| Subject: Why I am leary of the Democratic Platform |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 5/04 12:00am
One of the things that has in the past made me extremely leary of the Democratic platform is something Duane has voiced to some extent.
The Democratic party says things like "Jobs for everyone" and "Everyone gets Healthcare" or "Make friends and the world will like you". None of these are things that Republicans oppose as far as I know, as I'm fairly certain that both parties want what's best for America.
The problem though, is that the Democrats often use wreckless means to carry out some rather idealistic assumptions. FDR did help pull us out of the depression the rest of the way, but in so doing he made us mandatorally pay into something that's in a hell of a mess now, namely social security. It was a short-term fix with long-term implications.
Providing jobs to everyone SOUNDS good, but the problem is that if you provide jobs to everyone you FORCE some companies to create jobs they otherwise might not have, thereby shutting down OTHER jobs they might have made, which in the end means that everyone else is not making as much money as they MIGHT have made had jobs with a certain low-set salary not been foisted upon them in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, some people are never going to have jobs. Some people are never going to have healthcare. Those are realistic assumptions. Cruel, hard, but realistic.
With making friends and alliances, that is ALWAYS a desirable end, but the question is what one is willing to sacrifice in order to make friends. Suppose that when we went to Iraq we found a horde of WMD's. Would our war have then been justified and to hell with the global community? Because we THOUGHT they did, and they didn't, does that then make our war unjust?
I make no mistake or have any illusions about Republican religous fervor, but I can't say in matters of economics and global policy that if I were Bush I'd have acted differently.
The war has been declared a mess because no WMD's were found, and so it seemed like we were simply picking on Iraq in a futile war. Of course, the intelligence seemed very real, and I think Bush probably DID think it was real. (Otherwise, he was a complete idiot to lie in front of the American public--something I don't think even Bush would be stupid enough to do)
The question automatically arises then, "Why are we still there?" and the answer to that question, at least as I see it, is to ensure inasmuch as is possible that we don't have to go back over there anytime soon, hence all the talk about training Iraqi's until they are strong enough to impose their own order and the like. (I don't think either party values losing American lives)
So, I suppose what most bothers me about the Democratic platform is that often what they seem to stand for is just too good to be true, and it often is.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything personally to indicate that Kerry is going to do a better job than Bush. I think Kerry is better at orating than Bush, but that's a no-brainer. They both seem to be approaching the problem from the same train of thought, except that Kerry demolished Bush when it came to expressing that train of thought.
So, the trade-off as I see it goes something like this. If we take Kerry as our president, we risk first and foremost short-term economic thinking that is likely to hurt us in the long run, and secondly we have a new variable in our equation about making alliances and how strongly that ought to run. (e.g. should we always be willing to wait for the global community if we have information on good faith that someone may soon be posing a threat?)
If we take Bush as our president we have to worry about what faith based bullshit he'll try to pull next, and general concerns about religion influencing him in matters concerning abortion and the like. I don't think we have to worry about him dragging us into useless wars, because I don't think that's what he did. He acted on information he thought was legitimate, or else he was/is the biggest political fool on the face of the planet. I don't think we have to worry about the enconomy as much either.
So really, it's more a matter of what kind of stupid shit you are willing to tolerate. I don't like Kerry, and I don't like Bush, and there is no third party to vote for that makes any difference, so by my inaction I've actually made an action.
Oh, and also I don't think populace voting makes any difference whatsoever.
In 2004 Don't Vote. Paid for by the "this whole thing is a farce" foundation.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 