Hearing Liberals talk about possibly not voting for President in 2008 or voting for a third party candidate worries me a lot. Not that I don’t understand the sentiment. Given our current situation, I share the disappointment of many liberals about the lack of sufficiently aggressive opposition to the Bush administration, its war in Iraq, and its potential war against Iran.
Saying that I will vote for any of the current crop of Democratic candidates or likely Democratic candidates in the 2008 general election is not meant as a criticism of those who feel otherwise. I know we share most of the same values and that we want much the same thing for our country.
But still, that kind of talk worries me a great deal, for much the same reason that talk about voting for a third party candidate in 2000 worried me. The situation in 2000 was very similar to what the situation in 2008 could very well be – a Democratic presidential nominee who many liberals refuse to vote for because they believe that the Democratic nominee is too much like the Republican nominee. In 2000 we ended up with eight years of national and world wide catastrophe because of that misguided belief (notwithstanding the fact that there were other reasons as well for that catastrophe, including a Supreme Court that disgraced itself by abandoning every judicial principle that it’s supposed to stand for), and it could still get a lot worse.
I don’t want to see that mistake repeated in 2008 because I don’t think that our nation or the world could stand another four years of a Republican president. I believe that another Republican president could mean the end of our democracy and of world civilization as we know it.
The bottom line reason why I will vote for any of the current crop of Democratic candidatesThis has nothing to do with so-called “party loyalty”. “Party loyalty” is a very vague concept, just as “loyalty” to a nation’s government is a vague concept. A party deserves only as much loyalty as it earns, just as a government deserves only as much loyalty as it earns.
But I believe that there is a vast difference in quality between any of the current Democratic candidates and any of the current Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination). Consequently I believe there is a vast difference between the well being of our nation in Democratic compared to Republican hands.
It’s been that way for all nine presidential elections since I’ve been old enough to vote. I said in 1972 that I would always vote for whom I considered to be the best candidate, rather than basing my decision on the candidate’s party. Yet I’ve never seen a presidential election where the Democratic candidate wasn’t vastly superior to the Republican candidate. And I strongly believe that 2008 will be no exception to that rule.
It’s almost a given for presidential elections that candidates will campaign towards the centerIt frequently turns out that even those who later prove to be the most liberal of elected officials campaign towards the center. The obvious reason for that is that doing otherwise could put their campaigns at serious risk of being derailed by powerful interests.
I have great admiration for Dennis Kucinich for daring to
speak the truth about the real motive for the Iraq War and for John Edwards for making the
eradication of poverty the central theme of his campaign. For those and similar reasons, they are my top two choices for president.
But often it is the case that candidates who fail to fully express my values on the campaign trail or even express views that alienate me turn out to make excellent presidents. Consider the following examples:
Abraham Lincoln made it quite clear during his 1860 presidential campaign that he would NOT even attempt to eradicate slavery or disturb the status quo with regard to slavery. That was
despite his well recognized
antipathy to slavery. Indeed, the reason
why the South seceded from the Union upon Lincoln’s ascension to the presidency was because of his well known views on slavery. But Lincoln could not commit to the eradication of slavery during his presidential campaign because that would have made him unelectable. And for that reason, many Abolitionists had contempt for him or did not support his candidacy.
Yet, when the circumstances were right
Lincoln ended slavery, and for that reason alone he deserves the honor of being
the greatest president in U.S. history. Had almost anyone else been president at the time, slavery could have lasted for several more decades, and I suppose it is even possible that it could still be with us today.
John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960 on a platform that was as much or more militaristic than that of Richard Nixon. And indeed, he continued with that attitude into the initial stages of his presidency by carrying out the Eisenhower administration’s plans for the disastrous
invasion of Cuba. But he learned quickly from his mistakes. He steered us through the
Cuban missile crisis without provoking a nuclear war,
against the advice of many of his top military commanders; he (or his Secretary of Defense)
vetoed a plan for a false flag operation recommended by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was meant to provide an excuse for a full invasion of Cuba; he began making
plans for withdrawal from the Vietnam War while our involvement there was only a small fraction of what it would later become under his successors; he gave a
peace speech a few months before he was assassinated which most of us would find unbelievably anti-war in today’s climate (or in the climate of his times); and, he made overtures towards
accommodation with Fidel Castro. Many believe that he was assassinated largely because of his many overtures towards peace.
Al Gore also ran for president on a platform (in 2000) that many liberals found unpalatable. What disturbed me most about it was his constant promises of what he would do for the middle class, without ever acknowledging (as far as I am aware) that there are other people in our country who depend on our government to provide them the opportunity for a decent life.
It seems obvious to us now that Al Gore would have made a far better president than would have seemed likely from the presidential campaign he ran in 2000. But it was not so obvious at the time. Nevertheless, despite my discomfort with the campaign he ran, I never considered voting for any other candidate or not voting, because I always knew that Gore was the far preferable of the two candidates who stood a chance of being elected in 2000. If more liberals would have recognized that, Gore would have had so many additional Florida votes in 2000 that the election wouldn’t
have been close enough to steal (and he probably
would have won New Hampshire too, which also would have given him enough electoral votes to win the national election, even without Florida), and we would live in a much better world today.
What kind of president would Hillary Clinton make? – War and peace issuesI specifically address Senator Clinton here, since she is the most likely Democratic nominee who could result in significant defections among liberal Democrats (though similar issues apply to some of the other candidates as well). I share many of the concerns that potential defectors have – especially relating to her attitude towards the militarization of our country.
The continuing militarization of our country is an especially important issue for many liberals, including me, because we believe that the current militaristic path of our nation could prove catastrophic for our nation and the world. We find the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq to be especially abhorrent. The invasion was based on a
pack of lies that should have been evident to knowledgeable people; the war has
claimed the lives of more than a million innocent Iraqi civilians and ruined their country; nearly
four thousand American soldiers have died; the war is
bankrupting our country; and the future consequences to world peace and our planet’s environment are ominous.
Regarding issues of war and peace, Senator Clinton’s record is mixed: She was one of 77 Senators
to vote for the Iraq War Resolution, which made it easier for George Bush to invade Iraq; she has
refused to apologize for that vote; and she recently voted for a
non-binding Senate resolution condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, which many believe may make it easier for George Bush to initiate a war against Iran. On the other hand, she said at
last week’s debate that she intends to move towards the withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq; she was one of 34 Senators to
vote against the Military Commissions Act; and she was one of 14 Senators to recently
vote to cut off funding for the Iraq War.
Thus, with regard to the continued militarization of our country, Senator Clinton is somewhat of a question mark. Nevertheless, her overall record on the subject is far better than that of any of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul.
One thing to consider is that, as a woman, it is very possible that Senator Clinton feels a dire need to reassure the majority of our country’s voters that she will be tough enough on defense – and that may explain some of her positions as a candidate. Furthermore, given the prominent role that she played in her husband’s administration, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that as president she would not be more militaristic than her husband. And Bill Clinton was no war monger.
Hillary Clinton on domestic issuesA general indication of Senator Clinton’s voting record on domestic issues can be seen by a look at the Drum Major Institute’s “
Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle Class Record” (Note: Although the document specifically names the “Middle Class”, what it really is is a comparison of voting records favoring the middle class, working class and poor on the one hand vs. the wealthy on the other hand). The issues include an amendment on negotiating Medicare drug prices, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, the Class Action Fairness Act, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, CAFTA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, and the Sense of the Senate in Support of Social Security. Although the document is somewhat dated and reviews an incomplete record, it is nevertheless quite revealing, and I don’t believe that Senator Clinton’s voting record has changed significantly since 2005.
According to the document, Senator Clinton has a 100% rating for her votes on 7 of the 8 important issues (she did not vote on one) covered in the document. By comparison, for those same 8 issues, Senate Republicans as a group have average ratings ranging from 0% to 22%, while Senate Democrats as a group have ratings averaging from 43% to 100%. The other Senate Democrats running for president received ratings ranging from 75% to 100%. Not that the exact ratings are all that important. But what this shows is a huge and consistent difference between Democrats and Republicans on a host of important domestic issues, with hardly any overlap.
A final word on the 2008 general election I believe that there are many good reasons to be disappointed in or suspicious of some of our current Democratic candidates for president. It could even be that I’m wrong about there being a vast difference between each of the Democratic candidates compared with each of the Republican candidates. But we almost
know for certain that any of the Republican candidates would be a disaster for our country if elected president. They are all ideologues who adhere to the toxic ideologies of the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul with regard to war and possibly Rudy Giuliani with regard to some social issues).
Each and every Democratic candidate, on the other hand, is a long time Democrat who has proven his/her belief in most of the liberal – or at least moderate – policies espoused by the Democratic Party since the time of FDR. It seems to me that the best available evidence points to a huge difference between them and their Republican counterparts.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
