first, i want to express my respect to katie (my wife) for daring to post a pro-Kerry analysis of the war in iraq etc. i agree with her, despite (or maybe in spite) what most our conservative family members (you know who you are) might think. it was wrong to change the purpose of the war and not admit a mistake on the administration's part. i also think that the democrats have good ideas in trying to help lower income families, control guns, and protect minorities.
kerry's foreign policy aligns with my personal beliefs. however, as an undecided voter, i don't think i can vote for him. his health care plan is too expensive and i think that most of the promises he makes will be hard to fulfill with a deficit and republican congress. he has good plans and intentions, but they are not realistic in fiscal terms. most of all, if liberals think that government should not infringe on a person's right of choice, why can government overstep these boundaries when it comes to finances and business?
conversely, i think i will vote for bush because i think his plans are more beneficial to the economy. i don't agree with how he has handled the wars abroad or how he has run a huge deficit. more importantly, if we neglect to help the needy through government, we take upon ourselves a personal obligation to do so. in other words, no matter who you vote for, there are problems that someone needs to fix and i am still undecided, and our house is undivided...i think.
2 comments:
I agree with you friends that the Bush cabal did not prosecute the war the best way possible. Given the information I have, I would not have gone to war. However, working with a member of the Intelligence Committee has made me realize that there is a lot contained in the National Intelligence Estimates that we do not know and cannot be made public. Bush cannot rely on these to fortify his arguments for WMDs because he cannot prove it by releasing it to the public. Incidentally, if he were to release it, it would be the declassified version. Nevertheless, you and I are in harmony about Bush's foreign policy up to a point.
Up to a point because I demur when I hear Kerry's vision of multilateralism. I know Fox news and the neocons have made it seem worse than it probably is and I'll admit I feel bad for Kerry when his statements are taken out of context ("global test"), but despite a huge movement on the part of neoliberal institutionalists to laud the merits of wrapping yourself up in organizations like the U.N. or the Kyoto Protocols limits US sovereignty. Granted, there is a certain amount of "soft power" gained by looking like you are playing by the rules, but committing ourselves to outside goals both limits our ability to act without economic, political or social repercussion. There is a balance to be struck. D&C 121's rules applly to states I believe. Persuasion is the way to go, but not at the expense of one's own agency. I don't start smoking so I can gain favor in the eyes of smokers.
Briant touched on health care and the role of government in providing for the poor. I understood Katie as saying that the latter was the very reason she was going democratic. I have one suggestion for you both: read Ezra Taft Benson's speeh/talk/diatribe "The Proper Role of Government" (google it). Prima facie, it paints President Benson as a heartless republican who doesn't care about the poor, but he qualifies his position using the scriptures and revelation as a prophet. Another book to read is "Prophets, Principles and National Security." I believe the principle author is J. Reuben Clark. It is not a role of gevernment to create wealth. Our welfare system takes from taxpayers and goves to tax consumers only 50% of which actually work. I agree that it is our role to help them, but our system is gravitating too far left at the expense of our agency. Ultimately, welfare should be privitized (so should social security) but it will be the most difficult transition our country has ever made. Maybe when our major cities are destroyed with nuclear weapons adn we have to rebuild, we can implement this new system. Several heads of state have visited the Church's headquarters inquiring about our welfare program. THAT is the Lord's plan. Isaiah tells us that the nations of the earth will go to the mountain of the Lord and "learn [our] ways." This refers not only to spiritual matters but to matters pertaining to the organization of the Kindom of God.
Finally, Katie made the point about how she liked how Kerry made a statement alluding to the proper separation of church and state. Kerry said, "I cannot take what is for me an article of faith and legislate it." I have to admit I do not want a marriage amendment, I do not want it for different reasons. Mine have nothing to do with church and state but of states' rights. Look at prohibition. I think prohibition against alcohol is wrong at the federal level. The repeal of that amendment left such authority up to states. Regarding Kerry's aleged separation of church and state: for me, free agency is an article of faith and I am darn glad it was legislated. Morality forms the base of righteous law. Of course we are supposed to legislate articles of faith. Marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a matter of religion and to propose an amendment is not to offend the 1st amendment. It is not the establishment of a religion.
I must end my tirade. All I want is for Katie to like me. Please forgive my yelling at Briant at Lennox and my bétises at Herman Miller.
P.S. Deficit spending on the coattails of a recession increases GDP and acts as the absent investor.
Post a Comment