On the Democratic convention All the high minded discussion over issues aside, it was sobering to watch the democratic convention and be reminded that even in time of war and economic travail politicians are still politicians with all the silliness and insincerity they always have. Speaker after speaker got up and shouted John Kerry's name every other sentence. I began to think I was in Mao's China or Orwell's 1984. And why to they have to scream? They have modern microphones. OK, Al Sharpton is allowed. That is his personal style. He actually made quite a good rousing speech. But every speaker tries to do the same thing. They try to get the crowd rocking by creating a rhythm at the end of their speech, (sometimes in the middle so they can do it twice) in which every shouted sentence is greeted with greater applause until at the end as they sign off with the same "Good Night, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America". Almost every one of them goes, at some point into some form of call and response as if they were preaching in a black baptist church. Any black baptist minister can do it better. Sharpton really makes it happen as did Jesse Jackson in years past.
How can the audience believe in these people when all they do is imitate each other. When John Edwards went into his "Hope is on the way" rant, he at least did it well, still it was transparently a planned technique. For me John Kerry's speech went down the tube when he started to do the same thing using the same phrase, "Hope is on the way". I guess they wouldn't dare say "Help is on the way". because then they would be committed to actually doing something.
Almost every speaker gave the same speech. Each going over the same set of issues, reminding us that John Kerry won the silver star and is a hero. Most glossed over the fact that Kerry came home and then spoke out against the war. Wesley Clarke was an exception and he spoke of that period of protest with respect. No one said that for every ex-soldier that supports Kerry , there is an ex-soldier that has not forgiven him. Kerry could have reached out across the divide that still exists and said, "I did what I thought was right". There's a slogan that might have taken hold. But again, genuiness was in short supply.
To their credit, both Edwards and Kerry did get fairly specific with plans for health care, education, homeland security, tax cuts for the middle class and paying down the debt.. They are going to pay for it by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. They are going to close corporate tax loopholes. How many times have we heard that before? Every candidate democrat or republican is going to close down the loopholes. The republicans are bound to do the math and find that there is not enough money in rolling back the taxes on those who earn over 200,000 per year to pay for all those things.
In reality, I finally understand that both the republicans and democrats are bribing the voters with money. The republicans promise direct cash and say the voters can figure out what to do with their own money and they call it tax relief as if a couple of hundred dollars for a middle class family is going to make such a difference. Of course they don't say that local taxes are likely to rise to compensate for lost funding for services.
The democrats do it with targeted tax cuts that might benefit people and might not. The people don't get to make their own choice as to what to do with the money. They are forced to do what might be called "good works". And the middle class is supposed to get a small direct cut so that the dems can prove that they too are tax cutters and not 'omigod liberals'. It is still bribery. The last candidate, Mondale, who said he would meet the financial obligations of the government even if that meant tax increases, lost resoundingly, so the people are complicit in this scam.
So how we are to make up our minds. Do we want a diect cash payment and let all social obligations fall by the wayside or do we allow the dems to run social programs that may or may not make a difference. Many will accept cash payments as simpler and more personally beneficial. Then they can call themselves proud conservatives. Oh, of course, we are at war and that costs money, but don't worry, "the government will pay for it. I've got mine. This is America!"
So what will the two candidates do differently as Commander-in-Chief. Evidently George bush will keep the troops in Iraq until the transition government becomes permanent and can take care of itself, a situation whch many think will never happen. Kerry doesn't talk much about what he would do. He complains, justifiably, about getting mislead into the war. He has said his vote was an authorization of the use of force, but as a last resort. Could he possibly explain his perid of indecision over how he felt about the war. And what would he do now? Again, we can only speculate.
He is going to dissappoint those who are for immediate peace. Many of those will vote for Kerry, because they are enraged at Bush, but they haven't thought the situation through. No U.S. president can now simply withdraw. I can only speculate on what would happen. We do have real enemies. If we withdraw it will be seen as weakness and theefore an invitation to attack. We would leave a failed state behind. Shortly there would be a civil war and all that blood would be on our hands. Al Qaeda mught launch increased attacks on the oil fields in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Kerry will attempt to get our traditional European allies to help. Maybe he can succeed, but he will have to turn around countries that were active supporters of Saddam Hussein, countries that were doing business with Saddam, countries whose financial dealings with Saddam may have risen to the point of affecting their foreign policy. These countries like France, Germany and Russia were dead set against war in Iraq. Kerry must convince them that it is in their interest to help. Will they believe that? The only thing Kerry has really got going for him is that he is not George Bush, the insulter. Maybe that will be enough. But it is also possible that we will still be alone and that our committment will last many years.
Kerry has already promised to expand the army. I have seen reports that the services are still filling their volunteer quotes. Perhaps we will get enough volunteers to fill an expanded military. But that certainly means he will use them. Our only hope is that he is true to his word, that he will only go to war if he has to, not because he wants to.
Mel
1:31:04 PM 
|
