Uncle Dan’s Notes: Politics Indeed
So I know that Brice has been pretty unflagging in his support for Obama, and I have to admit it is pretty cool to have a TCK as president, BUT…
I was discussing this with a friend in London who is an IR whiz, and I generally trust his judgment, even if he leans more to the right. I asked him who HE would vote for, if he were American (He’s French by nationality, but yes, complex background of a TCK).
He said he’d vote of McCain, without hesitation.
So I asked him why.
And they’re pretty valid reasons. And after looking over the different stances that each candidate has, I’m honestly a little bit torn.
In an international sense, especially regarding Iraq and the various conflicts the US is involved in, I have to lean towards McCain’s position. I *do* think there’s progress in Iraq, and I *do* think that more time is all that’s necessary. Obama wants an immediate withdrawal, ASAP, which I think would be a mistake. Clinton want a prolonged withdrawal, which isn’t bad, but still sends the wrong message. While I don’t think that the US should’ve gone there in the first place, now that they’re there they have to go all the way.
As people say, you don’t go to someone’s house, eat their food, watch their TV, and so on, and leave without cleaning up. The same holds true in this case, except that abandoning Iraq would only bite them in the ass later. Obama thinks that a withdrawal will send a message to the current Iraqi government to shape up, but I don’t really think so. The last thing they need is something to undermine their confidence.
On the other hand, there’s a lot I don’t really agree with in McCain’s position. I don’t believe in privatized social security or healthcare. Sure, a government-run system might be bureaucratic and unwieldy, but it stays focused on the idea that service, not profits, are the goal.
And that justifies getting tax levels to where they were before. Not to mention fixing the deficit.
Both Democratic candidates also support same sex marriage, are pro-choice regarding abortions, and are willing to fund stem-cell research.
So realy, where domestic issues are concerned, I’m all for what Obama and Clinton say. Where international issues are concerned, I prefer McCain’s position. Clinton and particlarly Obama seem to be advocating a more protectionist policy. And I don’t like that one bit.
Obama wants to help increase American jobs, and so on, by “fighting against trade agreements that undermine American competitiveness.” Protectionism didn’t work in the 1920s and 1930s, and it certainly won’t again.
Clinton has some traditionalist views, focusing on family values and so on, which I don’t like in general, BUT, I think she’s got a good head on her shoulders. She wants to improve the American economy by improving healthcare and education.
What I think is interesting for us in her position too, is that she wants to end tax breaks for “American companies that ship jobs overseas.” Hmm. I’m not sure if she means companies who outsource, or companies who send expatriates out. This is a limit to globalization in either way, which I think is a step backwards, and smells of protectionism.
History lesson to the unaware, in the 20s to early 40s the US had a highly protectionist policy. They stepped out of international politics, figuring that they had no business in the affairs of other countries. This undermined the strength of the League of Nations, leading to Mussolini’s increasingly Fascist regime, Japan’s “excesses” in Asia, and later on doing nothing to stop Hitler’s early romps around Europe. A country as big as the USA cannot afford to “let others sort out their own problems.” It might not have the best ideas, and they can be silly, but they have to stay involved.
Who am I voting for? I have no idea. The other thing to always bear in mind is that while the candidate is important, it’s rarely ever just them. Behind them are endorsements, promises, support groups, interest groups, companies, and everything else. While McCain most probably is a good man, he’s got much of the same backing as the idiot that’s in office now, and I’m not sure I can support that.
Though I have to figure out *how* I’m going to vote first. I haven’t gotten around to figuring out how to absentee vote as an American abroad.
With thanks to the Washington Post website for its summarized issue statements from all the candidates at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/
Daniel Nguyen-Phuoc
Vietnamese in ethnicity, born in Houston, Texas. Lived in Jakarta, Indonesia for 14 years while going to a British International School to finish with the International Baccalaureate. Survived only two years in the University of Michigan before ending up in Switzerland. Graduated from an international (and that's meant in every word) hospitality college. Interesting life, to be sure. But not the only one.Related Posts
3 Comments to “Uncle Dan’s Notes: Politics Indeed”
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
LOL you’re the opposite of me… I’m a bit wary of Democrat domestic policies (my religious background I guess) and like their foreign policy more than the Republicans.
Hope you don’t mind me starting a debate.
Most of what I say has to do with foreign policy. McCain scares me. The things he says about Iran - “refusing to rule out a military solution” - are frightening. Especially since my family lives about 200 kilos from Iran and a good deal of the attacks might be launched from airbases within our country.
Few people, least of all McCain, seem to understand that what Ahmadinejad says is ALL wind. There’s no way he’s going to attack Israel because
1) It would mean complete destruction of Iran when the US and Israel strike back
2) He’s not a mindless terrorist. Despite what Bush tries to get you to think. He’s a Middle Easterner.
3) All his ranting and raving is trying to build legitimacy so that he can put himself forward as the leader of the Muslim world. If he says he’s going to attack Israel he’s going to become more popular among Muslims, especially Arab Shiites who are sick of weak and pro-Western Arab regimes that have “given up” and are powerless to solve the Palestinian question. Good way to build influence in neighboring Iraq perhaps? Although I’m sure that’s not his only goal.
4) His speech can seem pretty colorful, but really everyone out here talks that way - uses extreme language. By that I don’t mean that they all say they want to blow up Israel, but they are just very… intense people. For lack of a better term. To go a bit anecdotal… I suppose a good illustration would be a letter my Arabic teacher sent me a few days ago on the occasion of my high school graduation. Translated it read:
My beloved son:
All I have wanted is to see you happy and joyful with the shining success that will manifest itself in the coming days, if God wills. Be sure that I will follow your news and success. May your works be good and your inclinations excellent.
What Western teacher would write that!
There’s just not the same level of reserve in the Middle East that you find in the West. A Bedouin family would slaughter a goat for strangers (happened to my family when we camped near Bedouins once.) I digress.
So the US is really overreacting, I think, when it comes to Iran. Sure, they’re fundamentalist. And they need to be treated with caution, and legitimate charges need to be brought to the UN if they are supporting terrorists. But launch another US-sponsored, unsanctioned invasion of a sovereign country! Why?
As for finishing well in Iraq… I guess that would be a tough call. Violence seems to have decreased, although who can say what’s going to happen in the future. Violence has decreased before, only to spring up again. My biggest fear is that the Shiites will use their majority to rule the country at the disadvantage of the Kurds and the Sunnis after American troops leave, and there’s not much the US can do for that besides stay forever, which is obviously not an option. Or else work out some touchy balance-of-power political situation where three ethnic/religious groups share power in the government, like in Lebanon. Right now I don’t see reconciliation between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds happening. As if America could possibly reconcile such differences on its own - initiatives like that need to come from within the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. I don’t know how much America can do to encourage that by staying there. It’s all speculation. Although I tend to hope that Obama’s promises to get out are simply an election platform; I’ve heard that view expressed in the news before.
But if McCain is going to continue Bush’s hardline policies… no thanks. It seems to me that his policy is the one that better fits “protection-ist” - protecting the US against terrorism instead of engaging the actual issues that created circumstances in which terrorism could grow, many of which the US is partly responsible for. McCains position seems to be to defend, not debate, and he strikes me as being very heavy-handed.
Anyway, thats how I see his foreign policy.
(Is this spam?)
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
I never mind a debate, so long as it doesn’t degenerate.
I agree regarding Iran, Ahmedinejad, and actually Middle-East policy. But we all know that “not ruling out military action” doesn’t mean “By Jingo let’s hop into our planes!”
From a military perspective, there is no practical chance of a large military operation to Iran. Doing it would be *extremely* stupid, and only end in disaster. The US has so far only shown willingness to intervene in weakened countries. They march happily into Afghanistan, but tiptoe warily around North Korea. It’s not a bad thing, with a smaller volunteer military like theirs, so Iran is likely safe from the threats and the bluster. *likely*.
I think it’s a cultural misunderstanding, too. Misinterpretation on both ends. It’s kind of funny, since I actually tend to be less intimidated by devout Muslims than I am devout Christians. Devout Muslims don’t knock on your door with a creepy smile and offer you pamphlets about how Mohammad think I’m the bomb.
But yes, Iraq is a tricky one, but I do see it calming down. It never really looks good on TV, but overall I’d say the situation is improving. People compare Iraq to Vietnam, but the huge difference between those two conflicts is that most Iraqis seem to want peace, whereas Vietnamese tended to feel oppressed and want to resist, against Americans, and the “exploitation” of the Southern regime, be it real or coaxed. The process in Iraq, then, tends toward the “eventually, we’ll get there, and there’s light at the end of the tunnel.”
I do agree with you that they’re not really solving the real issues in which potential terrorism springs, but actually none of the candidates seem to be talking about that. That being the case, I’d hate the idea that pulling back might just allow disruption back into play, because like it or not countries can go insane, and the perception that if troops pull out mother’s away from home and we can play how we want to is there.
Anyway, could be wrong. It’s my gut feeling and while I like listening to it, it’s a gut, haha.
(Is this spam?)
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hmmmm…interesting discussion, this one is. Here’s my two cents:
- I agree. Tread with caution with regard to Iran, but like you said, he just might be full of hot air. It makes him popular but from what I have read and seen, the Iranians are actually less fundamentalist than what the US media shows (well, my dad said that to me too after he came back from Tehran one day).
- How are they gonna solve a 1000 year problem (Shiite-Sunni)? We can’t just do that in a split second. How can you solve a 4000 year old problem? Can’t do that in a blink of an eye either. I’m not really sure if we’ll be able to solve this in my lifetime!!! =S But maybe they could try what they proposed in the series “The West Wing” (i.e. make the shared holy sites a neutral, UN-controlled area) It’s an idea, and it might work…
- The legality of the invasion of Iraq, according to international law, is still being debated. But that’s beside the point. In my opinion, the US should be held responsible for their actions, whether that maybe the legacy of the incumbent or not. They cannot just pull out like that if Obama becomes President. The US simply cannot afford to leave Iraq unstable like this. It’s like a fireworks factory waiting to be lit. The Shiites have long been under the control of a Sunni leader and they want a piece of the pie!!! (that’s my opinion)
- As for cultural misunderstandings, well, it takes quite an effort to understand one another (as we all know). From what has been told to me by my muslim friends, and from what I have read, the Qu’ran does not legitimize the kind of violence that has been perpetrated by the fundamentalists. They are as peaceful a religion as Christianity is, even better! Let’s not forget that the Crusades happened too, and it all started when something happened to the Holy Sepulcher…
- I’ll have to admit that when this war escalated, I thought it was the start of what Samuel Huntington described as a “clash of civilizations.”
- I’ve always thought that GWB needed to take a course in intercultural relations 101…
(Is this spam?)