My obligatory political diatribe

[tarigwaemir]

Lowell House, on the Feast of St. Winifred

Many people on my friends list are saying that we shouldn't overreact, that it's not the end of the world, that it's just four more years. All right, I concede that the world isn't going to end because Bush won and I think I've done my best not overreacting (mostly because I went to sleep last night, or rather this morning, after hearing NBC declare Ohio for Bush, which resigned me to the situation much more than if I had looked at CNN instead), but...four more years is a long time, you know. Do you know how many things can happen in four years? Even his supporters will agree that Bush is clearly a man with an agenda--he came into office with a particular ideology--and he happens to be pretty inflexible about it. Now, if you agree with some or all parts of this agenda, I understand why you have no objections against Bush. But I disagree with him on almost every point except abortion, and I think I have a right to say that the thought of what Bush will implement in the next four years makes me seriously upset. (Note on abortion: while I am not specifically against a woman's right to choose, I think that a fetus does count as a human being.)

That being said, I also believe in the electoral college system--yes, there is a point to it, people--and as much as I despise Bush, I think he legitimately won the election. And after watching the election map all last night and seeing how many red states there were, I think it's clear why that's the case. Kerry only won urban areas, and as much as I hate the idea of Bush in office, I think rural and suburban regions have just as much a right to have their interests represented. A president elected by New York and Los Angeles would be disastrous. Obviously, Kerry should have done a better job in campaigning. And yes, as many people said, I didn't like Kerry all that much either. Silver spoon in mouth, just like Bush. Neither of them are prepared to truly represent the constituent that needs the government's help most (i.e. the lower middle-class and working-class). Ugh, I sound like a socialist. >_< Just for the record, I am adamantly not a Marxist, despite my socialist tendencies.

Also, multiple party system? Bad idea. They usually end up aggregating anyway, so that you have a major and minor coalition as opposed to two parties. I suppose the coalitions can shift, thus providing some change from election to election and forcing parties to be more sensitive to the voting population, but regardless, you'll still be pretty much choosing between two blocs. What people really want is a viable third or fourth choice for president, right? Well, what does that really mean? A president that can be elected as long as he has more than 33% of the vote as opposed to more than 50%? Pluralities are even less confidence-inspiring than slim majorities. Or we can have an even worse possibility, where our votes determine the distribution of parties in the legislature, at which point the dominant party gets to pick its own candidate for executive leader, thus removing all pretence of direct election whatsoever. Is that what you really want?

Personally, I think that what we really need to change is the type of people getting involved in politics in the first place. I'm sick of all the bluebloods, the former lawyers and business executives, the old WASPs (or in Kerry's case, WASCs). I don't have a concrete proposal for how the system needs to be reformed so that the current politican demographics can be realistically altered, but I don't think the two-party system or even the electoral college is at fault. Actually, what we really need is a presidential candidate who is either a woman, non-Caucasian, or from an immigrant family.

Oh, and most of all a president who doesn't pick his aides and advisors based on how well they tell him what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear. (If North Korea does something crazy in the next four years and Bush is unprepared to handle it, I reserve the right to say, "I told you so.")

Yours &c.

Comments

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Coalitions do shift in politics, actually. Sometimes you'll see one bolting when they get fed up with the rest, but this makes for frequent elections. What it does mean is that people would feel more enfranchised to be represented by a party that does work explictly for them, even if it can't do much. In the French system, IIRC, they have a run off if a simple majority isn't elected. Of course, in the last election this meant that voters had to choose between Chirac (center right) and Le Pen (xenophobic ultra-right). I think I don't share your idealism that a woman, a non-Caucasian, or a second gen immigrant would change anything. Just being a woman doesn't mean that you're a feminist, for example, and even if you are, it says nothing about your stance on other issues. Margaret Thatcher, etc.

[troisroyaumes]

Hm, I see your point. Still, even if the coalitions shift, at any given election, wouldn't you be essentially faced with just two choices anyway?

Also, see your point about women, etc. I forgot about Margaret Thatcher. ::sighs:: I guess I'm back down to the conclusion that the system is forever flawed and nothing will correct it. >_< Still, I would like to see someone who isn't a WASP run for president simply so I can look at the candidate and think that just maybe there's something I can relate to.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

It's the nature of politics to be bipolar, I think, at least on one issue.

Democracy is the worst system, except for all the alternatives. ^_^ (Er, Kerry is Catholic, isn't he? Therefore white, and possibly Anglo-Saxon, although IIRC a grandparent was Jewish but converted, but not Protestant)

[troisroyaumes]

Democracy is the worst system, except for all the alternatives.

Hah, that is definitely going into my favorite quotes section. ^_^ Yes, Kerry's Catholic, which is why I wonder whether I should start saying or typing WASP/WASC. Hmm...