One of the things I've found sort of baffling about politics (and that I find baffling about topics of so-called importance in general) is how reluctant people are to explain or elaborate upon their views on the subject(s). They'll readily offer up the name of the candidate or party they support, but they take offense if people ask why -- as if to say, "I don't have to justify myself to you." And while that response might have more to do with these people's exceedingly low opinions of me than anything else, I don't see what's so objectionable about explaining one's views to anyone. If one does regard political views as being so personal that they shouldn't be discussed openly, a simple statement to that effect would be more appropriate than psuedo-righteous indignation.
Anyway, I bring this up to preface another series of ideas cut and pasted from a comment that I posted on someone's blog. The person wrote that she liked and admired Sarah Palin and agreed with her views, which I questioned thusly: "...what exactly is it that you like and admire about Sarah Palin? Which of her beliefs, specifically, do you agree with? I'm genuinely curious." Maybe she took offense to the tone there, as one could argue that my tone implied that there was little to like about Palin or her policies -- and I'll admit that I do feel that way, since, among other things, the bulk of her record as she presents it is riddled with distortions and half-truths -- but she went on to write:
And tell me, when have I asked you how you can support Barak [sic]? This is what really pisses me off. I am truly trying to recall if I have questioned any of you as to your own support of your own candidate of choice. So tell me why Barak.
Of course, I have no problem answering that question and take no offense at anyone asking it, so I was all too happy to respond. The stupid LJ thing wouldn't let me post a comment longer than 4300 characters, though, so I really only got to discuss why I'd probably end up voting for any generic Democratic nominee -- and I even had to truncate that. But since I did want to post something like that here anyway (though I've probably discussed several of these issues before on the blog), I figured I'd crib from the original comment for another political post. Hurray!
While I am more enthusiastic about or at least attentive to Barack Obama's candidacy and the 2008 election for certain reasons -- one of which is admittedly Obama's ethnic background -- I'd most likely have supported the Democratic ticket no matter who won the nomination. Even though Hillary made me pretty angry during the primary season, what with her 3AM and bin Laden ads and Geraldine Ferraro (ugh), I just don't agree with the Republicans on most issues. I'm registered as an independent, and my ideology is probably more progressive than it is profoundly Democratic, but I recognize that a third-party candidate isn't going to win a major election. And since I don't find both parties' positions to be equally unpalatable, I'm a pretty reliable Democratic voter.
I was about to launch into a description of hypothetical election in order to illustrate my point here. The election as described would have designated Atticus Finch and 1960s George Wallace (and yes, I know he was a Democrat) as the two major party candidates in a race in which the third-party candidate was, say, Barack Obama, and I would have used it to illustrate that although I agree more with Obama than Finch, I'd vote for Finch because, as a candidate for one of the two major parties, he'd have a much better chance of winning. I don't think it's really necessary to present that illustrative example in greater detail -- I was originally going to have it span multiple paragraphs and contain specific objections to Finch's outward views -- but you get the idea. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all if I didn't like it so much. 😉
(Trivia Tidbit: Wallace was shot in my hometown, in the same shopping center as the bookstore at which I used to work.)
Anyway, here are some of the issues that generally lead me to vote for the Democratic ticket:
- As I wrote way back in 2004 (apparently in noting my support of John Kerry), I believe in the right of a woman to choose. Or, more importantly, I do not believe that the government has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies, especially when it comes to nine-month ordeals that can have all kinds of lasting effects and potential complications.
- I fully support same-sex marriage. The vast majority of the arguments against same-sex marriage are appeals to religion, so I find these arguments to be thoroughly unconvincing given the supposed separation of church and state. Moreover, if the government is going to recognize unions between two adults, to discount or distinguish those unions based upon the sexes of the individuals in the union is tantamount to discrimination. So while civil unions may afford same-sex couples all of the rights of "married" couples, I still ultimately find this solution to be unsatisfactory. Either same-sex marriage should be accepted or all unions -- even those between men and women -- should be termed "civil unions" in government materials. So this is an issue where I don't think Democrats go far enough, but they tend to be infinitely more gay-friendly than Republican candidates.
- I am wholly in favor of universal health care. I probably don't think the Democrats go far enough here as well, but they're obviously more committed to providing health care to all Americans than the Republicans.
- I have more confidence that the Democrats will actually focus on resolving education issues instead of ignoring these problems by simply allowing some parents to send their children to charter schools. The Republicans' argument about public school monopolies and motivating public schools to improve by introducing competition makes little sense to me, since it seems to assume that public schools have the same modus operandi as businesses seeking profit (which, as best I can tell, they don't). Rather, this argument -- and the support of vouchers and offering parents educational "choices" that it entails -- seems like a blatant pander to parents who want to send their kids to religious schools that takes attention away from the real problems with our public education system.
I'm also worried about the kids whose parents aren't taking an active interest in their education. The Republicans allege that school vouchers will actually level the playing field, but I think that they could also reinforce and contribute to the learning disparities that currently exist. Parents who aren't paying attention to their kids' education (or can't read, have little education themselves, find the forms to be too difficult, etc.) aren't going to make the effort to investigate options to send their children elsewhere, so introducing school choice isn't going to do much to help them.
- I believe that war should always be a last resort that is implemented when all other diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. This is an issue where I particularly like Obama's approach, as I really don't see the problem with just talking to the heads of other nations, preconditions or not. Contrary to what President Bush and John McCain might believe, simply talking does not constitute appeasement.
- Another issue that's more rooted in the particulars of this election: the economy and the national deficit. With respect to economic and budgetary issues, Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Thanks to Bush, the United States is deeply indebted to foreign powers. And with the exception of the removal of unspecified programs (and here it's also worth noting that Obama pledges to cut and/or fix ineffective programs), John McCain is virtually indistinguishable from Bush with respect to his economic policies... except where he wants to extend and expand the tax cuts that once so offended his conscience. Independent analysis notes that whereas both Obama's and McCain's economic plans would increase the deficit, McCain's will increase it by $1.5 trillion more than Obama's. Furthermore, whereas Obama is honest and doesn't claim that he will be able to balance the budget by the end of his first term, McCain -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- has no problem saying that he will.
- And it's not a specific issue, per se, but -- given the examples of prominent conservative pundits as well as my experiences with the Party of the Right in college -- I'm convinced that, at least in practice/campaign tactics (if not in theory), conservatism appeals to the basest human tendencies and emotions. I maintain that religious intolerance, racial prejudice, and other negative traits are frequently and more often exhibited and exploited by right-wingers. Compare, for example, the more amusing writings of pre-politician Al Franken (he's really the only liberal personality who comes to mind and isn't in the news media) to the hateful rhetoric of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
Plus -- and again this recalls my college experiences -- I've seen how Republicans of color are encouraged and expected to become twisted caricatures of self-hating minorities. See Michelle Malkin, who wrote In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War On Terror, or Larry Elder, who wrote Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card -- and Lose. While my main problem with Democrats is that they don't go far enough in support of certain causes, I regularly find myself flipping disgusted by the abhorrent arguments and attitudes that Republicans advance.
Anyway, that'll do it for this post -- sometime soon I plan to post another (shorter) one that gives some of my more specific reasons for supporting Obama himself. Ja!