Weighing in: Bush vs. Kerry As a non-American, apparently it is my duty to tell Americans who to vote for. I’ve never really known that it was the duty of foreigners to tell locals who to vote for. On the other hand, isn’t that kinda what the whole point of Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003) was?

Non-Americans overwhelmingly like the idea of John Kerry as president. If I were an American, that would make me lean towards Bush. Certainly a president who is good for OTHER countries isn’t going to be good for my own, is he? These other nations like Kerry because they’re scared of Bush. They see Kerry as a pushover who is going to have the interests of non-Americans at heart. (I don’t believe that Bush invaded Afghanistan ‘cause he cared about Afghanis.)

I’d rather see Kerry as president than Bush. He’s from New England, he thinks of Canadians as rich vacationers. That’s a nice thing to be thought of. Bush is from Texas (at least he seems to be…) so he thinks of ‘Mexico’ when he thinks of foreigners. Nothing against Mexicans, but I don’t think that Canadians should be thought of as Mexicans. Bush thinks he can bully us, and Kerry thinks he can deal with us. I like that.

I suppose the MAIN reason why non-Americans are interested in who runs the USA is because the US is the world’s sole super/hyper/monopolar power. They can do whatever they want, and it drags pretty much the entire world along with it. In effect, the president of the USA is the leader of the world (look how effective the UN’s leadership has been in the past 4 years). They want a leader who will sit back and not rock the boat. I don’t blame them, who wants the boat rocked?

John Kerry’s grand ambition is to… well… leave well enough alone. That’s not a bad ambition. The USA IS the strongest nation in the world. Would leaving well enough alone maintain that? For the next four years or so, sure. If he wants to be a stewardship president, then that’s what he’s in for. Things might go well, ala Clinton. Clinton did a fantastic job of not rocking the boat.

George Bush’s grand ambition is to… well… fight terror. While the War on Terror is important, that’s a bad sole focus of a leader. Pretty much once he’s made that decision, he should leave it with someone else and move on to other things. But he’s proven disastrous in just about every other thing (I wont’ debate the effectiveness of the war on terror. There hasn’t been another strike in the USA, so it’s possible they’re doing something right).

Personally, my political persuasion lies along the lines of ‘Libertarianism’. In other words, do whatever the hell you want, but don’t hurt people, and try not to bring down society. Fundamental to that is choice. I think that George Bush represents choice more than John Kerry does. He likes the idea of Americans keeping their own money and deciding what to do with it. He likes the idea of American companies hiring who they want. The government’s role is to make sure that everyone plays fair. It’s not their role to tell people what to do. (Okay, that’s a subtle difference… but ideally the less rules the better.)

If I was an American, I’d vote Bush. But as a Canadian who is looking for an advantage for Canada over the USA, I’d vote Kerry.

But, I feel I have to be perfectly clear on this one point: the American two party system is showing its limits. I don’t think either choice is a good one. There is no easy way for a third choice to be made. Ross Perot only did it because he was so rich. Ralph Nader only made a showing because he’s famous. Howard Dean, for example, couldn’t possibly make a serious run as president.

Bush really hasn’t been a great leader. The last 4 years in the USA have been very fractious. If he were a good president, surely there would be less complaining. And Kerry, if he were such a great leader, how come he’s never DONE anything?
  ¶ 10:53 AM 0 comments

  Charlotte vs. The World This is just another outlet for me to vent. My friends can only take so many of my diatribes before they simply agree so I’ll shut up. Now, all my thoughts will be preserved for posterity. I’ll be able to look back, and see how my opinions have changed (I’d love to use the word ‘matured’, but that sounds a little arrogant. I’ll save arrogance for future posts).

I don’t expect to change the world.

I’m not planning to do any hard hitting reporting.

I’m just going to write what I think about whatever topic I want. I realise I’m not fully informed on any given subject. If you happen to read this, and happen to think I’m wrong, let me know. The worst thing you can do when someone’s wrong is to let them continue being wrong.
  ¶ 9:57 AM 0 comments