Politics: Which Way?

It's down to the wire.

There is only one focus for tomorrow: the election for President of the United States.

This has been a brutal campaign. George Bush is like a lightning rod attracting strong support or great animosity. John Kerry is more like a bowl of jello, attracting neither great support or great animosity... as judged by polls that show likely voters for Kerry are almost split between those voting for him and those voting against Bush... passions seem to slide off Kerry.

Why is this?

Let's look at Kerry first.

He has never been a person of outward passion. Even when he tries to be aroused, he leaves the impression of one who is about to put himself to sleep with his own voice. He certainly does have passion, however. His record of forty years is clearly one of animosity toward things military. He is a product of his Vietnam experience. He is also a product of those who believe it is the manifest destiny of the U.S. to leave the manifest destiny of others alone.

John Kerry is an idealist. He wants the world to be civil and reasonable and rational and kind. Therefore, he is prone to side with those who would use discussion rather than violence... who would provide aid and support rather than those who would leave it to the forces of the marketplace... who would place personal freedom above religious or moral outrage.

But he is also a man of contradiction and complexity. While disparaging the wealthy and powerful, he has become one. While arguing those with greater wealth and income should be taxed more, he is not. While stating that he would be a strong, militant leader against those who threaten us, he has voted to deny necessary resources to those who he would enlist in that effort. He has intellectual rather than personal idealism.

George Bush is not complex to understand.

He is religious and believes that there is a distinct line where individual freedom must not move past moral obligation. He tends to view the world in absolutes more than shades of grey. He supports a process of opportunity more than a process of support for individuals. He is unabashedly "America first" and will ignore world opinion if he feels he is morally right and acting in the best interests of the U.S. He is more comfortable with the entrepreneurial process than the social safety net process (although his Medicare prescription program is a decided departure from that comfort zone).

Consequently, George Bush is seen as reckless and a threat to individual and world freedom by those who do not share his religious or nationalistic views. They see him as the world bully rather than a defender of freedom and an espouser of liberty. They see corporate entanglements behind his domestic and international economic policies which leads them to see him as the enemy of the "common man".

The personal contrasts are stark. The political positions are distinct.

Where do I stand? As much as I would like to believe that it is possible to approach the present world situation in a civil, reasonable, rational and kind way, I am inclined to accept that there are forces against whom we must fight and eliminate... forces that are basically malevolent. Unfortunately, this is an overriding issue.

In an ideal world, I would choose to be civil and reasonable and rational and kind to all... despite any differences of opinion or goals. But in a world where flying airplanes into buildings is seen by some as magnifying the "glory of Allah", I recognize that a segment of the world has strong elements of the irrational.

Consequently, I will support our current president despite misgivings about other policies.