Thoughts on the American elections
Nov. 2nd, 2004 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyThere has been a lot made of todays election in the United States. The front page of one of todays papers called it an election which would determine the course of human history. I suppose that's true as far as it goes*, but you know, it's not really that big a deal. You see, whoever wins the election today, very little will actually change.
Both Bush and Kerry will face the same requirements in their term; the US is heavily overstretched in its military commitments overseas and will need to build bridges with former close allies in order to reduce those commitments through third party help. Kerry would probably find that job easier, but either of them will have to do it. The USA budget defecit requires that it must happen, and they'd both have that to contend with too, so foreign policy for either of a period of rapproachment and friendliness with their closer allies is effectively mandated. There won't be any new wars in the second term due to those selfsame military commitments, although both will continue to talk big about the need to pursue terrorists in order to placate the ravening imbeciles of the midwest.
Domestic policy faces a related big problem - a huge budget defecit - and both candiates would have to face that. Tax raises are inevitable in the next term, as are federal budget cuts. The economy can't support the aggressive foreign policy and so that's another reason for a lack of wars any time soon. Kim Jong-il can sleep easy upon his pile of corpses and atom bombs because Uncle Sam just can't afford to do anything about him shy of assassination.
The were be differences in detail, naturally; how the federal budget is cut will be a matter for debate, and so too will be how to woo back old allies like the French and Germans. Both candidates will have to suck up to the Turks big time and push the EU to get them on board in order to demonstrate that they're not anti-muslim and the West likes unaccountable third world states with poor human rights records just as much as anyone so long as they're friendly-ish to us.
Realistically, whoever America votes for today, nothing much is going to change. Certainly your average citizen of Big bean, Illonois or Basra won't notice any difference to their lives. The only thing that might change is that if Kerry wins then the rest of the world might laugh at the US a little less, and we know how that's going to play. If your average midwesterner knows he'll be mocked less by the French for voting Kerry, he'll vote for Bush just to spite those dandy Euro-intellectuals.
So that's my prediction. Bush to win by a nose.
Not to worry. It won't make any difference.
*Pretty much everything will change the course of human history, one way or another.
Both Bush and Kerry will face the same requirements in their term; the US is heavily overstretched in its military commitments overseas and will need to build bridges with former close allies in order to reduce those commitments through third party help. Kerry would probably find that job easier, but either of them will have to do it. The USA budget defecit requires that it must happen, and they'd both have that to contend with too, so foreign policy for either of a period of rapproachment and friendliness with their closer allies is effectively mandated. There won't be any new wars in the second term due to those selfsame military commitments, although both will continue to talk big about the need to pursue terrorists in order to placate the ravening imbeciles of the midwest.
Domestic policy faces a related big problem - a huge budget defecit - and both candiates would have to face that. Tax raises are inevitable in the next term, as are federal budget cuts. The economy can't support the aggressive foreign policy and so that's another reason for a lack of wars any time soon. Kim Jong-il can sleep easy upon his pile of corpses and atom bombs because Uncle Sam just can't afford to do anything about him shy of assassination.
The were be differences in detail, naturally; how the federal budget is cut will be a matter for debate, and so too will be how to woo back old allies like the French and Germans. Both candidates will have to suck up to the Turks big time and push the EU to get them on board in order to demonstrate that they're not anti-muslim and the West likes unaccountable third world states with poor human rights records just as much as anyone so long as they're friendly-ish to us.
Realistically, whoever America votes for today, nothing much is going to change. Certainly your average citizen of Big bean, Illonois or Basra won't notice any difference to their lives. The only thing that might change is that if Kerry wins then the rest of the world might laugh at the US a little less, and we know how that's going to play. If your average midwesterner knows he'll be mocked less by the French for voting Kerry, he'll vote for Bush just to spite those dandy Euro-intellectuals.
So that's my prediction. Bush to win by a nose.
Not to worry. It won't make any difference.
*Pretty much everything will change the course of human history, one way or another.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Interesting, but I would parse a difference
a) I believe Kerry will have an easier time of it in restoring those relations in large part because he is not George Bush, and his electoral victory would be a repudiation of Bush's policies, making it far harder for old European allies to continue an 'anti-American' stance in all things.
b) No new wars - I don't know about that. Challenge one will be untangling the US from Iraq, and laying blame on Rumsfeld or Bush by either victor can go a long way towards that end. Operations in Afghanistan will probably have to be sped up. Then there's the ultimate wild card in Al Qaeda ... the US simply does not have the initiative.
c) Kim Jong Il sleeping easy ... well, he also has a marvelous opportunity to act more aggressively. If he's clever enough (which I'm not sure he is), he need only create enough of a regional conflict to destabilise Korean, Chinese, and Japanese markets - the net effect will be pulling money away from the US now significantly propped up by those national banks.
d) Sound fiscal policy forced by circumstance - well, if it were any other Republican, I would believe that outcome too ... but Bush has shown a shocking lack of fiscal discipline. I rather suspect that war needs will continue to receive resource primacy, ultimately eroding the domestic programs fully. Mind you, that won't just be at the cost of Bush programs like 'No Child Left Behind' ... but, from my perspective, the utter gutting of environmental protection - we *will* see people die in higher numbers from lost protections. And I'm not being madly overly dramatic about this either.
Re: Interesting, but I would parse a difference
Date: 2004-11-02 09:33 am (UTC)d) Well, perhaps you should all vote for Nader, then ;P
Re: Interesting, but I would parse a difference
Date: 2004-11-02 09:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 12:03 pm (UTC)Oh but it will. It will make a difference to gays and just about anyone with a womb who is presumptious enough to believe they have should have autonomy over their own body. It will make a difference to 1000s of women in the third world whose access to birth control has been prevented since Born Again Bush revoked his government's commitment to aid packages that incorporate birth control measures.
And even if the initial outcomes would be superficially the same regardless of who wins, the ideological standpoints of the two candidates ARE important. Kerry is informed and motivated by ambition, self-interest and intellect, Bush by ambition, self-interest and 'faith'.
Misogyny, homophobia, superstition, crusades and god belong in the history books, not in the proceedings of the American Senate and Supreme Court. As the winning candidate will have the right to appoint two Judges to the latter, he will effectively have an impact on the civil liberties of Americans for a generation. I'd call that a difference, and a deeply significant one.
My tuppence
Date: 2004-11-02 12:29 pm (UTC)1.b. However, it is likely that greater restrictions will grow at a state level. The sad impact of my city's push for gay marriages has been very negative rulings in places like New Orleans. Bush would offer no impediment to such negative changes at a state level.
2. With regards to the left's fears over a new ruling on Roe v Wade, that is mostly a red herring, to be fair. It is unlikely that there would be a change on that decision, but I don't put anything past Bush, or his Supreme Court nominees.
2b. With regards to 3rd World women adversely affected by Bush's policies - you are completely correct. Then again, that is another perverse aspect of humanitarian assistance, and how it is politicised. If only they had the resources to forge their own path. :-/
2c. Incidentally, I remember reading somewhere that suggested that in the US, under Bush, initial statistics suggest abortions have increased - largely due to lack of confidence in economic well-being to support a growing family. So much for 'pro-family' values eh?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-02 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-14 05:24 am (UTC)Funny old world, innit?