I've been looking for a thread/topic header to post under for a while. I've thought about starting a new thread, but given Mr. Biddle's recent article, and _this_ consequential thread, I've decided that this is good a place to start as _anywhere_....
...so if this is not dead on-topic, well... sorry, I'm doing what I can.... I'd never be able to post if I tried to keep up with all the relevant comments just on _this_ site!
Some background: I had mostly settled on abstaining i.e. not voting for either Kerry or Bush for most of _the past year_, and I also at one time or another considered voting for Bush, but the relevant Lewis article and Piekoff audio excerpt really must have been the proverbial "straw to break the camel's back" for me. Those two _re_-introduced an angle that in hindsight should have _longggggg_ since been considered.
Someone wants my _method_ as well as my conclusions and reasons? We'll lets' cut right to the very heart of it all. Are Objectivists not supoosed to think and act in essentials??? For me, this is (as far as this election is concerned) an "all or nothing" consideration. That is, if what I'm about to offer doesn't hold up, then I am giving up altogether and going back to my original position of _not voting_. All or nothing!
Objectivists want to argue that Bush isn't an Ayatollah? Fine. O-ists want to argue that Kerry is an awful, untrustworthy, pragmatic, hypocritical, Modernistic and flat-out altruistic louse of a candidate? Now _that_ is a newsflash? Guess what Bush is the same! .....absolutely the same in those respects. What Piekoff pointed out is that there's one crucial difference, and he outlined _some_ of the examples of how Bush is explicitly and formally moving America towards theocracy. Dare you say that it can not happen here....? I mean I haven't read _The Ominous Parallels_, and even I can see the "writing on the wall". Did you see the other articles that also appeared at Capitalism Magazine in the past day? Do you see the common threads of _action_ that the Bush administration engage in? Do you not see the connections betwen the Patriot Act, the restrictions on political endorsements, and limits on research involving fetal tissue? Do you not see the connections in how this administration has/had dropped the ball with respect to Los Alamos, the Chinese downing of an U.S. plane (at the very beginning of Bush's term no less!), China vis-a-vis Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia (please tell me that getting what amounts to our own oil back will not suffice in maintaining a turn-the-other-cheek position! Also, can we forget the bin Ladin family?), etc., etc.
Look, Bush is generally not doing much new in American politics by starting with/promising one policy and then, in the next breath, undercutting the very policy in question...,BUT what is different is the _orientation_ of his tactics. Would Kerry resort to such an obvious capitulation to religious political factions? I just do not see that happening! Whether both candidates were to (further) prosecute war (or military and foreign policy in general) in the same way _or not_, there can be absolutely no doubt where Bush's allegiances lie, and they are NOT even remotely atheistic. You haven't heard Kerry talk about restricting medical research or free speech in the manner that Bush has. ...and if I (can!) understand Kerry and Edwards recent debate comments on gay marriage, that team isn't even opposed to those relationships _without Constitutional respect_.
When you hear a liberal Democratic candidate even give better lip service to the rights of the military servicemen than Bush (for example), it should give _any_ individualist pause about voting for Bush. ...and did Bush not in fact stipulate that troops that are already deployed _must_ operate overseas for another year _even when they were scheduled to come home_????? Isn't that WORSE than a normal draft where those who are to be called up have a long shot of escaping a war (even if albeit by illegal means)?!
As the tennis player Hewitt would say, "COME ONNNNN!"
