Why I Am Voting for Kerry on November 2nd (unedited)

As it has been incredibly obvious ever since I started this blog, despite my attempts to be as impartial to the election campaigns and the presidential debates, I will be voting for John Kerry on November 2nd. I'll lay it out in a list format to make things less painful to slog through


Foreign Policy:

Iraq: This is _the_ most important reason why I am voting against Bush and supporting Kerry. His inabilty to quell tje insurgency and the inability to even protect the country from looting during the first week of the occupation has given way to instability, due to the non-existent infrastructure that the country possessed, and continues to posses. Hospitals were stripped of medical supplies; museums were plundered of Iraqi cultural artifacts; food storehouses were raided; violence erupted in the streets. All while American troops looked on without even bothering to intervene in restoring the order. Mind you, I'm not attacking the troops and accusing them to be the cause behind the present situation in Iraq. I am criticizing the people in the upper echelons of the army and Rumsfeld who didn't have the preservation of Iraqi infrastructure as a priority on their list of "things to do" and, instead, secured buildings and anything else related to black gold. But that probably goes too far in terms of following Kerry's stump speech.
What really bothers me about Iraq is the attitude that the President and his cabinet has taken to the conflict. They just don't seem to care to report the facts nor do they really care about Iraq. Instead, they seem to be serving for some "unknown" party that has ulterior goals that, probably, would not settle right with the American people if the truth really came out. But even in that regard, that have been unapologetic to the American public. Without public outcry from their constitutents, they have been able to pursue policy and handle business behind closed doors with impunity and without regard of the majority, however slim the majority may be. I can marginally forgive the president for pushing a bad policy on Iraq with "bad intelligence," but his inability to step up and to take blame like a true leader and to come straight with his own constituents bodes poorly if he were to take another four years, especially with his terrorism flagship of fear leading as his call to war and as his stump on the podium during the election.

North Korea and Iran: I have not followed these two countries as well as I have with Iraq. However, I have been aware of the growing potential nuclear threat that these two countries. Unfortunately, Bush's hard and uncompromising stance on "my way or the highway" doesn't give many reassurances that he won't invade their countries like he did to Iraq or Afghanistan, _despite_ the US armed forces being stretched so thin. The only way they can deter such a threat is to build nuclear arms as bargaining chips. In my opinion, Bush has adopted a strategy of "spreading 'Democracy'" at any cost and has set to go beyond sanctions for N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Would it involve invading these countries? Probably.

UN and other alliances: Bush does not bode well for the global coalition that is called the UN. Granted that the UN didn't have much teeth to begin with to deal with acute world crises, Bush really ripped out the heart of the organization and trampled all over it with his invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, he has completely alienated the international community by his unilateralism and, if we would ever need their assistance in a crisis, we would be paying for it dearly without our usual allies. France and Germany are half of that problem with their staunch anti-war policies.

Is Kerry any better? Yes, but only in one way. He is willing to take a hit to his reputation and ask the UN to provide assistance. Though France and Germany will refuse to assist in the efforts, and understandably so, it would at least be the right step towards taking pressure off of the American forces to be able to properly deal with Sudan. Also, his more forgiving posture will be an asset in dealing with North Korea, considering his more 'laissez faire' attitudes compared to Bush. Right now, N. Korea is in an economically unfavorable state, and it has not been mitigated by Bush's hardline stance towards the country in economic sanctions and outright anti-[North] Korean rhetoric. I'm not sure how to really approach Iran, though, as I am not as well informed on this country.


Domestic Policy:

Draft: The question right now is, "Will Bush reinstate the draft?" I believe so, but he will put it off until after he is recognized as the victor -- eg mid-November to December. Right now, the foreign policy he has conducted in the Middle East has taxed the armed forces to the extent where he has to draw on the National Guard, who are usually only called to duty to defend the country from foreign agressors or to deal with domestic emergencies. Right now, the US forces have been unable to cope with the security issues in Iraq in Fallujah and has even called on the UK to cover its back. If Bush is unwilling to appeal to change his foreign policies on Iraq, he will be forced to enstate a draft to replace the daily loss of troops to insurgent activity, eventually. Knowing Bush, I say that he'll announce thed draft (a topic so conveniently ignored in election politics) within the week that he is reelected. As for Kerry, he's more of an uncertain variable in this area, but I can say that his Iraq policy almost gauarantees a lesser chance for a draft, and the draft will occur _next year_, since he can only instate the draft when he is sworn in. Unfortunately, if he were elected, I don't think it would prevent Bush from reinstating the draft as one of his last acts in office. This is going beyond pessimistic, though.

Economic Policy: As much as I like Bush's capitalist ideals in free trade, he has been incredibly blatant in favoring the rust belt swing states that has resulted in the EU threatening to slap on 200-300% tarrifs on American goods, which I think is a big no-no, especially since he is supposed to have a clue as an MBA graduate from Harvard. Personally, I can't make much of a statement on job outsourcing, other than that a global economy is an eventual occurance. However, the method of transition is quite sudden, considering that a lot of skilled laborers, including those who may have graduated from college with bachleor's degrees are now being shortchanged in this fast-moving economic world. It's hard to believe that, now, a PhD may now be the only way to get a (decently) secure job, though even that is doubtful. The people that now seem to have the secure jobs are those in local services and those who have graduated with professional and business degrees. There really is no spot for the middle class anymore, unless they decide to open their own local businesses or startups, and that really threatens the middle class in terms of economic mobility. I have yet to see Bush address the corporate worker, the white collar cubicle worker, on why, even though he has a college degree, is losing jobs based on economics, and _not_ based on qualifications, that was the limiting factor several decades ago. I'm not saying that we should all gravitate towards the 1950s-1980s, but a society like this today should at least reward some sort of educational commitment with a secure, high-paying job. Bush's salve policy of retraining, unfortunately, doesn't work with a workforce that consists of people who have already left college for at least a decade, and to expect them to start over a new career and work their way back up again. At best, it would make a new pseudo-generation of low-skill technicians. They would find work, but they'd be plumb out of luck if they were to try to work up a corporate ladder again. The American educational system needs to evolve to train the skilled workers in the new economy in lucrative and dynamic fields. Eventually, America needs to eventually move towards an all white-collar economy, where we import all of our steel, food, and fuel. Why? Let me elaborate: 1. it'll keep production prices at a minimum [for steel]; 2. it'll allow the US to specialize in cutting-edge technologies and the development of new products and new fields of science espeically in federal funding [right now, we give farmer substudies of > $50B, if I remember correctly]; 3. it'll also force us to attempt to be more efficient [higher fuel efficiency with cars, trucks, and power generation, as well as developing new energy technologies to harness renewable resources], whether it may be in manufacturing or consumption. It may hurt in the short term, but it would pay us back so much. However, the transition has to occur smoothly. Right now, Bush's policies are far from "smooth," which doesn't bode well for a continuously dynamic transition. Unfortunately, Kerry's refusal to allow job outsourcing doesn't help things either and will probably set back the global economy for as long as he is in office.

Government Policy: The amount of government spending has gone out of control, especially with the extensive involvement in Iraq. It has siphoned over $150B with no end in sight, which is contributing greatly to the federal deficit, on top of tax cuts that Bush insists on pushing through. Even when he pushed tax cuts during the economic recession and claimed them to be an economic stimulus package, it failed to give a lasting effect on the economy, only boosting the GDP for one quarter. The government has also grown with the Dept. of Homeland Security, as well as the passage of several laws that violate civil rights, including the Patriot Act (as misnomered as it is). On top of that, the President and his Cabinet tries to sweep the shortcomings under a rug, while putting on a facade that says that "everything's all right." Something's up, and a lot of people know it, but are afraid to voice their concerns. It is as if we're starting to regress towards a "1984" world where the government is in the shadows in total control, despite Bush's crowing about individual choice. Kerry's government policy doesn't offer much of an alternative, but he has at least claimed that he will protect the rights of citizens, something that Bush has not mentioned.

Healthcare: The healthcare system is in shambles. 1/5 is without health insurance, despite having the highes per-capita income in the world. The health insurance industry, hospitals, pharmacuticals, and lawyers have run out of control gauging patients (mostly uninsured patients, at that) to earn a little extra here and there, with a monopoly on a person's life, much less the quality of it. Unfortunately, I can only see a social healthcare system at work, or at least a heavily regulated to a heavily subsidized healthcare system. The free market forces has not helped healthcare costs, and Bush's policy on "policy bulk purchases" seems to be the worst plan out of all possible plans. 1. Companies must bargan with each other to see who foots the bill for their payments, and they have to join in numbers in the first place if they are to have any effect. 2. It doesn't address the long term rise in healthcare costs. It's only a short-term solution. Kerry's healthcare plan is better, but the funding that will be required from his plan needs to be taken from somewhere else. My suggestion is to take it from the healthcare industry, whether it may be from insurance companies, hospitals, or pharmaceuticals. In my opinion, redistributing the costs from those who actually make money would work. Whatever they charge for premiums would cycle back to the policyholders to pay their deductibles. It's a rudimentary idea, though, so don't jump all over me about it.

Religion: Bush has become the most polarizing President in this nation's history, and I believe that it is all behind religion. Bush has waved the far-right banner in front of evangelicals and conservatives. The biggest problem is his inability to uphold the Constitution, which states that there should be the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, that separation becomes thinner and thinner as the weeks pass, and as the Republican majority of the federal government continue to dissolve the constitutional barrier. A NYT article a couple of months quoted a Republican senator implying that he wanted religion to take a more prevalent role in running the government. Unfortunately, this has already happened, with Bush banning stem cell research and abortion (claiming that he supports all forms of human life -- What about those Iraqis and terrorists, Mr. President?) and his advocacy of a constitutional amendment of gay marriage (claiming that they must ban gay marriage because of "activist judges." I can only challenge him with his activist Republican colleagues that wish to run the country under religion.) What it comes down to is that he has failed to convince me that he is not running under the ticket of a relgious base, as opposed to secular moral beliefs. Kerry has signaled that he will keep church and state separate, which is something I strongly support. I believe that all major political conflicts that exist in the world today are strictly caused by religious roots, and secularism _must_ prevail to prevent another major conflict, whether it may be domestic or foreign.

Judical Appointments: This part of the election has been severely overlooked. It has been signaled for at least a month or two, under the radar, that one to four US Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next four years, which will open up the whole court to an overhaul. With Bush's agneda, his record on his appeals and circuit judge appointees, and his relgious base, the US Supreme Court is in danger of being stacked with far-right justices that will swing the delicate balance of the court (which frequently rules in 5-4, split on left/right lines) towards a solid conservative side for the next 20 years. This is the second-most important reason why I do not support Bush. The conservative trend that exited in the 1950s is still very evident in the country today. The US is the most racist industrial country in the world with racial tensions aplenty. Appointing conservative judges would at best set us back to 20 years in civil rights and general social progress.


Overall, I absolutely do not support the way Bush has run this country. He has taken the politics of this country and has used it for his own devices. There are also many other policies that I do not like, including education, immigration, etc. which makes me keep swaying away from him as well, but I won't delve into those since I need to end this entry soon. Unfortunately, Kerry is not an ideal candidate for my views, but he has a much better outlook for the country, and for Asian Americans, which I am, that includes anti-discriminatory practices and equal opportunity offerings, which may include an Asian American US Supreme Court appointment (unlikely, though) if Kerry takes office. However, we have to get past November 2. My major fear about Bush ( -- fear is always the reason how we vote -- how we fear that we'll lose a little bit of money or not have our voices heard appropriately) is that how he will set back the country. In the last four years, he has set back the country and its relations with the international community by about 5-10 years at best. He has set back scientific discovery about 5 years. South Koreans and Singaporians are now starting to surge ahead of the US in stem cell research and scientific discoveries. We're losing talented immigrants to other countries like China, England, etc. because of the stricter and xenophobic immigration policies that have been put into place after the World Trade Center was destroyed. Right now, Arabs and Asian Indians are under intense scruitny for terrorist activity because of these events. Such scruitny can easily spread to other groups like Asian Americans. With a conservative government as a goal on his mind for the second term, especially with Justice appointments in the second term, a strongly conservative US Supreme Court will set back the country by at least 20 years in social progress. Bush's agression in his foreign policy and the threat of him invading other countries are very real, and can further set back our country by another 50 years (think Japan and Germany after WWII). Not only that, but it can severely weaken the US military and the economic fallout that the US will have to bear to support these troups without foreign assistance would most likely weaken the US to a second-rate power, paving way to propel China in being the next superpower. However, China would not be a threat if it became a true superpower. It is the gap in between those two events, if they were to happen, that would be the biggest global and domestic threat to the US. In my opinion, we cannot let Bush take the presidency for another four years. God help us all if he does, and if the Republican party decides to pull off another dirty election like they did in Florida (which is most likely going to happen again).