Wednesday, October 15, 2008

A Frightened Voter

I have done my civic duty as an American citizen. I've voted in the presidential elections and mailed my ballot. I chose a man I don't know well enough; a man I do not believe is qualified for the job of president; a man who frightens me. I chose him over a man I believe I do know well enough (but I don't like what I know about him); a man I do not believe is qualified for the job of president; a man who frightens me.

Yes, the prospect of either Barack Obama or John McCain as president of the United States frightens the hell out of me. Obama is dangerously naive while McCain is dangerously hawkish, and as of late, also a panderer to the evangelical right crazies. I asked myself who is more qualified between the two, or at least less unqualified, and I could not really come to a conclusion. Then I asked myself the following sad question: who do I find less frightening. It was a hard question to answer, but in the end I came to the conclusion that Obama and Biden are much less frightening then McCain and Palin. Besides, I generally see myself as a Democrat and a liberal. It wouldn't make sense for me to vote for a man with whom I disagree on most issues.

In my case, the running mates also helped me decide who to vote for. John McCain chose a younger version of George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee, while Obama chose an exprerienced, if somewhat imperfect senator. At least in their first presidential choice, Obama made the wiser pick.

6 comments:

  1. You wrote:

    "Obama is dangerously naive [...]"

    In what way is he dangerously naive according to you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. For one thing, he's willing to sit down himself without preconditions with people like Ahmedinijad and Chavez. Lower level talks are always a good idea, but Obama shouldn't promise presidential-level meetings ahead of time.

    He backtracked from that a bit, but the fact that this was his initial position tells me that he's naive about international relations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, negotiating without (or with minimal) preconditions is without the slightest doubt in my mind the absolutely right thing to do. Low-level talks can only achieve so much (there have of course been many already - nudge nudge, wink wink).

    The moment one imposes preconditions, one ends up pre-negotiating the preconditions of the actual negotiations (which then in all likelihood will never take place, see also Israel - Palestine). And the idea that we can 'silence' the other party into submission is risible to say the least.

    As regards Iran's nuclear status, there is almost nothing we can do to stop them from achieving whatever it is they want to achieve. We couldn't stop Israel, India or Pakistan either, all of which became allies at some point or other. But we will not turn Iran into an ally first, certainly not by not talking to them either.

    Instead we can hope to win a little time (by not talking or talking 'sanctions') which Iran will use simply to advance its nuclear program. The choice is really between a friendly nuclear Iran or an unfriendly nuclear Iran.

    As regards US-Iranian relations, at some point in the future both these nations will have a lot to apologise to each other for. Therein could lay the key: acknowledgement of respective past wrongdoing. Like adult, responsible people do. In real life, but not it appears, in realpolitik...

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The choice is really between a friendly nuclear Iran or an unfriendly nuclear Iran."

    This sentence is at the center of our disagreement. It would take a 180 degree change in Iran's policy for it to become friendly towards the West or especially Israel. I don't see any way the Ayatoallahs will be convinced to stop working towards the destruction of Israel. This is naive thinking, or as Sarkozy called it, immature.

    I hope it is not too late to stop Iran from having nukes. If it is, the whole world is screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Emm:

    There is something in this whole equation with regards to Iran that our politicians, perhaps willfully, tend to ignore. That during forty years of Cold War the deterrent effect of the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction) between the Warsaw Pact and Nato led to not a single shot being fired in anger, not a nuclear world-wide blow up. The prospect of triggering nuclear Armageddon and facing one's own certain nuclear demise was enough to keep even the most hawkish of our respective leaders away from the red buttons.

    Why would it be any different with a nuclear Iran, even more so when considering that in the Israel - Iran context nuclear armament will remain heavily in favour of Israel for any foreseeable future? Israel recently acquired even second-strike nuclear capability (subs from Germany).

    To believe that the Tehran regime seeks the nuclear destruction of Israel one would really have to believe in the "Mad Mullahs" myth that's peddled so incessantly in the deeply Manichean US conservative blogosphere. But in the reality-based community people understand that, no matter what, nations do not behave suicidally.

    The Mullahs may be "mad" but only in the proverbial sense of the word: during 40 years of uneasy, nuclear peace with the USSR both sides used similar expletives to describe each other ("USSR = Evil Empire"), yet the alleged madmen didn't take over the asylum either.

    It also begs the question: what decisive action can we take to stop Tehran from reaching its nuclear goals? Obviously the "talk to the hand" strategy has no impact on this whatsoever. Sanctions will equally do zilch. Precision bombing could postpone Tehran's ETA by a few years but the know-how will not be lost and Tehran will rebuild: faster, better and deeper.

    That then leaves the only option of a full-scale invasion from the ground and the air and regime-change to wrestle the nuclear reigns from the Ayatollah's hands. Any volunteers?

    I'll now read the Sarkozy post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It also begs the question: what decisive action can we take to stop Tehran from reaching its nuclear goals?"

    That's the million dollar question. There is no good solution to this problem.

    "There is something in this whole equation with regards to Iran that our politicians, perhaps willfully, tend to ignore. That during forty years of Cold War the deterrent effect of the MAD doctrine (Mutually Assured Destruction) between the Warsaw Pact and Nato led to not a single shot being fired in anger, not a nuclear world-wide blow up."

    I don't believe Iran would dare to nuke Israel, but having nuclear weapons would strengthen their position as a regional superpower. That is bad for Israel, bad for the West, bad for moderate Islam, and bad for prospects for peace in the region.

    ReplyDelete