conservative anymore. You want a candidate who pumps unprecedented amounts of money into agricultural subsidies, uses tariffs to protect some American industries and adds a whole new entitlement to Medicare? That would be the, er, Republican, George W. Bush.
You want a future President who will be hard nosed about committing U.S. troops abroad, wants to balance every new spending item with a tax hike or a spending cut elsewhere and backs states' rights on social issues? Then go ahead and vote for the, er, Democrat, John Kerry.
You think there's too little federal control over education? Vote Bush. Want to expand health-care coverage primarily through the private sector? Vote Kerry.
And the Votemaster shows us a page linking to more evidence that the two don't follow traditional left-wing/right-wing views. Of course, I don't trust Kerry farther than I can throw him. I trust Bush more, though not totally; he is largely unswayed by political expediency, while Kerry seems to choose his position on each issue based on its popularity.
Anyway, the reasons Sullivan endorses Kerry are merely given as reasons to vote against Bush, not to vote for Kerry. They are: not having a rock-solid case for WMDs, since that was given as the main reason for the Iraq war. Ok, I'll grant him this one, it was certainly harmful for international opinion, but it isn't by itself enough of a reason to not vote for him. Miscalculations in Iraq: the initial war went great, and the "nation-building" really hasn't been going badly. Of course it's slow! The nation had been trashed by Sadaam. Abu Ghraib: not Bush's fault.
"He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat." This is my main problem with Bush - the single worst piece of spending legislation since perhaps the creation of the Department of Education was the No Child Left Behind act, which vastly increased federal control over education in the name of "standards." Let the communities choose their own standards, not have them imposed from the federal government! Funding and regulating public schools is the community's job!
"His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. " I believe that homosexual couples should not be guaranteed treatment equal with heterosexual couples. However, this should be dealt with at state level. If the president and Congress don't like it, appoint judges that won't impose their whims on the states.
I'm voting for Bush. I'd vote third-party if Peroutka were more practical and at tried to market himself to non-Christians and non-fundamentalist Christians, or if Badnarik didn't hold the very un-libertarian position that we should be allowed to kill babies because it's a personal choice (libertarians believe that behavior should only be outlawed if it directly, adversely affects another - which abortion certainly does), and if his party platform didn't oppose parents teaching their children their religion.
Maybe someday there will be a candidate I can truly endorse.
Why is this election so hard for so many people? Here's one theory. It's not so easy to tell who's the liberal and who's the conservative anymore. You want a candidate who pumps unprecedented amounts of money into agricultural subsidies, uses tariffs to protect some American industries and adds a whole new entitlement to Medicare? That would be the, er, Republican, George W. Bush.
You want a future President who will be hard nosed about committing U.S. troops abroad, wants to balance every new spending item with a tax hike or a spending cut elsewhere and backs states' rights on social issues? Then go ahead and vote for the, er, Democrat, John Kerry.
You think there's too little federal control over education? Vote Bush. Want to expand health-care coverage primarily through the private sector? Vote Kerry.
And the Votemaster shows us a page linking to more evidence that the two don't follow traditional left-wing/right-wing views. Of course, I don't trust Kerry farther than I can throw him. I trust Bush more, though not totally; he is largely unswayed by political expediency, while Kerry seems to choose his position on each issue based on its popularity.
Anyway, the reasons Sullivan endorses Kerry are merely given as reasons to vote against Bush, not to vote for Kerry. They are: not having a rock-solid case for WMDs, since that was given as the main reason for the Iraq war. Ok, I'll grant him this one, it was certainly harmful for international opinion, but it isn't by itself enough of a reason to not vote for him. Miscalculations in Iraq: the initial war went great, and the "nation-building" really hasn't been going badly. Of course it's slow! The nation had been trashed by Sadaam. Abu Ghraib: not Bush's fault.
"He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat." This is my main problem with Bush - the single worst piece of spending legislation since perhaps the creation of the Department of Education was the No Child Left Behind act, which vastly increased federal control over education in the name of "standards." Let the communities choose their own standards, not have them imposed from the federal government! Funding and regulating public schools is the community's job!
"His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. " I believe that homosexual couples should not be guaranteed treatment equal with heterosexual couples. However, this should be dealt with at state level. If the president and Congress don't like it, appoint judges that won't impose their whims on the states.
I'm voting for Bush. I'd vote third-party if Peroutka were more practical and at tried to market himself to non-Christians and non-fundamentalist Christians, or if Badnarik didn't hold the very un-libertarian position that we should be allowed to kill babies because it's a personal choice (libertarians believe that behavior should only be outlawed if it directly, adversely affects another - which abortion certainly does), and if his party platform didn't oppose parents teaching their children their religion.
Maybe someday there will be a candidate I can truly endorse.
posted by Derby at 02:40
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home