Even though I strongly dislike the Bush administration, I don’t feel comfortable voting for a candidate simply because he is the lesser of two evils. Luckily, Kerry currently enjoys a significant lead in the state of Washington; were I still living in Pennsylvania, I might feel differently.
I don’t feel like writing another long post on this topic, I will be much more brief.
Although I agree with John Kerry on some issues (repealing tax cuts on the wealthiest, repealing the Patriot Act) I disagree with him on other significant issues:
- Fiscal Responsibility: Although I would love to believe that selective repealing of Bush’s tax cuts will solve the government’s fiscal issues, this is extremely unlikely.
- Reducing Federal Government: Kerry’s speeches and website emphasize solutions which involve more, not less government. I don’t believe less government is always the answer, but I do believe many issues are better dealt with at a local level (or not at all by government). Just like the ecosystem, large systems such as the economy are very hard to understand; large-scale artificial manipulation is rarely successful, and often harmful in unpredictable ways.
- FCC Indecency Laws: As far as I can tell, Kerry’s position on the FCC’s indecency laws is no different than Bush’s. I disagree with both candidates here; indecency laws are silly.
I realize this is a much smaller list than I had with Bush, but Bush has four years of presidency behind him, and I can’t make reasonable predictions about a Kerry administration based upon Kerry’s website or Senate record. Much like Bush, Kerry’s stance on the issues is more motherhood and apple pie, which is very tough to analyze.
I also realize that I’m nitpicking by deciding against Kerry; I share a non-trivial fraction of views with Kerry and the democrats, and deciding not to vote for a candidate because you do not agree with 100% of his views may be a bit extremist. I will expand upon that point in a later post.
7 Comments
There are really things that I’d imagine you’d put on both lists. For example, Kerry opposes gay marriage, though at least he’s “liberal” enough not to want to ammend the constitution (although I’ve heard him waffle on that). The No Child Left Behind act was co-authored by Ted Kennedy, so it’s not the big Republican plan that Kerry would want you to believe… in fact I’m fairly sure he at one point in time was a strong supporter.
Stem Cell research, as far as I can tell, has been totally blown out of proportion. Just because Bush won’t spend federal money on it (or Abortion, or Sex Ed) doesn’t mean the private sector is restricted from doing any of those things.
Based on the debates, I don’t think there’s any question that they’re both huge spenders - regardless of what their websites say. Kerry’s going to raise the minimum wage, spend more federal dollars on healthcare, spend tax dollars on stem cells, increase military spending, etc. They’re both spending maniacs and I agree with you that selective tax raises (Kerry calls them “repealing cuts”, which is cute) aren’t likely to pay for it all.
Kerry’s never come out and said he would fully repeal the Patriot act as far as I know. He was, obviously, a sitting senator when it passed. He has talked about “reforming” it, however.
Neither of these clowns deserver our vote.
I didn’t spend as much time writing and researching this post so there’s a lot missing on Kerry’s list. I had Gay Marriage on the list, but the Kerry website’s position remains consistent with what I said in my Bush post, which is no Federal legislation, let the states decide. I’m trying not to fault candidates for their personal views (as long as it doesn’t result in laws or policy).
You’re correct that Kerry (by virtue of his Senatorial votes) is partially to blame for legislation passed during the last four years. (Regading the Patriot Act: I’ve read that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act not because he agreed with 100% of the contents, but rather because he felt it was important to apply an immediate stopgap, and then amend the act later. This, in my opinion, is a reasonable stance (as opposed to the “I love all of it” Bush stance), but not necessarily one I agree with. Checking the facts, it looks like he wants to keep 95% of it. I guess he’ll take out the evil 5% and leave the other 95% which contains the ponies and gumdrops)
Regarding Federal Funding: I realize that the private sector can do some of those things (some because I know Bush wants to ban Human Cloning, and I don’t know the details regarding new Stem Cell lines), but Federal funding should be based on cost-efficacy, not religious beliefs. Specifically, Sex Education funding should be applied toward the most effective methods for reducing pregnancy and disease. I believe believe there are much more effective vectors than Abstinence-Only education here.
The sex education issue is kind of interesting to talk about, although it probably doesn’t hit my top 10 in terms of importance.
So, is your viewpoint that it is the job of public schools to teach students how to behave sexually? Is teaching a Catholic child how to use a condom any more or less offensive to a family’s religion than making someone of another religion take off their turban to meet a school dress code or something?
It’s interesting to me because I thought traditional liberal principles supported:
1) Keeping the government out of your bedroom, and
2) Not stepping on anyone’s freedom to practice his/her religion (extreme example - removing ‘God’ from the pledge as to not offend people of various religions - generally opposed by conservatives and partially supported by liberals)
To me, this stance steps on both principles at least a little bit. Does the supposed savings in health problems make up for these little missteps? If so, how much money do we need to save for violating the above two principles to be “worth it”?
Realistically, the Sex Education issue isn’t on my top 10 list either, it was just simpler to talk about than some of the other issues.
I’m of two minds on the sex education in public schools issue, so I realize I’m at risk for contradicting myself (or even changing my mind — how terrible would that be? Where is my resolve and leadership here?).
Of the two points you brought up as liberal principles, I believe the first doesn’t quite apply (I don’t see how education is equivalent to “Government in the bedroom”), but I believe your second point is valid.
It’s impossible not to offend someone with any education policy. Teaching Evolution will offend some, not teaching about Native American culture in history class will offend others, you get the point.
Does this mean we shouldn’t teach sex education or evolution? I don’t think so. We should allow parents and students to opt out of the portions of education they find offensive.
Either way, I think this is fundamentally a local issue. Let the rural Kansas schools decide if they wish to present the Creationist viewpoints. Let the inner city schools choose which contraception methods they wish to teach.
The point I was trying to make with the Federal Funding is the following: I think Abstinence-only education is an inefficient use of Federal funds to prevent pregnancy and disease.
Eek, not sure about how well allowing “parents and students to opt out of the portions of education they find offensive” would work. No, black history month isn’t the end-all and be-all to solving issues around racism, but if a kid’s parents are blatently bigoted, it’s hard to imagine how it would hurt the kid in the learning be a better, more-well adjusted member of society.
There are some valid reasons why parent should allow kids to opt out of sex ed classes, but it’s a slippery slope to talk about opting out of offensive educational policies generally.
The point that might be missing above is that the lack of complete sex ed classes in areas not like the pretty, white suburbs we grew up in can have a tremendous potential impact on helping low income learn enough shit so as not to get them knocked up and drop out of school.
I thought I’d throw in a couple thoughts/observations based on the comments here (in no particular order).
1.) Stem Cell research is regulated by the government (yes, I know there are people who think government regulation is bad, but we’ll just have to disagree) If the Private Sector wants to do anything with stem cells or eventual human testing if they develop a treatment for something then they will need government approval. Basically at some level federal approval will be necessary and if there are roadblocks to this then Stem Cell research cannot proceed.
2.) Gay Marriage: Although both Bush and Kerry are against the term Gay Marriage, Bush is also against extending rights to gay couples. Kerry supports the extensions of basic rights to a couple of the same sex, but is against the term “gay marriage”, I believe civil union is the prefered term. There is a huge difference here in policy if not in wording. Frankly I could care less if the term marriage only applies to “traditional” couples or not, the issue to me is a human rights issue not a trivial definition.
3.) No Child Left Behind, was passed by both parties Republicans and Democrats alike. For a couple years now I’ve heard my mom (a teacher) rail on how much that particular piece of legislation sucks. I held that view for awhile, and in some way still do, but my perspective has changed a little bit. I spoke to a friend of a friend for a couple hours one night about this act. This guy is in grad school for education policy so I took his opinions and thoughts pretty seriously. Basically the Act was written to address some fundamental problems in our educational system. In particular the imbalance between the haves and the have nots. With this as a guiding principle the No Child Left Behind Act was written, and kinda veered a little off track. It is flawed to say the least, but it was a start. Since it’s passage the Act has been severely underfunded. This means increased testing of children with less funding to do so with the result of cutting after school programs and other non-critical school programs. With adequate funding the NCLBA may have actually done a few good things, but still the school accountability system was a little extreme. I’m not saying I support this, but like other issues a symbolic first step to address a glaring issue is always important.
4.) Sex Education (in particular condom use): Sex education is EDUCATION not an invasion into the bedroom. They don’t arrest people for teaching kids how to use condoms. Abstinence only education is closed minded and dangerous. Take for instance that 90% of Americans ARE NOT virgins when they’re married. That means they’re having sex (no shit). Teaching kids that abstinence is the only way is hypocritical and dangerous. I lived in Africa for a year in a place where 30% of the people my age were HIV positive. If there wasn’t a huge push for condom education then probably 60-70% would have been HIV positive. Teaching someone how to protect themself from sexually transmitted dieseases in the event that, god forbid, they have sex is extremely important in todays culture. Sex education is not an invasion of privacy it is a HEALTH issue.
5.) Lastly to address fiscal responsibility neither candidate really has the answers. I think the best way to get out deficit spending is to stop spending so goddamn much on the military, and spend more on social problems. Yes us well-to-do white suburban boys don’t need government help on much, but there are a lot of people who do, and I’m in favor of taking a little out of the military coffers and spending it on people who need it. Something like $600 billion spent on military, a few billion of that could go a long way in funding Education, Health Care…
Case in Point: Missile defense systems are Ridiculous and we’re sinking money into them
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-9/p26.html
Yeah, dealing with matters of faith and what’s “offensive” is always a slippery slope. Once you allow some religious paraphenalia do you allow it all? What if my religion entails wearing raw goat intestines (as valid of a religion as any other if you’re treating them all equally) … not sure how to deal with those issues.
Bush’s line about extending rights feels like a last ditch effort to pick up some swing votes. Kerry’s weak stance on Gay Marriage is one of the things I don’t like about him.