Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Voting Philosophy: Part 3


This Election Season

Now I’m faced with what seems to be the same choice all over again: elect the lesser of two evils. To everyone else, it seems, one is far worse than the other. To me, it's not so clear.

Consider our options:

On the one side we have a challenger who was brought to the fore by a reactionary and emotionally vocal group of grassroots individuals. 

Romney is wildly out of touch with the American public and seems to only find his justification from polling and then pandering to the Tea Party activists. He chokes on his silver spoon every couple of days and then spends his time defending ridiculously stupid statements when he should be using that time to present an actual plan for our economy. He's against the Affordable Care Act, but he doesn't seem to have anything to offer to a medical insurance and health care industry that is collapsing on top of its patients.

He does seem to appreciate the role of entrepreneurs in stabilizing our economy and the fact that government too often gets in the way of innovation. But he doesn't seem prepared to recognize the dangerous role that large and wealthy companies play in setting policies in this country, policies that protect their own interest while hindering the development of overall well-being. He does want to lower the tax burdens on small businesses and the middle class, but he wants to do so by supporting those huge donors and companies that support his campaign. 

He also truly seems to not care about huge swaths of the American population. His 47% statement has been taken out of context a lot recently, but even in context, he admits that he isn't really interested in addressing the concerns of those who would never vote for him. He truly does not care about gay marriage, but he's willing to pander to the bigots who do care if it gets him elected. I don't think he cares either way about women's rights or the right to choice, but if it will get him elected, he'll cut right through the issues. (And I'm not talking about the issue of government funding abortion on demand, so don't try and color the argument that way. Women's health issues are dramatically being cut by insurance companies with no claim to religious freedom or government funding. That's another post, though.)

Romney is a politician--nothing more and nothing less. He will treat power much the same as any other that has been elected in recent years. A vote for Romney, though, will be seen as an endorsement of everything he stands for. Even if someone votes for him because they support his economic policies, their vote will be seen as an implicit endorsement or at least acceptance of his stand on social issues as well.

So let's consider his opponent.

President Obama rode into office on a riptide of enthusiasm. His message of hope and change was exactly what a worried and depressed nation needed. We had great hopes for him and his presidency. He was going to change things, right?

Well let's look at the record.

Gay marriage? Finally! We have a president who supports marriage equality. Granted, it took him until this year to actually come forward and say so. And even then, he refused to go further than to say that he personally supported marriage equality. He still holds the official position that it is an issue for the states to decide. So... a qualified success?

Healthcare? Managed to pass a huge bill that has made absolutely no one happy. The process it followed to get passed was all but completely illegal, it may actually increase the cost of healthcare for almost everyone involved, and it served as the ultimate gadfly to coalesce an unhappy right into a powerful voting bloc.

International relations? Strained at best. Obama skips out on meetings with world leaders and allies to appear on Jimmy Kimmel and the View. At times he seems to care more about posturing and electioneering than attending to the duties demanded of him as a world leader. It's not to say he doesn't care about riots in Libya or Syria, but when he calls casualties "road bumps" he comes across that way.

Increased transparency?  Obama has dramatically failed on his promises for increased transparency while claiming the mantle of the most transparent administration in history. He has actively prosecuted whistle blowers, failed to provide open documents on many issues even when ordered to do so by Congress, and he has invoked executive privilege in 4 years as much as Bush did in 8 years. Freedom of Information Act filings are routinely ignored or supplied with heavily blacked out reports that obscure the intent of the law.

No bid contracts? Actually up in the past 4 years. Guantanamo Bay? Still open for business. Regulations? Increased. Government spending? Dramatically up. The deficit? Growing at a record rate. The economy? Still tanking.

I know a lot of these issues he has little to no control over. So let's look at some things he does have control over.

Extrajudicial detention? Obama has argued consistently for the National Defense Authorization Act which allows him to ignore things like the 4th and 5th amendments. Habeas Corpus has been suspended for countless combatants and even American citizens. Indefinite detention is now a power that the president can unilaterally employ.

Extrajudicial executions? The president has authorized and defended the use of drone strikes against enemy combatants and American citizens alike. The Defense Department has defended the use of drones saying that there is no geographic limitation on the use of drones and that "US citizens do not enjoy immunity" from targeting. They argue that such executions are not illegal because they are used in self defense. Considering these practices have been used against mourners at funerals and killing rescuers for injured on the ground, one must question their reasoning and a president that would support and condone these practices. The existence of a "hit list" is likewise terrifying to me. 

Respect for States Rights? Well he says he wants to leave marriage equality to the states, right? But when he's confronted with an actual issue of states rights, Obama and his administration have failed miserably. Several states have approved medical marijuana and have licensed select dispensaries and clinics to provide the substance to those with a prescription. In response, Obama has specially ordered his ATF, DEA, IRS, and DOJ to raid these clinics and arrest anyone operating there. They confiscate goods, money, and property through asset forfeiture, costing legal business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars. All of this is done though they the dispensary operators are working legally under state law, his administration has said that federal drug law trumps the issue.

These are serious violations of civil and human rights on display. Couple these policies with Obama's financial policies, and there's almost no way I can vote for him in good conscience.

No comments:

Post a Comment