: : home     : : reviews     : : days gone by     : : litmag     : : who?     : : contact    

12 october, 2000

aw, shucks, let's debate

Please raise your hand if you mistook the second presidential debate for high tea. I swear, I thought I had accidentally tuned in to one of those PBS specials, "The Brothers Dottigrew and their Mystery-Solving Cat".

I agree...why, I agree, too...well, darn, we agree again! Cheerio, mate!

Alright, to the dirt. Both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore conducted themselves a lot better than in the previous debate; I think we can all agree on that. Unfortunately, I didn't really care if they were gentlemen or not. For pete's sake it's a debate. That means DEBATE. It means ask, and then answer the hard questions. Much of my disappointment this time around lies with Jim Lehrer. Knowing full well that this election rests in the hands of undecided independent voters, he did very little to allow the candidates to take a real stand on important issues. Every time he asked one of them to "distinguish [himself] from his opponent," I wanted to throw things at the television. He was fishing for sound bytes, not compelling answers. It was no way to address the many, many issues for which Americans are groping for answers.

I was pleased to see foreign policy addressed in this debate --- for the first ten minutes or so. As the nearly half-hour dragged on, however, it merely became a repetitive comfort zone. Unfortunately, I'm ashamed to admit that most Americans don't even care about foreign policy. Look at any poll, comprised of any group, and foreign policy doesn't even rank in the top five of their primary concerns. Which is a shame, and only exacerbates our place in the world as the ignorant, "ugly American".

While I appreciated Bush paying lip service to the fact that America should not take an imperial role in the world and impose our values on other nations, I found him to be somewhat contradictory in his narrow view of the military. He stated that the purpose of our military was "to go in and win wars," and to hell with any efforts at what he called "nation building".

Okay, then my question is this --- if a country asks for our help for humanitarian relief efforts, please tell me what other organization has the resources available to assist in those efforts. The Peace Corps? Are you going to fund them in such a way that they can serve as proper humanitarian emissaries throughout the world? If not, then we have no other choice but to send military troops. The poverty in developing countries is often directly linked to violence and war, and humanitarian squads must be prepared to protect both their supplies and the people they're trying to help.

Having Bush in office frightens me when it comes to foreign policy. "And if something does occur, then there WILL be a serious consequence." Did you hear him say "serious consequence" at least three times over various issues? Considering his vigorous enforcement of the death penalty in Texas, I don't know that I trust his finger on the little red button.

Bush is weakest where Gore is strongest --- Gore holds a tremendous, evolving, realistic view of the world as an increasily smaller place. Moreover, he knows that we must conduct ourselves as responsible world citizens; instead of perpetuating our insular, arrogant, dangerous, wasteful attitudes.

While I am happy and proud of my American citizenship, it is absolutely unrealistic to focus entirely on what either one of these men can do "for the American people." What we need is a leader who can help guide America toward the rest of the world as compassionate, thrifty, conscious citizens. Bush, with his lack of world experience, his exclusionary set of values, and his utter lack of concern for our environment; yeah, I'm scared that this guy could get elected. Don't even get me started on what he could do to the Supreme Court.

The thing is, though, I'm still trying figure out who Gore is. Environmentally, I've always been a big fan of his. Yes! we should develop more efficient transportation options. In some areas, he's a regular visionary, and yet.... Something about Gore doesn't sit well with me, because he doesn't seem comfortable with himself. Is he listening to America, or is he too busy thinking of what to say next? Will the rest of the world honor him as a respectable leader? Will he fill his cabinet with equally visionary advisors, or just the same old politicians he's worked with for years? Is he just telling us what we want to hear?

I can't say that I'm an undecided voter. I know who I will vote for in November, because we see eye to eye on more issues than not. I've never been one to write letters to politicians, but I think now is the time to start. We can only hope that one of them decides to go for broke, to be fearless, and just lay his cards on the table. Let's face it --- neither man is a clear winner. But if enough of us make our voices heard, if we aren't afraid to be strident, I still have hope that we can help our leader find his way to our future.

We don't have a choice to do otherwise.