Think about your vote; I choose Bush.
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I think we all owe it to ourselves to vote; it is the one thing you can do to register your opinion and have it count for something. As someone else pointed out here, the presidential election is not the only one on the ballot this time; there are local positions and local issues to consider as well.
Concerning the presidential election, you have many choices as to what you can do with your vote, in spite of the conventional wisdom that you only have two choices: 1) vote for one of the two major candidates, as the winner will most likely be one of those two candidates; 2) vote for one of the third party candidates on the ballot in your state because you want to send a message that that candidate's position is most in alignment with yours; 3) write in someone who is not on the ballot, perhaps someone who was in the race and dropped out, someone who you think should have run, or yourself.
I don't think that the second or third options are altogether bad, and I don't consider them to be "wasted votes"; I call them "message votes". While you must know when casting such a vote that your candidate is not going to win, you are at least expressing your opinion and, if enough other people do the same, you are sending a message that may influence things the next time around; this is far better than not voting, which to me sends the message "I don't care".
For me though, I will go with the first option. I don't think that either of the two major candidates is perfect, but I do know that one of them will win, and I choose to use my vote to influence which of the two it will be. After spending a lot of time reading up on the issues that I care about and the candidates positions, I believe that George W. Bush is the better of the two, by a long shot.
I think the key is to think about the question "What exactly does a president do?" and then ask "Which candidate can do that best?" My take on the most important things that a president does is this: amongst other things, the President is responsible for working with the Congress to create and pass legislation; he appoints and directs an administration of people that will carry out the functions of the various departments of the executive branch; he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily; and he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for. In the context of these duties, I believe that Gov. Bush is more capable of performing the task than any other candidate running for President (including the third party candidates). I'll expand on each of these below.
Regarding the ability to work with Congress, Bush has a track record of being able to work with both parties in Texas (for example, he was endorsed by the Democratic Lt. Governor there). Much has been made of personality and likeability in this race; for a long time I ignored this issue, thinking that I didn't really care if I like a guy or not, I care more about how he does his job. Once it occurred to me that a significant part of the President's job is working with others, I realized that there is something important about personality. I know from experience that I work harder for and cooperate better with bosses and peers that I get along with on a personal level. The easier it is for the Congress to get along with the President, the more he will be able to accomplish. Like it or not, leadership has a great deal to do with getting along with people personally, and I believe that Bush wins this issue hands down.
The next task, appointing and directing the members of his administration is another area where I think Bush wins. He has executive-level experience in both the private sector and as Governor, and has been successful in both realms. We have already seen a glimpse of the kind of people Bush will surround himself with: Cheney, who has experience with the military, served in Congress, and was part of two prior White House administrations fills in several of the so-called gaps in Bush's resume; Colon Powell, who obviously has strong military experience; and Condeleeza Rice (sorry if I misspelled that) has an incredible grasp of foreign policy and the role that the United States should play in the world (if you didn't see her speech at the Republican convention, you missed seeing a truly impressive human being). A leader can only succeed if he is not too proud to surround himself with a strong network of capable individuals - I believe that Bush has shown that he will do that.
The next point, that he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily may be the most important duty of all. It is easy to ignore this or downplay it in times of domestic peace, but it is foolish to do so. Bush understands and respects the fact that we need to strengthen our military and stop extending it all over the world. Bush believes that we must be strong so we can defend ourselves and our allies when they need our support, but we must also realize that we cannot deploy our forces as a means of bullying other nations to start doing things our way. I loved the answer he gave in the second debate about how other nations should view the US: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.
So I don't - I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." Then later he said "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it gotta be.' We can help. And may it's just our difference in government - the way we view government. I mean, I want to empower people. I don't - you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, 'We do it this way; so should you.'"
The last point, that he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for has become more important to me now that I am a parent. While Bush is no Libertarian, he is certainly an advocate of a smaller, less intrusive federal government than that which Gore would like to implement. Gov. Bush is also an advocate of individual responsibility and accountability. I know, especially amongst the Slashdot crowd, many of you were put off by the "Internet" comment - I know, I bristled at that myself; but I must say that as a new parent, I have started to look at the media (including the net) a little differently. I absolutely believe that it is up to each parent to be aware of what their kids are up to and what they are exposed to, and I don't want to censor anyone, but I also know that it is not physically possible to sit with each of my kids and monitor every bit of every TV show, movie, video game, and web site they see. Bush made a point that exactly reflects my philosophy in the third debate when he said "I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use, so you can tune-out these programs that you don't want in your house. But I'm going to remind moms and dads, the best weapon is the off/on button and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them..." That, to me, speaks volumes. I believe that Bush is an honest and genuine man who is capable of making the office of the President respectable again.
You may disagree with the points above about which of the President's duties is most important, and you may disagree about which candidate can best address those duties, but I encourage you to consider you vote in the same way that I did. Think about what your vote means and how you want to use it, think about which of the President's responsibilities you consider to be most important, and then think about which candidate can best live up to those responsibilities. Then remember to vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Concerning the presidential election, you have many choices as to what you can do with your vote, in spite of the conventional wisdom that you only have two choices: 1) vote for one of the two major candidates, as the winner will most likely be one of those two candidates; 2) vote for one of the third party candidates on the ballot in your state because you want to send a message that that candidate's position is most in alignment with yours; 3) write in someone who is not on the ballot, perhaps someone who was in the race and dropped out, someone who you think should have run, or yourself.
I don't think that the second or third options are altogether bad, and I don't consider them to be "wasted votes"; I call them "message votes". While you must know when casting such a vote that your candidate is not going to win, you are at least expressing your opinion and, if enough other people do the same, you are sending a message that may influence things the next time around; this is far better than not voting, which to me sends the message "I don't care".
For me though, I will go with the first option. I don't think that either of the two major candidates is perfect, but I do know that one of them will win, and I choose to use my vote to influence which of the two it will be. After spending a lot of time reading up on the issues that I care about and the candidates positions, I believe that George W. Bush is the better of the two, by a long shot.
I think the key is to think about the question "What exactly does a president do?" and then ask "Which candidate can do that best?" My take on the most important things that a president does is this: amongst other things, the President is responsible for working with the Congress to create and pass legislation; he appoints and directs an administration of people that will carry out the functions of the various departments of the executive branch; he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily; and he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for. In the context of these duties, I believe that Gov. Bush is more capable of performing the task than any other candidate running for President (including the third party candidates). I'll expand on each of these below.
Regarding the ability to work with Congress, Bush has a track record of being able to work with both parties in Texas (for example, he was endorsed by the Democratic Lt. Governor there). Much has been made of personality and likeability in this race; for a long time I ignored this issue, thinking that I didn't really care if I like a guy or not, I care more about how he does his job. Once it occurred to me that a significant part of the President's job is working with others, I realized that there is something important about personality. I know from experience that I work harder for and cooperate better with bosses and peers that I get along with on a personal level. The easier it is for the Congress to get along with the President, the more he will be able to accomplish. Like it or not, leadership has a great deal to do with getting along with people personally, and I believe that Bush wins this issue hands down.
The next task, appointing and directing the members of his administration is another area where I think Bush wins. He has executive-level experience in both the private sector and as Governor, and has been successful in both realms. We have already seen a glimpse of the kind of people Bush will surround himself with: Cheney, who has experience with the military, served in Congress, and was part of two prior White House administrations fills in several of the so-called gaps in Bush's resume; Colon Powell, who obviously has strong military experience; and Condeleeza Rice (sorry if I misspelled that) has an incredible grasp of foreign policy and the role that the United States should play in the world (if you didn't see her speech at the Republican convention, you missed seeing a truly impressive human being). A leader can only succeed if he is not too proud to surround himself with a strong network of capable individuals - I believe that Bush has shown that he will do that.
The next point, that he is responsible for determining how the United States presents itself to the rest of the world, both politically and militarily may be the most important duty of all. It is easy to ignore this or downplay it in times of domestic peace, but it is foolish to do so. Bush understands and respects the fact that we need to strengthen our military and stop extending it all over the world. Bush believes that we must be strong so we can defend ourselves and our allies when they need our support, but we must also realize that we cannot deploy our forces as a means of bullying other nations to start doing things our way. I loved the answer he gave in the second debate about how other nations should view the US: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't - I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." Then later he said "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it gotta be.' We can help. And may it's just our difference in government - the way we view government. I mean, I want to empower people. I don't - you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, 'We do it this way; so should you.'"
The last point, that he is responsible, as the focal point of our government, for projecting the image of what we as a nation stand for has become more important to me now that I am a parent. While Bush is no Libertarian, he is certainly an advocate of a smaller, less intrusive federal government than that which Gore would like to implement. Gov. Bush is also an advocate of individual responsibility and accountability. I know, especially amongst the Slashdot crowd, many of you were put off by the "Internet" comment - I know, I bristled at that myself; but I must say that as a new parent, I have started to look at the media (including the net) a little differently. I absolutely believe that it is up to each parent to be aware of what their kids are up to and what they are exposed to, and I don't want to censor anyone, but I also know that it is not physically possible to sit with each of my kids and monitor every bit of every TV show, movie, video game, and web site they see. Bush made a point that exactly reflects my philosophy in the third debate when he said "I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use, so you can tune-out these programs that you don't want in your house. But I'm going to remind moms and dads, the best weapon is the off/on button and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them..." That, to me, speaks volumes. I believe that Bush is an honest and genuine man who is capable of making the office of the President respectable again.
You may disagree with the points above about which of the President's duties is most important, and you may disagree about which candidate can best address those duties, but I encourage you to consider you vote in the same way that I did. Think about what your vote means and how you want to use it, think about which of the President's responsibilities you consider to be most important, and then think about which candidate can best live up to those responsibilities. Then remember to vote.