With a little over 7 months to go until the general election, the next major task ahead seems to be about the "V.P." nominee. Indeed, with the recent polling showing 95% of both parties "likely" voters with their minds made up already, a few campaign ads or stump speeches are not going to swing too many people either way.
Another telling sign that people are not changing their minds much is found on an AOL "non scientific" poll, which showed out of almost 300,000 respondants, that 87% had not changed their minds on the subject of the war in the last year. Although this poll was not a scientific one, such as a gallup poll, It does accurately reflect the mood of the country. That same poll showed almost an even split, just as most polls do, about the question of whether or not invading Iraq was worth it.
One thing that has become very evident, regardless of where one perches themselves upon the political fence, is that everyone who has an opinion is very staunch in that belief. Whether we support the President, or we want change in John Kerry, we all are sure we are right. The polarization of our nation's politics has reached a point of stalemate. It is evident that the large pool of swing voters that have influenced traditional campaigns in the past is drying up.
Ask a republican supporter about he war and he'll express his or her beliefs about how righteous we are, no matter what. Ask ademocrat the same thing and you'll get a more complex answer about right and wrong and everything in between. Both sides will be able to cite good examples and provide evidence that at least from their perspective is credible. Both sides will easily defeat the "straw man" arguements that they put up on the other side, undoubtedly showing why they are in the right on the war issues. And both sides may well be.
I've spent countless hours debating, arguing and sometimes flaming people whom I have believed to be on the wrong side of the issues. Just for clarity sake...I was one of those people on the "left." And I will tell you, I still am. But over the course of debating point by point every detail of goverment, domestic and foreign policy and every other issue from Mars to nipples something is becoming clear to me. And I hope i'm not the only one.
Traditionally, I have always been a "balance of power" guy. Even though my personal beliefs have led me to vote more left than right over the years, deep down, I always understood the certain "goodness" of checks and balances. But in the last several years, that is the one belief I have held that now I realize has slipped away. And I think it has lost touch with many others too. Regardless of where we sit on the political fence, we need to all get back to our check and balance system.
Throughout the 90's, we shifted power "both ways" so to speak. The democrats got back in the White House with Clinton and Congress shifted right throughout the decade. When I would debate anything back then with someone who was not as enamored with Bill as I was, we would both be able to make points on why we were right on a particular issue. If we liked something, our side got the credit, if we didn't, It was the other sides "power hold" that was to blame. It worked out well as no one could ever win an arguement and both parties would be forced to "agree to disagree."
Then, as the Monicagate scandal heated up, democrats got resentful and republicans saw an opportunity to "finally win the arguement." Before that, any criticizm of the president was taken with a little smile and such. Of course, no one laughed as much as fellow democrats when Phil Hartman would do his spoofs on the president and his like of the ladies. But when that shortcoming became the focal point of the right's desire to actually impeach and remove the President from office, everything changed.
We all remember the debate. the leftie would say something like " what a waste of time and money to go after the president over a bj." Then the republican would retort that it wasn't about that and that it was about perjury. Back and forth we would go, neither side giving an inch. In the end, neither side won the arguement. The republicans thought they got what they wanted in an impeachment. Then they got hist with the reality that impeachment didn't necesarily mean resignation as the threat of it had with Nixon. So Clinton once again survived the republican assault.
But the democrats didn't win either, even tho Clinton had survived and remained in office. Ever since then the left has been pickled with underhanded comments about Clinton every time any issue of politics come up. Left leaning debaters know well the republican tactic of bringing up Clinton in just about every discussion as a negative factor. Some even go as far as to call him a criminal and so forth.
Then the 2000 election happened and all hell broke loose.
The Florida "debacle" ensured that we could only get more divided on the political fronts. Most who are reading this know what happened, so no rehash is necessary. But in the end, what democrats saw was a candidate who we already knew had 500,000 fewer votes nationally, who campaigned on "states rights" issues, and the controversy was in the state where his brother was basically king. To every democrat and person who voted for AL Gore, all they saw was an inside deal happening with their election. Regardless of the reality, that was the perception. And to boot, they saw it as hypocritical for them to use a conservative leaning, federal court to over rule a state court when he had campaigned on states rights.
Republicans saw 1 declaration of victory for the state to go to the GOP and they insisted on sticking with that. Any attempt by the DNC to reverse that decision through recounts or any legal maneuver was marketed as a "political stunt" to steal what was rightfully the republicans. All the republicans were doing in the minds of their supporters was blocking the democrats from taking away what they had won, fair and square.
So, the country wedged further apart. At the beginning of the Bush presidency, we were an extremely divided nation. Then 9/11 happened and we all did what we knew we had to do, pull together. Indeed, those of us (and there were millions of us) who didn't vote for Bush (and that includes Nader supporters as well) were forced to swallow our pride and actually acknowledge that he was the president. Or, if they couldn't do that, at least acknowledge that he was the guy doing the job and needed us to pipe down and come together. So, we did.
And to his credit, Bush did what we expected of the president. He did exactly what we would have done. Mourn, sincerely, then go get the bastards who did it. The invasion of Afghanastan was supported by a mandate from the people that no president has enjoyed since FDR. But let's be honest here, Bush did what any president would have done. If Gore was President, If Clinton was Presidnent, they would have done the same thing.
But after we had successfully occupied Afghanastan and kicked the taliban out of power, things went back to the way they were. It's kind of like a married couple on the verge of a divorce when tradgedy strikes. For a short time, the couple can put aside their differences, but after the crisis has been averted or overcome, they go back to their squabbling as the problems are more often than not, still there.
That is not to suggest that we are anywhere near being out of the woods on the war on terrorism, but after we had done the bulk of the work in Afghanastan, many Americans were able to take a collective "deep breath."
The 2002 election was the rekinding of the arguement. The republicans, at least in democrat's minds, were launching an unscrupulous assault on guys like Max Cleeland and Paul Wellstone and anyone who didn't side with the president on each and every vote or policy decision.
The republicans saw it as taking care of the last piece of the puzzle so they could "finally get some things done" without those pesky democrats causing trouble. After the election, the president knew he had enough votes to be unopposed, essentially in taking America to war to finally finish off Saddam Hussein. The democrats had become a cornered cat and republicans were now the big dog in their way of being out of the corner.
Now we stand here before the 2004 election more polarized than ever. The last decade or so has made each of us more staunch in their beliefs than they were 10 years ago, sure that the other side is wrong annd in some cases just downright unamerican. But is the other side of the fence as bad as each of us make them out to be? Probably, but then again, probably not.
I've learned over the years in debates that the "gotcha" game is one of the most used and effective tools in these debates. The scanario is this...one person expresses support for an individul or policy. In this case, let's say it's a person. You can choose anyone who you like, it really doesn't matter. Whomever you choose will be able to be "gotcha'd" most likely. Anyone who is a public figure has either a voting record or business record and associations with other people around the world with various records and their own associations and so on. Inevitably, an opponent is going to be able to tie that person in with either a past event which seemingly contradicts. Or another person whom is viewed as a negative either by who they are or their support for something or someone. It is the "6 degree of seperation" thing gone wild.
Face it. There is no one who is been in the public eye for any length of time anywhere who you can't do this to. It doesn't matter who the person is, what they say or what they do. Republicans are currently the biggest purveyors of this method, with each GOP ad citing a John Kerry vote as proof positive of his wrongness. But at this point, aside from minor shifts in the electorate, I don't see these ads or tactics going very far for the right.
What they don't seem to understand or be willing to acknowledge is the past events that have gotten us to this point. To republicans, they justifiably attempted to remove an immoral president for perjury and proved their case. They won the 2000 election fair and square. It was their right to obtain a majority in the senate so they could go about their business more efficiently. If it wasn't for President Bush, we'd all be learning the Koran now and getting used to conversing in arabic. They also have their own views on domestic issues, butsince we have been talking foreing policy , we'll limit this to that scope.
But to democrats it is a much different picture, and every bit as real as the republican's viewpoint. Democrats see a president who survived a ruthless assault from the power seizing right. THey see the stealing of the 2000 election in an unscrupulous and hypocritical manner. They see assaults from the right against good americans who happen to disagree with certain policies. They can envision a world where Al Gore invaded Afghanastan and then instead of invading Iraq, continued political and covert pressures on him while we went after what we saw as the root causes of terror. And again, they have a domestic picture which is very unlike anything the republicans have drawn over the last few years.
When one steps back from the discourse, it becomes easier to see both sides more plainly. No, that won't swing me right, or would it swing someone in the GOP more left. But what it may do is put a lid on what has become a ridiculous arguement on foreign policy between the 2 sides. For too long now, all both sides have done have played gotcha games with past decisions and curent viewpoints. About 90% of it has centered on Iraq and WMD's and whether or not we should have gone, if they exist, etc, etc...
Well folks,,,the arguement is over. NO, Saddam didn't have the stockpiles just about everyone claimed he did Whether or not a single vial of any WMD exists is still a question worth asking, but as far as the big quantities promised, we were wrong. But the debate continues regardless...and it's getting to the point of stupid...
Both sides attheis point seem to want to stock their whole belief system on every single issue. That is why we keep arguing over things agin and again. Both sides seem to individually percieve that if they give in on anything, if they show a "chink" in their armour, then the other side will run rickshaw over their views.
If a republican supporter of the president admits we were wrong on WMD's, then they feel they must give in on the decision to go to war...then the rest crumbles, like support for the patriot act and so on,,,it trickles into domestic policy and the GOP supporter knows that liberal pinko can then claim that they are wrong about al of that too.
If a supporter of Kerry's gives in on being right about invading Iraq despite the being wrong on a lot of points...then the floodgates open up in their minds as well. They feel by giving Bush any credit means "allowing" him to get re-elected. And in their minds, he didn't get elected the 1st time.
What they don't understand about those people who support Kerry is that they see Kerry as a change. They simply do not want to give George an inch and want to ensure his defeat in November. Any reference to a past Kerry vote simply doesn't matter to them.
In fact, the ability to change one's mind, which is something they see Bush as incapable of doing, is a good thing to them. In anti-bushite's minds, they fail to see why we would want a president who doesn't seem to encourage any real debate and has a preconcieved agenda which will be carried out, come hell or high water.
But in the other tent, they can't understand why the other side won't just pipe down and trust in their leader. In time, they feel, all will see clearly that they are right about everything. In the meantime, we'll do everything we can to discredit anyone who opposes our vision.
So, where does that leave us? I honestly don't know. I do know 1 thing however. I do know that the balance of power serves us well. When everyone has a claim to the credit, yet don't hold enough authority to take all the blame, things go well. And absolute power does corrupt. And none of us are right about everything. It's not a sign of weakness or a dissolution of your entire belief system if one decision or view turns out to be not what it seemed.
John Kerry represents what is the best move for our country in November. The last thing we need, as a nation, is for one party to retain a hold on every major aspect of our federal goverment. It would be the same if the left held all the power. Kerry has already made clear his commitment to finishing the job in Iraq as he believes, as do I, that despite the rightness or wrongness of the invasion, we are there now, it's a mess, and it's our responsibility not to abandon them. Despite them truly hating us and feeling humiliated by our occupation, even the majority of Iraqis realize that our staying there for awhile is necessary.
What John Kerry will do that Bush won't do is restore America's clout in the world. Bush views actually listening and discussing the strategies on the terror war as a sign of weakness. He repeatedly states, in various ways on how we will not bow to anyone else's viewpoint and everyone is either with us or against us. Kerry too has stated that we will not turn over all of our authority and decision making to others. But Kerry realizes that in order to win this war, we cannot take this "all or nothing" approach like what Bush has taken with both the world and American people.
Keep in mind, even if John Kerry is elected president, he will still face a congreess that will either be a majority in one or both houses for the republicans. Unlike Bush, he will be forced to consider other viewpoints than his pre-conceived agenda. We will then have a little more of a "balance of power."
And for the terrorists, they will have an American President to contend with that is not leaving Iraq, has experience in military affairs, and will have more of the world on his side. They will have no let up in the forces that are tracking them down, in fact, i would expect more involvement as other countries are offered a real seat at the decision making table. They will understand who is in charge, but at least they will know that their opinion matters in a fight that affects everyone. The republicans even have to realize at some point that no one will tolerate being treated like someone's child, which is the way the administration seems to treat the rest of the world. The world is their children, whom they will teach right and wrong to, and in the end, everyone will love them cause they were so right and loving. .
Wrong.
As right or wrong as the republicans believe they are, and make no mistake about it, on the whole, they are not "the bad guys," no human being with beyond a 6th grade education is going to tolerate being told what to do in this country. And likewise, countries that enjoyed 1000's of years of sovereignty are not going to yield to some young buck's whims. From some nation's perspective, they have been around a lot longer and know a thing or 2 about surviving thru the ages.
In the global theater, they (GOP) do sit on the side of righteousness in the big picture, but trying to shove all that righteousness down everyone's throat, in power or not, has become it's own burden on the party and how they are percieved.
Right wing pundits will of course retort with lines that say something like "how can you vote for Kerry if he did this or voted for that in the past?" In their minds it is unthinkable that anyone would vote for a guy who in their minds hasn't been "as solid as a rock" as the president in their views and beliefs. They view Bush's stubborness as an asset and don't see how anyone couldn't see the same thing given their view of the facts. Which in their mind, just like it is in everyone's mind, a fair assessment.
They will also claim that "hate" can't get someone elected. THis, even tho a distain for Jimmy Carter was led by the GOP cry of "ABC" (anything but carter) in the 1980 campaign. In 1980, I remember republicans were furious with Carter and felt many "negative emotions" about him. THe topper was a perception that his presidency had led to America appearing weak and causing the hostages being taken in Iran. When the hostages were released, as Reagan was being sworn in, I remember my father reflecting the sentiments orf the Reagan supporters. He would go on about how "america would be viewed with respect again now that they got rid of that peanut farmer hick." He would point to the release of the hostages as a clear signal that they were afraid of him, unlike Carter. This was despite the fact that Carter's people had negotiated the release of the hostages and the release time was the last face saving measure to "stick it" to the americans and play up that belief. But from their perspective, they had caused Carter to be overthrown, just as they caused america's puppet, the Shah, to be overthrown. The incident in Spain led me to staart thinking about this incident again.
The republicans have been spreading the idea that if Kerry is elected, the terrorists win. They point to Spain's election as proof. But who is to say that the Socialists, who represented the majority of Spanish voters views, wouldn't have won anyway. Polling was close before the incident, and one thing that is true is that some of their polling simply isn't as accurate as ours. And even govt. sourced polls couldn't extend their candidates lead outside the margin of error. If there was a big lesson to be learned from this, it may be that democracy does work, and that all people need to be heard in a serious manner. I don't fear the change in power in spain, as much as I don't agree with many socialist positions (but keep in mind, the socialists are democratic socialists, not communists as some want to infer) . I don't fear it because the new Spanish leader because he has pledged his will to fight terrorism. And I don't simplistically view a desire to perhaps change tactics as a "weakness" because he doesn't blindly follow the president's views. As i've said before, there are many voices and viewpoints that deserve to be heard.
The fact that 9/11 happened and we have a really big military and wealth and are really threatened by terrorists does not give us a certificate in being the experts on the subject. The fact is, this is a new kind of battle, and we are all a little naive. The conservative approach may be to take an all out offensive against who they view as the biggest enemies and give themseves as much authority and power as it takes to win without being slowed down by other "viewpoints" that they view as inherently "weaker" than any line they take. And their viewpoint could be ultimately right, or maybe not,,,we don't know.
But even if we assume theycould be right in their approach, the fact that they have basically all the decision making power and made those decisions without any real, honest debate, makes that point moot. Republicans can argue until they are blue in the face about any position or policy. The fact that pretty much everything Bush has done from day 1 has been done with the blessing of a majority that inherently ensured victory in almost every case (except for the senate in Bush's 1st year, but after 9/11, the cooperation spirit was held high overeverything else, and after the 2002 elections, it was an intimidated legislature. ).
The republicans have been highly effective in transferring the business concept of cornering a market into the political arena. They have indeed enjoyed a monopoly on the political arena's field. They don't own everything, but they own enough to pretty much get done whatever they need to in most cases. And that needs to change. This goverment was never meant to operate so one sidedly.
We need to get back to a balance of power and a check and balance system for all of our sakes. Keeping all the power in 1 party at a time when everyone really needs to be heard for anything to really get done in this war is vital. This november, vote for change, vote for John Kerry.
I believe Kerry can win in Novemeber. And that is not because of any poll, despite him doing well in them. But his victory will only happen if turnout is high. The energy that was created over the last year for the democrat's sake needs to be kept up and continue to Novemebr. And that won't happen rehashing WMD arguements over and over. Kerry needs to himself and challenge the president to tell the American people what the future could hold in their presidency. We have now gotten to the point in this discourse that neither side wants to talk about anythigng in the future unless they can control every aspect of it. That is a result of the "gotcha" game. Every politician now knows if they predict anything in the war ofn terror they could be damaged politically. The administration has learned that in the WMD debate and are only left with defending a hopelessly undefensable position so they don't show any sign of weakness.
Kerry doesn't want to step in any political doo-doo either as he realizes anything said in March could be proven false by November. But Kerry need not get bogged down in this silly over and over about Iraq. What the American people will respond to is a bigger picture, long term view. No one is asking either side to be Kreskin, despite the pure speculative nature of all the "news" shows anymore. I believe this is where Kerry can show his leadership abilities in this campaign. By going beyond the quagmire of the current debate and getting to more important matters than the moot point that we will be cleaning up this mess in Iraq for a long time.
We shall see if he answers that call.