Putting Order Over Chaos

I realized of late that I have been guilty of a little bit of political apathy and its ugly best friend, intellectual laziness (the sort of friend who comes over, spills cereal and sugar all over the table, burps constantly, complains that things aren't done like THAT at his house, etc). I realized that perhaps my political views, though fairly well defined, have perhaps not been researched enough, and that they ought to be tested more on the fields of debate.

This actually excites me a bit, because it gives me a reason to talk to a whole bunch of people whose views I respect, as well as researching something meaningful on my own behalf. This could be a good first step towards that Holy Grail vision of affecting the world, by refining my own political views, so that I can be sure that my two cents are worth injecting, even with current inflation rates making everything murky (intellectual subprime mortgage crisis? Does that metaphorical concept make any kind of sense?

In any case, here are the rules. I will occasionally post a few opinions, hopefully researched substantively, and I will ask that you respond, no holds barred*.

*by no holds barred, I mean that you are free to write whatever you want, just as I am free to delete whatever I want, so no mean-spirited comments on what other people write, is what I'm saying.

This is of course a selfish project, in that it will hopefully make my blog look really, really popular by posing as a political forum.

Here we go:

1) Here is a very rough list of some of the issues most important to me, in no particular order. By rough, I mean a handful that spring to mind in a few seconds while drinking wine and watching football. Politics is a circus, after all.

-the war in Iraq, particularly as a microcosm for our standing in the world. If we do not find an acceptable resolution, how much more will our standing at the bar of global opinion fall?

-economic disparity, domestically and abroad. The pragmatic side of questions of inequality and justice. To win the war on terrorism, how do we ameliorate the festering wounds of third world poverty and economic exploitation? How do we end domestic violence and ensure equal rights for all races and genders, short of arresting every wealthy white male and kicking them in the shins (which may not be a bad idea; at any case, I am not discounting it out of hand)?

-the balance between civil liberties and fighting the war on terror. I am biased on the side of erring towards more, not fewer civil liberties, lest we surrender everything we are trying to defend. And of course there are the issues of what causes the terrorism, i.e., the provocations of centuries of colonialism and economic exploitation. Nevertheless, terrorism is not justified, and whether or not you believe in Locke's vision of government or the more cynical Hobbsian version, government has a duty to protect the citizenry, and no matter what karmic baggage Americans may lug with them, children do not deserve to be murdered by terrorists before they have developed to the age of reason.

-The Environment. What do politics matter in the long run if we have killed the world?

2) Battle of The Democrats.

It seems to me that there are two Democrats with the most realistic chance of being elected. This doesn't mean that they are the most ideal candidates, but they are the best candidates in terms of who can actually be elected in this current political climate. Saving the country may require baby steps.

Here are some thoughts on my part about them, the pros and cons. These do not constitute all my opinions, but rather a jumping off point.

First of all, one issue I do have with Hillary. She voted for the Iraq war at a time when I and my family felt it was wrong, it was a mistaken bit of American nationalistic aggression that did not allow the weapons inspectors to do their job and was based on weak evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, particularly as it was known even then that no Iraqis were on the planes of 9/11.

Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first female senator, and she voted against World War I and World War II, despite popular opinions being against her. Like many senators, Hillary does admit that her vote for the war was now a mistake, but the fact that she bought into the hype and voted for what was obviously a popular war at the time disturbed me, and it tarnished her image for me, as it tarnished the image of most of Congress who supported the war.

Barack Obama has problems. His support for the liquified coal industry disturbs me and Vaughn. However, he was a critic of the Iraq War before it began. In 2002, he said this was not the war we should be fighting. He has worked towards greater transparency in government, and he has introduced measures to promote disassembling nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. These latter ideas are two big reasons why I support Barack. Granted, as a state senator, Barack was not faced with the choice of voting for or against the war in Iraq, which would have been a difficult decision for anyone, although it should not have been, in my opinion.

Ideally, perhaps, we could have a Hillary-Barack ticket, that, after (cross your fingers) eight years as VP, would give Barack the experience needed to become president.

Am I full of white man's guilt? Yes. Do middle class white men deserve anything other than guilt? Maybe we deserve things in addition to guilt, but guilt is undeniably a part of our deserts.

EDIT: Is it ironic in a blog that discusses the health of my intellectual rigor, I neglect to include either health care or education in the original list of issues that are important to me? I think it is. I could try to make the argument that both of these fit beneath the umbrella topic of economic disparity, but we all know that would be a reach, don't we?