D-Day has arrived: today most of the readers of this blog will be part of the decision what party rules U.S. Congress and what Party rules Senate. Compared to elections in, for instance, the Netherlands, the U.S. elections are highly important for more people, also for foreigners (read: non-Americans). The U.S. influences the entire world. Thus by your vote, you influence the entire world.
As a foreigner, it is difficult for me to do what Elrod and Michael Stickings did: urging you to vote for a particular party. Would I do so, the reaction of a lot of Americans would – perhaps rightfully or at least understandably so – be something like “mind your own business”. I wrote perhaps because such a reaction would deny the plain fact that being the world’s only superpower results in influencing the entire world greatly and thus causes the world to be highly involved in U.S. elections.
The West faces, arguably, two main problems today: the GWOT and (related) Iraq. European countries cannot afford the US to lose in the GWOT and the U.S. cannot afford Europe to stop fighting it actively, effectively and aggressively. As with so many issues, the faith of Europe and that of America are intertwined. Success or failure in the global war on terrorism depends on the commitment of both.
Related to the GWOT and what I like to call terrorist regimes is the problem with Iran and the resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle-East. There are those who call for a diplomatic solution to the problem with Iran. Although diplomacy is always the first path one must take in order to prevent a particular situation from running out of hand, it seems naive to think that Iran’s Mullahs are open to diplomacy, or better said to true compromises. Instead, it seems that Iran is only willing to talk about its nuclear program as to stall time. For them it does not open the door to compromises of any kind, it simply provides the Mullahs with the time they need to develop their own nuclear bomb.
The Mullahs with a bomb: that is not exactly a pleasant idea. Some argue that Arab nations are not happy with Israel’s nuclear weapons and that, as such, it is understandable that they wish to possess them as well. Indeed, it is understandable. The question, however, is not whether it is understandable or not, it is whether the West should accept it or not. Israel, we are sure, will only use nuclear weapons as a true last resort: Israel will not use them first. Can we be sure, or even reasonably sure, of that regarding Iran? Can we be sure that Iran will not supply terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons once it has them? Iran must be dealt with in an effective manner.
As I wrote, another main issue is Iraq. It seems undeniable to me that Iraq is lost and that the only possible goal from now can be damage control. The battle for Iraq has been lost due to the mishandling of it by those in positions of power. They were only able to do so, to mess it up, due to a U.S. Congress that wasn’t checking up on the White House as thoroughly as it should have done. This, as well, has to be taken into account. One should ask oneself whether this will change when the Democrats take over at least one chamber. What does one believe that the Democrats and Republicans plan on doing about Iraq (staying the course, at least, will mean imminent failure) and what does oneself think should be done?
Bush has insisted that Rumsfeld should remain Secretary of Defense during Bush’s entire second term. If one can name one person (besides Bush) who is responsible for the failure of Iraq and continues to make the same mistakes over and over again, it is Donald Rumsfeld. One has to ask oneself whether it is likely that something will change when the Republicans will continue to form the majority, either in the House or in the Senate. My answer? No.
Of course there are much more things one should take into account: individuals matter as well. Not every Democratic candidate is a liberal and not every Republican candidate is a conservative. What the U.S. needs domestically – so it seems to me – are Senators and Representatives who are dedicated to fighting the almost unbelievable dept of the US. As a European Liberal Conservative I believe very much that a government that spends more than it receives is simply stealing from future generations.
Then there is the NSA spying program, the treatment of prisoners in the GWOT, the list goes on and on. These two issues would be completely unacceptable to me were I American (although the second one is unacceptable to me now as well, since that’s not a strictly American issue). The West has to fight the GWOT but not by abandoning its freedom and respect for human rights.
All in all endorsing one particular party is not something I can bring myself to do. For if I would do so, I would be dishonest. Playing the irrelevant yet nonetheless fun game of “what would I do were I American” would result in a complicated and nuanced answer: it would depend on the candidates in my district / state. As should be obvious to anyone who reads my articles on a regular basis, I tend to be right of center for Americans on probably most issues. There is however more to it than that.
As I have written before, divided government is highly important. But voting for someone simply because that person is not a member of the political party Bush belongs to seems silly to me. The person you vote for might very well be the one ending up representing you. Purely casting an anti-vote is understandable and defendable, but not necessarily best. Note, I am not saying that it should be a non-factor, I am only saying that it should not be the only one.
Make up your own mind, but whatever you do… vote. You’re not just influencing America, your vote also has the potential of changing (things in) the world.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.