Neighbors to the south of me:
No doubt you're sick of electioneering right about now. Up here in Canada, our elections run for one month, and that's plenty long enough. Yours has been going on for over a year now. I don't know how you stand it. Then again, the argument can be made that you're electing the most powerful man in the world, whereas we are merely electing the leader of Canada. Big difference there.
Listen--you've heard a few things about us Canucks I'd like to dispel. One, we aren't all sanctimonious assholes. True, there are a few of those in government, but our government keeps getting elected largely by one province out of thirteen. (Unfortunately, that province is mine.)
Two, not all of us think George Bush is completely out to lunch. It's true that if only Canadians could vote on Tuesday, Kerry would win in a landslide. But there are a few of us who wish it would be otherwise.
We had an election earlier this year, too. And I noticed during our campaign that there was very little discussion of issues. All of that got drowned in a tide of fear. See, our Democrats (who have been so very much more successful at grabbing and keeping power than yours have) made it their business to spread fear about our Republican party and its policies. If you elect the Conservatives, the party line went, the country will go to hell in a handbasket. And people believed it
Now, in your campaign, I see the same thing multiplied beyond all belief...and used by both sides. If you re-elect Bush, say the Dems, you're begging for more terrorism.. If you elect Kerry, say the GOP, the terrorists win. Cheney suggested there'd be atrocities like the Beslan school hostage-taking seen in America if Kerry won
This is pretty dirty pool.
Ask Bush and Kerry if they want to see another 9/11 and the answer will be unequivocal. Ask either of them about their plans to destroy America--each side accuses the other of having such plans--and the response will be heated and passionate. Both leaders and both parties want to build America, but they have radically different views of what shape America should take.
George W. Bush, contrary to popular Canadian opinion, is not stupid. Indeed, the man scored in the 96th percentile on his S.A.T.s. My sense is that Bush and our last Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, had a great deal in common, although they were worlds apart on the political spectrum. Both of these world leaders carefully cultured a bumbling, completely unintelligible image: Bush, because it played well to many of his constituents, and Chretien for much the same reason--Canada loves the triumph of the underdog. Our "Little Guy from Shawinigan" wasn't a little guy at all, but a consummate politician and streetfighter of admirable skill. Bush, who likes to portray himself as folksy and common, is no different.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is a great deal like our present Prime Minister, Paul Martin. Both of them are silver-spoon rich liberals who have a reputation for blowing with the political wind And both are anything but decisive, although they try so hard to appear so. One of Kerry's closest advisors is Canadian. Should Kerry be elected and Martin manage to hang on to power, the two would get on famously.
George's goal is to liberate the world. This is actually a noble ideal, or rather would be if the world was inclined to play along. Sadly, it isn't. And this is something the cabal of neoconservatives surrounding your sitting President don't pretend to understand. After all, they reason, isn't America the most successful country on the planet? Don't we have the strongest democracy? The strongest economy? The strongest military? The strongest culture? What's wrong with bringing the rest of the world up to our level?
Put so simply, there's nothing wrong with that. The United States has always had the strongest sense of altruism on the planet, too. No matter where in the world a disaster happens, America will be right there, helping clean up and put things to rights.
One problem, though, and it's a doozie: America's sense of altruism has been repeatedly and forcefully called into question. It's made people ponder U.S. motives in everything. Whether it's out of jealousy or fear, they see ulterior designs even where they may not exist.
There was a time, immediately after 9/11, when America could have launched anything up to a limited nuclear strike without angering the rest of the world. I was amazed the White House showed as much restraint as they did. The invasion of Afghanistan followed, and America had a lot of support for that action.
But for some reason, the United States never followed through. bin Laden is still alive, and still looking hearty and hale more than three years later. There remains a token force in Afghanistan, but it's nothing to what's in Iraq. And nobody can figure out where Iraq fit in to the war on terror. Half of Americans believe that Hussein was behind 9/11. We up in Canada are likely to this a testament to the stupidity of Americans. I happen to think it's more a testament to the effectiveness of the Republican propaganda machine.
A puppet regime has been installed in Kabul and they're trying really hard to make one work in Baghdad. The problem with puppet regimes is that nobody's dumb enough to ignore the strings. Hence the natives come to see that instead of democracy empowering them, it is enslaving them; that's not a good impression to make.
Anyway, Bush wants to liberate the world. There are hawks in his camp suggesting the invasion of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and even China. I have to admit this scares me. Even if Bush's motives are pure, this scares me a lot.
What do Iran, Syria, North Korea and China have in common? Not much. Two things leap to mind, though: there's no democracy in any of them and the prevailing religion is not Christianity. George W. Bush is a product of democracy and a member of that subset of Christians who call themselves 'evangelical'. It's not much of a leap to deduce that George's democracy rightly includes the Cross, kind of like a burger and fries: the religio-political Happy Meal.
Some Americans will speak up here and state that they have this concept down there--and a very good one it is--called 'separation of Church and State'. To which I reply: really? Have you noticed how many evangelicals are lining up to get out the Republican vote? Or how many Kerryites belong to 'liberal' churches? Both sides certain that God supports them?
Look, all of politics...indeed all of life...should be infused with spirituality. But when spirituality is replaced with religion, I get a tad nervous. When that religion is dogmatic and noninclusive, I get considerably more nervous. I'm trying not to speaks in the language of fear here, but I'm still unnerved. The rest of the world might not think it would be a better place under the God of George. They might disagree. Forcefully.
I have to say I don't know much about Kerry. This is Kerry's fault. He hasn't done a very good job of getting out his message. He's waffled so much it's like seven in the morning at the Golden Griddle. (I guess that'd be an IHOP to you). Nevertheless, he has impressed me that he's not an ideologue. Normally I like ideologues: even if I disagree with them, at least I know what I'm getting. But my honest belief in this instance is that America could use a little less of the iron fist. The world would be more willing to support the United States if Washington was willing to look beyond its borders with something other than an imperial eye.
There are many who believe that al-Qaeda is out to annihilate them. There is, no doubt, a lunatic fringe whose stated goal is to destroy America. But even bin Laden has said in his most recent missive that al Qaeda will leave the U.S. alone if it leaves the Muslim world alone. Do we believe the enemy? I don't know. But how's this for a course of action:
Pull all combatants out of Iraq. Allow it to go its own way, politically. Enlist world support in rebuilding the nation. By no means relax your guard on the homefront--bin Laden may well be lying. But 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq. By my lights, that's more than enough revenge for the 3000 killed on September 11th, 2001.
I think this is closer to Kerry's thinking than Bush's.
Domestically, whoever inherits the White House on Tuesday is in for a hell of an economic mess. The dollar is weak, unemployment is high, and the deficit and debt are astronomical. Kerry's plan to deal with this is vague at best.
He's also protectionist. I don't like this much at all. I'm really glad that Presidents don't set the direction of the economy all by themselves.
On social issues, it goes without saying that Kerry and I think alike. He favors civil unions for gays. I'd go him one better and legalize gay marriage, but at least civil unions are a damn sight better than Bush''s policy on gays, which seems to be 'keep them far, far away from me'. Kerry is pro-choice, as I am; Bush is pro-life (although how you equate letting a ban on assault rifles lapse and killing a hundred thousand civilians in Iraq with being "pro-life" I can't begin to guess.) Kerry supports stem cell research, which holds the promise of nearly eradicating all disease on Earth; Bush sees it as murder.
I can't say I wholeheartedly endorse Kerry, but I think new perspectives are needed in the White House. The current ones aren't working too well. To steal the campaign slogan of our provincial Liberal party, I think Americans would do well to "choose change".
No comments:
Post a Comment