Usually when I talk politics here it is about Korea, both because I am very interested in Korean politics and I would like to share some of my views and insights with my family and friends back home who more likely than not are unaware but curious about them. However I have been reading some things recently that have bothered me, and while it is not the first time these things have bothered me, it is the first time I have my own soapbox to speak from. Therefore be warned, the following is my opinion and observations.
First off, this is NOT about the candidates themselves but about us, the people, and the media. Let me get a quick one off my chest first before I dive into the meaty ones. I am reading once again that this "Is the most important election EVAR!!!" and so we need to be sure to vote. Well we do need to vote, that is very true, but I heard the same exact thing about 2000, and 2004, and now 2008, and I am sure I will likely hear it about 2012. Please, tone down the dramatic hyperbole just a little. Yes, these elections have been and are very important, and I'm sure they are more important to the rest of the world than when James K. Polk rode his dark horse into the white-house past James Buchanan, and Lewis Cass, and ultimately Henry Clay. By the way, that was a very close election according to the popular vote but the Whigs got creamed in the Electoral College. However, if you are going to say that every election is the most important ever, it looses some of it's bite, just saying.
Ok, on to the meat. The following is not meant to endorse Palin or Obama, but to talk about some of the things I see written about them that just bother me. Palin first. In her recent ABC news interview, she was asked by Charlie Gibson about the "Bush Doctrine". This is not about here answer directly, but about the analysis I have read about it. This is from Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post: (found here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?nav=hcmoduletmv&sub=new but you have to register, it's free)
Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interview yesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy.
But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment. ... And to be completely accurate, there have been several Bush Doctrines over the years.
Ok, so in the first paragraph he states that Palin not knowing exactly what the "Bush Doctrine" is, is an appropriate example of how she is clueless about foreign policy, and then in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE he states that pretty much nobody knows for sure. So, if there is not a clear definition of the term (Incidentally, the only two clear presidential doctrines are the "Monroe doctrine" about manifest destiny and the "Truman doctrine" about containment of communism), then how is not knowing exactly what the host was talking about an appropriate measure of judging. The Washington Post columnist who actually coined the term "Bush Doctrine" talks about it here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
Another thing that read recently is about the story that Palin tried to ban books in Alaska. (see here http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp. Now, I don't agree with banning books from public libraries, especially many of the books on this list, so yes, it bothers me that she asked. However, I don't know which books she actually wanted to ban nor how far her actions went, but I consider this a mark against her. However, the thing that really bothers me are the comments made on a blog I like to read. He posted this article before he noted it's source, then posted a correction, but in his correction he stated "What I will say is that Palin's general politics are no different from the right-wingers who HAVE banned or attempted to ban books, so a more appropriate post might be "Here's the kind of books people like Palin have fought to be banned" or something of that nature. " and that's were I have the problem. I don't like, statements that say "well, this person didn't do this, but her kind of people do, so it's fair to say it about her" I think he has plenty of grounds to disagree with Palin and not like her as a VP, but I find a statement like that far more telling about his own views. This type of logic can of course be applied to any political candidate and often is. However there are just too many variables in it.
This leads on to my next bothersome trend, Obama as a secret Muslim. Barak Obama didn't choose his name, he didn't choose to be an American, he was born with them, and is rightfully proud of them. He has decided to follow Christianity and has done so for years. So when he slips up with Stephanopolus and says "they keep talking about my Muslim faith" come on. Of course a Muslim running for office would have even more trouble than a Christian fundamentalist as they both have members of their faith that give a bad name to everyone. But please newspeople and talk radio folks of the world, leave this one alone, again, it says more about you than it does about him.
Now, on to Matt Damon. Matt Damon illustrates to be perfectly why Palin was such a brilliant political move. I am going to focus on his comments about her experience. He talked about how she has only been mayor of a small town and Governor of Alaska for two years, and how it is ridiculous that she would be considered qualified to potentially be president. By bringing in a young, energetic, minority(in politics) and having Democrats (yes I know Damon does not speak for the Obama campaign, but there are plenty of Democratic spokespersons who do that have brought up the same issue) jump on that as proof she isn't qualified, makes those in the middle look at another young, energetic minority who if elected would BE president. I don't care how you try to spin it, there is NO WAY that Palin and Obama are the "most qualified" to be President, and drawing attention to that will end up hurting Obama more. Now let me be clear, I do not feel that being the "most qualified" is the end all factor in choosing a president. There are clearly many more factors that are just as important. Honestly, I agree with Damon that if somebody does really believe that the dinosaurs were here 5000 years ago I have a major problem with that. I don't know if Palin actually does believe that so if anyone can link me to her stating that I would appreciate it. What I won't accept is that "oh, she's a fundamentalist Christian and that's what they believe" is valid proof. Last year, I predicted that McCain would win and it would come down to his experience. From what I have seen so far, I stand by that prediction.
For all of these issues, you will find things not to like about all of the candidates. You will find arguments about them that you can't win. I think you should be free to say that there are things about the person you are voting for that you don't like, and there are things about the person that you aren't voting for that you do. I hate that politics in the US have become so all or nothing. You are either all democrat or all republican. I hate the second Bush Doctrine "you are either with us or with the terrorists", Red-state: Blue-state, Mac:PC, Coke:Pepsi etc. Extremeism is nothing new. If you think our current national divideis something new, remember North vs, South. Lincoln said a house divided can not stand. As bad as things are, we are not as divided as we have been in the past(as much as they disagree, democrats and republicans aren't shooting each other, or even throwing shoes at the podium like in SK). But it should be more acceptable to jump the lines now and then.
Now, let me throw myself out on a limb here. I have honestly not decided who I will vote for. A month ago I was leaning towards Obama because I am sick of business as usual in Washington(from both sides) and I think a shake up would be good. I also would like the world to see that just because Obama is president, everything will not be wine and roses for them and they will never truly be satisfied. The president of the United States, no matter who he or she is, cannot save the world, and even if Obama is elected, there will be people and countries who will hate him and us. Yes, Clinton was clearly more popular around the world, but he was still burned in effigy plenty of times. Ido think Obama is lacking in the experience department to be president, but I think he is a fast learner. However I am very cautious of the Noh Myu-hyun factor. Korea elected a young inexperienced progressive president and he went on to prove how much of a disaster that can be(though it was great for North Korea). However, Obama has lost me in the last few weeks and I am back now on the fence. I am stuck, there are things about the Republican party that really really bother me, there are things about the Democratic party that really really bother me. I find it very telling that while Bush has had such low approval ratings, Congress has had lower. I wish I had more hope. For me, I think when it comes down to it, I don't think Obama is ready yet, nor do I think Palin is, but one is running for the job, the other is running for the backup. I am waiting for the debates. McCain's immigration policy still really bothers me enough that it could be a deciding factor for me. Clearly more research is in order. Read many sources, be careful of the press. Talk it over with people. Writing this has helped me organize some thoughts. Keep the discussions going. We'll be ok.
Recent Comments