The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Who will you vote for?

Who will you vote for?
Posted by Qasrani (Guest) - Wednesday, July 7 2004, 0:48:22 (CEST)
from Netherlands - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

I never cross-post between forums, but I find this issue particularly relevant to us and I have a strong feeling that it will get deleted off the AINA billboard. So, here it is, just in case it gets removed there.

Q

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeing as how John Kerry has just announced a running mate and I heard Madeleine Albright speak at a function on Monday, I'm a bit eager to discuss who you all are voting for.

First, on John Kerry's choosing Edwards for a running mate. I think it was a good choice. He's southern, he's got spirit and spunk and positivity; all these are qualities that will win the democrats favor in highly-contested regions.

Second, Madeleine told the (mostly) group of expatriated Americans that this election was one of accountability. That is, if you don't like the course of this administration: that it instigated a needless war, marginalized the US from the rest of the developed world, undermined or backed out of the various environmental protection treaties that the US was party to and on and on--you must voice your dissent with your vote for the most prominent opposition-->John Kerry.

I'm not much of a fan of Kerry. As far as I see him, he is no better than Clinton and Clinton marked the decline from a two-party political system to a one-party system. How can that be, you wonder?

Well, if you think about how the political parties have always defined themselves, the capitalist-industrialists were Republican generally and the blue-collared employees and unions found their representation among the Democrats. Enter Clinton with his conservative fiscal policies and really, the economic debate wasn't much of a debate. It seems that everybody bought into the idea of free markets. Now, regardless how anyone might feel about free markets etc, is beside the point. Bottom line is that there was no longer a distinction between the economic policies of the dominant left or the dominant right. Now, I have to tell you guys that these ideas are not my own. I am distilling them from an article I read recently in Harper's magazine about why the blue-collar mid-west ended up going to Bush in the 2000 election when they would be expected to go to the pro-labor democrats. I searched for the article so that at least I can give a reference, but I couldn't find it.

In any case, this is why the Democrats have forever sacrificed their political will. The democrats adopted the same economic agenda as the republicans, so what was left to debate over? Well, you had the moral issues: abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. So, rather than the people focusing on the issues that directly affect them on a daily basis (economics), the debate turned to one over these loose issues on morality and values. And all of a sudden it was a matter of which candidates listen to country music and which don't; which one goes hunting in his spare time and which one doesn't.

But the average American is fiscally liberal and morally conservative. The exact opposite of what the Democratic party in the US is today. And that is why I think the Republicans are in full control of both houses of the Congress as well as the presidency today. If the debate is not going to include discussion of the economic woes of the country then people are going to try and find the distinction and they find it in the moral stances of the respective parties.

I think that most Assyrians in the US are exactly the same way as most Americans in this regard. Many Assyrians have greatly benefited from and appreciate the government's assistance in helping them integrate into American society, but are extremely cautious in advocating for Democrats who can be extreme in their liberal moral values. We don't want to adopt ideas that are so foreign from what our community has decided is right. This is the dilemma for an immigrant community like ours.

So, I'm not here advocating for Kerry. I'm not sold on his agenda by any means. But I do feel there has to be some accountability for the mess that is Iraq today and the "treaty-phobic" (Madeleine's words, not mine) and lone ranger attitude that we have experienced with this administration.

I feel strongly that we must vote as a block, particularly where we are concentrated in population: Chicago, Detroit, northern California.

So I ask you: who will you vote for and why. And for our non-American Assyrian brethren, I ask the same question. From what I see here in the Netherlands, the non-Americans feel stronger than me on the issue of who must be president. Their choice is anyone whose name is not spelled with 4 letters. :)

B'shayna,

Qasrani



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 5187
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/msword, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-po...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?.7kpx.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9