 |
Music •
Biography •
Press Kit •
Randomness •
Lyrics Gigs • Photos • Writing • Fun Stuff • Links • Contact |
Monday, November 01, 2004 Election Issues, Part II In my last post, I covered three of the issues that I'm watching in this week's election from the perpective of a person of faith who cannot feel entirely comfortable with either presidential candidate. To sum up the last post: Bush's non-existent foreign policy frightens me--and the international community--and his environmental record is atrocious. However, Kerry's adamant pro-choice and liberal voting record in the Senate make strong the likelihood that he would, assuming some of the current ones retire, appoint Supreme Court justices that would support the silent genocide (and yes, the word "genocide" is appropriate because the majority of abortions are performed on lower-class, minority women) of our time. I don't have time to cover all of the election issues I think are important, but here are a couple more that concern me. After this I'm taking a hiatus from politics. Stewardship and Fiscal Responsibility Our leader is charged with stewarding our country's resources and using/appropriating them responsibly. In this area John Kerry's voting record shines: while he voted against Bush's tax cuts (which were for brackets all across the board), he supported measures that aimed tax cuts at lower- and middle-income taxpayers rather than the rich (those making more than $200,00 a year) and voted to give presidents line-item veto power and force spending cuts to meet budget targets. On the other hand, George W. Bush turned the $150 billion surplus he inherited into a $450 billion deficit because he forgot to pair his tax cuts with spending cuts. When Congress tried to step in by saying that they would not pass his prescription drug benefit if it exceeded $400 billion over 10 years, the administration, who wanted to pass the bill, fudged the numbers. Adjusting for inflation, this year we spent as much on nuclear weapons as Reagan did during the height of the Cold War. But our soldiers overseas are lacking armor, and we aren't in an arms race now; we've been asking other countries to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Bush revived research for the mission shield defense system--which would have done nothing to prevent 9/11--but his budget for FY 2005 includes an 18 percent cut to the Office of Domestic Preparedness’ First Responder Program, which directly affects law enforcement officicals' ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Has the administration lost its ability to prioritize financial matters? Character It's probably futile to weigh which candidate is better or worse in this area, but I'll give a few examples for each. Although Kerry isn't as much of a flip-flop as the Bush campaign claims, there is validity to some of their arguments. He originally supported the No Child Left Behind act, which he now criticizes, opposed the death penalty for terrorists, which he now supports, and voted against the Gulf War for lack of a true international coalition--which in that war we actually did have--but now chides the younger Bush for failing to assemble the coalition that his father did. And while he talks about fighting special interest groups, in the last 15 years Kerry has raised more money--$640,000--from paid lobbyists than any other senator. However, Bush's presidency is marked by overconfidence, a refusal to allow dissension, even internally, and a lack of openness and thus accountability to his electors. In a government "by the people, for the people," the people need to know what's going on. But Bush has urged agencies to refuse Freedom of Information Act requests and has nearly doubled the number of classified documents. His Clear Skies initative was a misnomer, weaking pollution controls by grandfathering in the worst of the coal burning power plants. Bush uses religious language, which comforts many Christians, but how is he using that language? "And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it." But he uses those phrases to refer to "the ideal of America" rather than in their original context, which points to Christ, to God. And this should at least give us pause. We must ask the question: are we turning our country, our nationalistic ideals into idols? While Tony Blair met with British church leaders to discuss the war in Iraq, Bush refused to meet with leaders who opposed the war in Iraq or merely wanted to raise questions, not even Methodist clergy, clergy from his own denomination. He wouldn't discuss the issues, to whatever conclusion. And I can't even begin to touch on both candidates' inaccuracies and outright lies during the debates, for example Bush "forgetting" that he does in fact own a timber company and Kerry's systematic distortion of facts about the economy. Whether or not these men claim to be Christians, do their actions truly reflect their vocally-declared beliefs? And if they are, as I believe Bush is, does that faith alone qualify them to lead our country? Faith can cut in so many ways. If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness--that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection. 'Where people often get lost is on this very point. Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not--not ever--to the thing we as humans so very much want: Easy certainty. --Jim Wallis God be with us tomorrow. ^ Top | 5:36 AM | | | 
|
