Daniel weighs in on politics--Special Edition
Ordinarily, Daniel and politics don't mix. I've never participated in a protest. I never saw Fahrenheit: 9/11. On the war in Iraq I've said said next to nothing. And watching CSPAN is about as appealing to me as jumping in a volcano. Until about a month ago, I was completely apathetic about the political processes of our nation.
After all, there is so much the politicians and activists say and do that I despise. The politicians overgeneralize; they cater to the wealthy and powerful; they change the subject; they appeal to patriotism to serve their ends; and they lie. The activists judiciously choose evidence that supports their view and ignore or throw out the rest. I'm talking about the mindless cheering crowds and the woman who thrusts a sign that says 'CHRISTIANS FOR BUSH' on television; I'm talking about Veterans for Truth and the CBS documents; I'm talking about lavish convention parties thrown by massive corporations. I'm talking about televised ads so thick with mud you have to spray your TV screen with Windex.
All that turned me off to politics. But then last month I realized that this was the most important election of our times taking place right now. Plus I had a some time on my hands. So I started doing my homework.
I ran into my biggest problem almost immediately: finding objective sources. That meant, I discovered, throwing out for consideration the speech by Georgia's own Zell Miller. Oh and Dick Cheney's. And for that matter, all the other speeches--from both conventions. It also meant throwing out daily one-liners from the campaign trail. Why did I throw all these out? Because they all contained my biggest political pet-peeves. I saw Bush respond to concerns over when US soldiers in Iraq would return home by saying they would stay until they had delivered freedom to Iraq; in other words, I saw Bush respond by appealing to patriotism. I saw Zell lie through his teeth on national television. I saw a determined Kerry succumb to talking like a talking Fisher Price toy: "W is for Wrong." I saw many, many people tell the truth but not the whole truth. For example, Bush said during his convention speech that job growth was looking promising. What he didn't say was that jobs, and the economy in general, looked even more promising before Bush took office. Finally, I settled on a few sources that I thought to be the most objective, or perhaps the least biased, to get my campaign news: major network news sites via Google news, editorials from established newspapers (such as the New York Times), and the offerings of PBS, including NPR. I also began reviewing the essays on slate.com on a regular basis. That I finally and officially turned against Bush after following the campaign for several weeks did not surprise me, but something else did.
What surprised me was the number of deeply held personal beliefs this campaign touched on. No, make that whacked with a hammer. I have very few of these in all, and many I have only recently acquired. They are not the run-of-the mill beliefs you come across most often, like a belief in God, although religion does play a hand in one of them. I don't talk about these beliefs very often. But today you're in for a special treat, because I am going to tell you the things I believe in most strongly at the moment (and one belief I strongly oppose):
So there you have it. Because Bush's actions and policies go against my deeply held beliefs, I simply cannot vote for Bush. But that is not the whole story. There are many more issues to consider--health care, education, Medicare, to name a few--before election day arrives. I do not claim to know the best path for this country. All I can do is try my best to get the facts and choose who I believe in my heart will best lead us on.
After all, there is so much the politicians and activists say and do that I despise. The politicians overgeneralize; they cater to the wealthy and powerful; they change the subject; they appeal to patriotism to serve their ends; and they lie. The activists judiciously choose evidence that supports their view and ignore or throw out the rest. I'm talking about the mindless cheering crowds and the woman who thrusts a sign that says 'CHRISTIANS FOR BUSH' on television; I'm talking about Veterans for Truth and the CBS documents; I'm talking about lavish convention parties thrown by massive corporations. I'm talking about televised ads so thick with mud you have to spray your TV screen with Windex.
All that turned me off to politics. But then last month I realized that this was the most important election of our times taking place right now. Plus I had a some time on my hands. So I started doing my homework.
I ran into my biggest problem almost immediately: finding objective sources. That meant, I discovered, throwing out for consideration the speech by Georgia's own Zell Miller. Oh and Dick Cheney's. And for that matter, all the other speeches--from both conventions. It also meant throwing out daily one-liners from the campaign trail. Why did I throw all these out? Because they all contained my biggest political pet-peeves. I saw Bush respond to concerns over when US soldiers in Iraq would return home by saying they would stay until they had delivered freedom to Iraq; in other words, I saw Bush respond by appealing to patriotism. I saw Zell lie through his teeth on national television. I saw a determined Kerry succumb to talking like a talking Fisher Price toy: "W is for Wrong." I saw many, many people tell the truth but not the whole truth. For example, Bush said during his convention speech that job growth was looking promising. What he didn't say was that jobs, and the economy in general, looked even more promising before Bush took office. Finally, I settled on a few sources that I thought to be the most objective, or perhaps the least biased, to get my campaign news: major network news sites via Google news, editorials from established newspapers (such as the New York Times), and the offerings of PBS, including NPR. I also began reviewing the essays on slate.com on a regular basis. That I finally and officially turned against Bush after following the campaign for several weeks did not surprise me, but something else did.
What surprised me was the number of deeply held personal beliefs this campaign touched on. No, make that whacked with a hammer. I have very few of these in all, and many I have only recently acquired. They are not the run-of-the mill beliefs you come across most often, like a belief in God, although religion does play a hand in one of them. I don't talk about these beliefs very often. But today you're in for a special treat, because I am going to tell you the things I believe in most strongly at the moment (and one belief I strongly oppose):
- I believe that the rich have a special obligation to society. Surprising as it sounds, this is one of my strongest beliefs. Many different factors, including personal experience, have convinced me the the rich carry this involuntary burden. The most important experience was my internship last summer. During the internship, I witnessed first-hand the reliance the arts world has on the rich. (Please review this entry I wrote following the tragic death of an entire rich family. It explains my beliefs about rich people in much greater detail. Also, I consider it one the my best written entries.) The lives of two famous rich people further convinced me. The first, Andrew Carnegie, made millions as a robber barron and gave away most of it to important causes as a noble captain of industry. The other, Robert Woodruff, engaged in a ridiculous amount of philanthropy throughout his life, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the prosperous outcome of Atlanta. It is Woodruff the city's main arts center is named after. (Please note that rich people can benifit from giving too. There's a reason you get a tax write-off for donations. And if the added publicity for your good works brings in even more wealth to you, so much the better.)
I support curtailing the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--it is a burden they can and should accept. Doing so would give the government more money to pay off its deficit and to spend on programs that benefit the quality of life of all Americans. Bush's tax cut, however, rewards rich people the most. Only if rich people spend more as a result will our economy benefit. But instead of spending more, the rich usually choose to save this money, which does not benefit our economy.
- I believe wholeheartedly in equal rights for gays, especially the right to marry and receive the same rights and privileges given to heterosexual married couples. Given that I'm gay, does this go without saying? Most likely. But keep in mind not all gay people are in favor of gay marriage; a few believe marriage is a purely heterosexual concept that should not be assimilated, so they support civil unions instead. I believe gay rights is the next logical step in the long battle for equal rights in this country, following human slavery, access to divorce, universal suffrage, access to contraceptives, racial segregation, inter-racial marriage, religious freedom, inter-faith marriages, and equal rights for women. I believe sexual orientation is not something that can be chosen, but that can be tolerated, accepted, and even celebrated. I believe that I am right about this so strongly that I can feel it in my bones.
I support all efforts that support a positive, accepting view of sexual minorities in society. I reject Bush's proposal to amend the Constitution so as to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
- I believe in the progress of science as one of humanity's best hopes for overcoming its challenges.
Bush's administration and policies have held back the progress of scientific research. Several letters, including one signed by a number of Nobel laureates support this claim. I support unrestricted access to stem-cells for medical research, although I acknowledge the many misconceptions surrounding their use and benefits. I also acknowledge that science raises ethical issues in today's world. I believe these ethical issues, however, do not merit holding back the progress of science, if that is even possible.
- I DO NOT believe in a two-option worldview. Taken from religioustolerance.org:
"One of the most serious human failings is a rigid belief in the two option theory - i.e. that there are often two and only two possible alternatives:
-A belief is either true or false
-An act is either good or evil
-A person is composed of body and soul
-Everyone goes to Heaven or Hell after death
-There are two supernatural beings: God and Satan; etc.
Often, we do not allow for a third or fourth possibility. Many people do not realize that what one group may consider to be a heroic act, others consider it to be a despicable, cowardly act. This leads many people to a sequence of beliefs that can descend into genocide."
George W. Bush apparently believes in a two option theory. He has used the term 'Axis of Evil' to describe the enemies he has engaged: terrorists and certain regimes in the Middle East. The implication is that the enemies we have militarily engaged are on the side of evil and that we are on the side of good. This view is flawed in three ways. First, it ignores possibilities outside of his good v. bad concept. For instance, by equating evil with terrorists and the old regime in Iraq only it ignores other nation states who pose a threat to the world, including North Korea, which is currently developing nuclear weapons. Second, many view US military actions differently than Bush does. They point to abuse of Iraqi prisoners by members of the US military as evidence that the US is not completely good. Others who disagree with the Bush's optimistic view of the war's outcome point to the relentless wave of insurgencies that have resulted in 1000 soldiers dead. Still others disagree that we should prolong the occupation indefinitely. Finally, while motives for going to war against Saddam Hussein are justified by the Bush's two-option view of the world, in reality they no longer seem to hold. Connections drawn between Iraq and September 11th now seem tenuous, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq seem to have been an illusion.
I support foreign policy that doesn't view the world as black and white, but rather comprehends its complex nature and takes into account the contrary viewpoints of other individuals and nations.
So there you have it. Because Bush's actions and policies go against my deeply held beliefs, I simply cannot vote for Bush. But that is not the whole story. There are many more issues to consider--health care, education, Medicare, to name a few--before election day arrives. I do not claim to know the best path for this country. All I can do is try my best to get the facts and choose who I believe in my heart will best lead us on.