Following is a post on my politics that I recently placed at Redcricket, with some slight revisions.
I'm voting for Bush for several reasons:
- Philosophically, I agree with his stance (which is the basic Republican stance) on less government, more local decision-making, a reduction, at least, in the welfare state, lower taxes and basic honesty (more about this later).
- Bush will put a staff a actual adults in the cabinet and other offices. I remember when Dick Cheney left and the first secretary of defense we had was Les Aspin, rest his soul. The professionalism of Cheney stood in extreme contrast to Aspin's amateurish approach. The only hold-over from Bush/Reagan was (thank God), Alan Greenspan. If you believe Clinton/Gore are really responsible for the good economy, think again. Greenspan held the lid on inflation and managed the money supply in a way that has been extremely beneficial. Inflation, folks, is the friend of the welfare state, because it gives people like Gore a way to promise big benefits now and pay for them with cheap dollars later. (Notice how MUCH Gore is promising right now in the way of gimmes?) BTW Greenspan is not a conservative: he's a former friend and intellectual protege of Ayn Rand, which means he's a better capitalist than most Republicans.
- Strengthened Defense: The Dems are falling all over themselves trying to defuse this issue, looking for a few military people to say everything's OK, but everything isn't. Who do you trust? Cheney, who actually prosecuted a war, or Gore, who stood by while the military was dimantled AND while his boss bombed an aspirin factory. Innocent people were KILLED so we'd be distracted from Bill's BJs. If Gore can't speak out against THIS, where's the morality?
And, just because the cold war's over, it doesn't mean there aren't any threats out there. Hussein is still a problem (an ACTUAL one which Clinton continually threatened, but never dealt with decisively -- his weapons program has been rebuilding for about three years now with no oversight). We also have N. Korea, and most ominously, China (which Clinton/Gore supplied with our weapons technology.) I'm not looking for a fight, but when one comes, public opinion about the importance of the military will change dramatically. - EDUCATION -- I don't think the Feds should be involved in education at all, but since they are, I think vouchers should be part of the equation. Gore talks about 'caring about people' but the poor and minorities really want vouchers and he won't give them to them. Why? Because they introduce accountability into public education. Teacher's Unions, which have a monopoly on standards and evaluations, don't want this, and they have a major hold on the Democratic party. But they would be good for poor families, and ultimately for the schools themselves. Good teachers are trapped by this system, and so are poor people. An element of competition, introduced via vouchers, would encourage innovation and improvement.
By the way, it is a typical liberal argument to say that Republicans or conservatives are just plain stupid. I don't believe Gore or Bush either one is stupid. I just think Gore is misguided philosophically, and much more devious that anyone will say.
For me, the choice is largely based on philosophy. I see the role of government, especially the federal goverment as falling into four broad (if imperfect) categories:
- Defend our borders
- Catch bad guys
- Settle disputes
- Print Money (that's worth something)
Our system, as originally conceived, does this. Sure there are issue of infrastructure that have to be dealt with, but a lot of that is at the state and local level. The rest of the stuff the federal government does boils down to meddling, IMHO.
Gore's promises cost the "working people" he pretends to care about. It costs them in terms of higher taxes (or no tax cut), fewer choices and more control over everyone's life. It costs them in terms of continued poor education, and expanded dependence on government (if you depend on government, you are also its slave.)
Bush's promises appear 'costly' to some because they amount to a reduction in spending on dead-end programs -- this threatens those who have been lured into depending on them, but it also threatens the bureaucrats who administer them. That's why most federal employees are Democrats.
The whole issue of Bush being old-money/corporate interests generally makes me tired. First of all, Gore is the same thing. I mean, just because someone's wealthy doesn't make them evil. I mean, WE all want to be rich, right? Plus, if you aren't rich, you probably work for someone who is, or is trying to GET rich. Think about it. Gore is using wealth-envy and class-baiting to drive a wedge between people. The arguments aren't really rational, and the solutions are worse, but it doesn't matter because the point is just to get elected.
PS: A HUGE reason why there is a higher poverty percentage in Texas (which the Dems don't make clear), is that there is a high number of poor Mexicans crossing the border. Why are they crossing the border? BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS SO GOOD IN TEXAS.
Finally, on the issue of personalities, authenticity and honesty:
Bush accidentally (and should have been more careful), called a journalist a major league a-hole. The next day, Al Gore and Clinton both made speeches that indicated they loved "all the working press." Be honest, who do you think was being more truthful?
The day the House voted to impeach, Gore said Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of all time -- or something similar. Do you think he believes this?
Gore claims to this day he does not know that the Buddhist temple event was a fund-raiser. Then why was his aide in the event, Maria Shia (sp?) indicted?
When confronted by a woman in one of his town meetings, Al Gore said he had not seen the interview with Juanita Broaddrick in which she accused the President of raping her. Do you believe him? He even stumbled around asking what channel it had been on. He went on to discuss how the President had made "mistakes" in his private life. Just to be clear, rape is not a mistake; it is a crime, which removes it from a discussion of one's "private life." Sorta like lying under oath. I don't want a guy in office who defends this.
