I’ve thought more about this presidential election than any one previous. I don’t like the political process, and deplore the fact that we’ve been in this election cycle non-stop since Bush was inaugurated.
But I’ve been involved intellectually because I think this election is important. Most of our history we’ve muddled through regardless of the quality of our President. The writers of our Constitution bequeathed that stability in their structure of the Federal Government. We could survive a Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon without permanent damage.
This time, however, there are two extremely important issues in which the President will have lasting impact. The first is one which gets a lot of attention in vague ways, and that is the War on Terrorism. Most Americans see this as a necessary task, although they differ on the best way to handle it. And for most of us, it is a distant thing.
For years we’ve played the old fashioned diplomatic hand. The world tradition of diplomacy has been war or bribes. Or war AND bribes. Our foreign aid program has followed that tradition ever since we grew out of the imperialism phase at the turn of the last century.
Bush changed that with a different focus–end terrorism by ending support of terrorism by others. The choice is that, or a return to the old school of bribes and ocassional war after we get hit. On this issue alone, I see nobody running against Bush who will continue this war as I believe it needs to be done.
The second issue of greatest importance is one that is spoken of only among true believers: Supreme Court appointments.
At least two Justices were expected to retire during this first Bush term. Neither Rehnquist nor O’Connor did. Justice Stevens has made it clear he will not retire until a Democrat is in the White House. He is 83. Democrats are willing to fight hard to ensure Bush doesn’t appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court Action Center at the DNC web site says:
President Bush has already tried to pack the federal courts with extremist right-wing ideologues. Bush and his ultraconservative allies will not miss this opportunity to shift the direction of the nation’s highest court far to the right. See how Bush’s record so far on judicial nominees ensures that his choices for the nation’s highest court will be way out of the mainstream.
What they mean by ultraconservative is someone who has read the Constitution and makes decisions based on that document rather than how they feel. Their definition of extremist right-wing ideologues is neither right-wing nor extreme. Following the nation’s charter as written seems like the correct course for a Justice to follow.
But the word “extremist” brings visions of horror to the minds of Americans, and that’s precisely the vision these people want to convey.
I consider myself to be a constitutionalist. Neither party completely fits my view of how the government should operate and what programs it should fund. I believe the Constitution is a “living document” as leftists claim. But it is alive in the sense that it is changeable. An Amendment is the tool for change.
Fortunately, that change is difficult. It was always intended to be difficult. A Constitution easy to change would eventually grow to thousands of pages, as has the proposed EU constitution. It would encompass every facet of American life, and restrict liberty. So, difficulty in amending our Constitution is one reason we have survived as a republic longer than any other in history.
Because it is so hard to change, “extremists” want a judiciary who will interpret the text in the way they wish. Abortion illegal? Find a court sympathetic to declare the law unconstitutional. Uncomfortable because the guy next to you says a prayer before his meal? Find a court willing to disallow such activity in a public place. Mad because your favorite restaurant allows people to smoke, and you really like that restaurant? Get a lawyer to sue and find a court willing to listen. After all, it is your restaurant!
Look, I’m a smoker, but I don’t smoke indoors. I think it’s rude. If you want the restaurant to change, quit going, and let the owner know why. He’ll eventually change if he wants to stay in business. But that means you’ll be inconvenienced in the interim, and that’s your real complaint. But the Constitution was not meant to deprive someone else of their liberties so that you can impose your own values.
With all the campaigning yet to be done before November, this issue may come out. But I’ve seen no sign of it yet. And it affects our lives in the future every bit as much as terrorism. In fact, it is far more noticeable to most of us.
The two most important issues: War on Terror, and Judicial appointments. Don’t forget either one.
More at Blog o’Ram.
your analysis here is true. these two issues are indeed the key ones, around which i will be making my decisions.
i look at it this way, on most issues, if the President disagrees with my position or interest, i can go to the Congress or fight it out in the public arena to get my way. however, the President has exclusive authority in military affairs and appointments. Thus these issues must take center stage in my choice for President.
Comment by rammer — February 14, 2004 @ 12:01 pm