OR: We Interrupt this Reality Show for a.... Reality Show?
Published on July 19, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
Every 4 years one of the seminal events of politics used to capture the attention and television audience with its glitz and grandeur, suspense and drama. They were shown on all networks and received great ratings because they provided a peak at the democratic process. My parents were glued to their sets as each political party laid before the American people their positions on the issues that confronted them. Men like David Brinkley and Eric Severeid provided commentary on the real and unreal as candidates prepared for the glory of being chosen as representatives of their party or fading into the shadows of the chosen.

Coming soon to a cable network near you.....the Democratic and Republican Conventions. (I hear a few crickets chirping in the background.)

The party conventions no longer receive the sense of drama or mystery that they once did. Speakers will parade before the microphones extolling the virtues of their candidates and "guiding principles" and then the candidates themselves, with bands playing and crowds cheering will follow up with the same campaign speech they've been doing for a month. Mr. Bush will exclaim how America is "safer" (because opinion polls say he is considered a better candidate against terrorism) and Mr. Kerry will talk about "opportunity" (because he is seen as offering a better domestic agenda).

Most people will probably catch the normal 15 second sound bites of the hoopla and it will fade into memory by the time the vote occurs in 4 months. Principles of leadership will devolve into mudslinging and articles about "Why I Can't Vote for _________" will be more available on JoeUser than "Why _____________ is the Best Choice for Me!"

That is the main reason why we have votes and elections, by the way. It should be in part because of the men. Certainly striking differences exist between the candidates, too. However, if you simply by-pass the conventions, you will miss half of the reasons to vote for the candidate, that is, what they and their political party believe. The parties will present platforms that are just that, a platform for the ideas, hopes, sometimes dreams of what America should be. They will be different and they represent 2 views that will effect our lives perhaps even more than the candidates.

I can't speak for you or anyone else but here are 5 questions I will be asking of the platforms and visions of the parties. I list them in no order of importance but each is important to me as a voter. I invite you to think of the questions you will ask. If writing them down helps, I encourage you to do so. If you want to share them with JoeUser, that will be a help to all of us.

For the Democrats (since they are first):

1. Healthcare is the fastest growing expense of Americans and workers benefits are being cut by small and medium size businesses each year as a "lose the benefit or lose the business" quandry. What will the Democratic Party do to help small and medium sized businesses so that this ends?

2. The cost of oil has risen to over $40 per barrel and many believe it will rise to at least $50 bringing the price of gasoline to as much as $3 per gallon. What does the Democratic party propose as an alternative to reliance on Middle East oil as the main energy provider to the U.S.?

3. The manufacturing base of American workers has been decreasing for the past 20 years as jobs moved overseas, leaving American workers in service sector jobs that often mean 2 income families were a must even though damage to the family is a common concern in our towns and cities. What will the Democratic party do to allow and encourage manufacturing jobs to return so that working mothers or fathers can stay home with their children?

4. Many moral issues (gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, the spread of casino gambling) are considered bigger than simply ones that should be decided by each state. Civil and religious leaders have called upon the federal government to pass national laws, even amendments so that there is a consistency of law across all 50 states. What is the Democratic party's posion on laws and amendments in this regard?

5. The war in Iraq is a very divisive issue amongst the American people. However, we have a large standing army in Iraq and the stated position of the incumbent President is to develop a flourishing democracy in Iraq. Does the Democratic party agree with this plan and how would President Kerry impliment changes in the way we approach Iraq?

For the Republicans:

1. President Bush goes to great length to highlight the threat of terrorism to the United States. However, there hasn't been a large scale terrorist act since 9/11. Therefore, there is no way to measure whether the terrorists are active or present any concrete security threat in the future. What is the Republican party's position on increasing the range of the Patriot Act and other measures, even though basic American freedoms are being sacrificed?

2. Government deficits have reached record levels over the past several years and a total deficit of $10 Trillion is not impossible to imagine before Mr. Bush would end his second term. What proposals will the Republican party make to reduce the deficit and secure programs such as Medicare and Social Security?

3. One of the countries often associated with terrorism as well as a lack of democratic traditions and a militaristic government is Iran. Iran borders Iraq and many believe that Iran would use any pretext to move against Iraq to destroy reforms we have set in motion over the past year. Does the Republican party consider Iran an enemy of the United States and on what basis would armed invasion of Iran be undertaken by U.S. forces?

4. The economy of the United States has been in decline for the past 4 years. Americans worry about loss of jobs and dependence on foreign oil. Concurrently a flood of immigrants from South America, especially Mexico have come into the U.S. What does the Republican Party believe should be our immigration policy and how does it propose to enforce limited immigration with such a long, undefended border?

5. Major scandals in big businesses have occured on an almost weekly basis since the stock market bubble popped in 2000. Republicans are often seen as more "business-friendly" then Democrats. How does the Republican party view the immorality of business leadership and will laws be proposed to stiffen penalties for business malpractices in the future?

The gavels are about to sound...... Let's see if we hear any answers.

Comments
on Jul 19, 2004
What does the Democratic party propose as an alternative to reliance on Middle East oil as the main energy provider to the U.S.?


The Middle east is not the main oil provider to the US. Link. Also, keep in mind that the US provides over 40% of its own oil. Link
on Jul 20, 2004
Madine:
I wasn't suggesting the Middle East was the only provider, but there is no doubt that if we produce 40%, OPEC or those associated with OPEC provide 60%, right? The point is, that if the outside sources of oil (besides U.S. production) cut off oil, a crisis would ensue. Such a crisis would cripple the economy. So, any way you slice it, OPEC has the U.S. "over a barrel."
on Jul 20, 2004
You have asked good questions here. I'll have to think of mine in a more constructive way. My parents were glued to their seats, too. And every election night was a pumpkin pie night. The first time I remember it really meaning anything to me was how I upset I was over McGovern losing.
Good article.
on Jul 20, 2004
OPEC or those associated with OPEC provide 60%, right?


No, it's more like 30%. Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and Norway are not OPEC members. Also, OPEC is not interchangeable with the Middle East. If you take Venezuela and Nigeria out of the equation, it's only 15%.




I don't mean to split hairs so much, but I think there is an important distinction. Oil from the middle east raises stability issues that go beyond the "standard" questions of oil supply.

This was a good post and raises many important issues. I plan to discuss some of these and not just take potshots at the questions. But, I think that question was misleading. It made it sound as though the majority of oil used in the US comes from the Middle East. I think it is counterproductive to try and have a discussion based on faulty assumptions.
on Jul 20, 2004
Madine:
Well, the only thing I would disagree with you is on the influence of OPEC. I would contend (from a trader's point of view because that is how I spend my days when not on here) that countries both discuss their production as well as price with OPEC on a continuous basis and the price and quotas OPEC sets for its member countries is pretty closely adhered to for long term contracts. Now, the spot market is a little more "sloppy" in terms of price and production but there is little doubt in my mind that if OPEC said "no oil to the U.S." it would cause a crisis in the U.S. That is the thrust of the question as to the Democrats.
Are you disagreeing, saying that OPEC cutting supply would not be a problem? Or are we talking a matter of degree?
on Jul 20, 2004
Are you saying that Canada, Mexico, UK, and Norway are "associated" with OPEC?

Certainly what OPEC does affects the world oil market and oil prices and availability in the US.

1. President Bush goes to great length to highlight the threat of terrorism to the United States. However, there hasn't been a large scale terrorist act since 9/11. Therefore, there is no way to measure whether the terrorists are active or present any concrete security threat in the future. What is the Republican party's position on increasing the range of the Patriot Act and other measures, even though basic American freedoms are being sacrificed?


There have been terrorists attacks in other countries and terrorists arrested in the US. Inciteful anti-US rhetoric continues. It is certain that there still are terrorists in the world that wish to harm the US and its citizens.

I estimate that the killing and capturing of terrorists leaders, the destruction of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, the increased international effort to identify and capture terrorists, the more strict freezing of terrorist funds, and the increased security measures inside the US have made it more difficult for terrorists to launch sophisticated operations on US soil.
on Jul 20, 2004
Madine:
On OPEC, when it comes to trading commodities, especially oil, every country looks at what everyone else is doing. IF you look at the price on the open market for long term contracts I rarely see any contracts not in line with OPEC policy. Besides the ones you mentioned, Russia is one of the main one who thought about moving away from OPEC but found the possible problems caused by it were not worth the possible benefits.
As far as the terrorism question goes, the key is that many of the undecided voters in the U.S. see the question of terrorism as "safety or freedoms." The Patriot Act is a harder sell to the undecideds who hear about phones being tapped and library records being checked while in the U.S. we have had constant reminders how much we are at risk. Undecideds want to know that some proposed measures that are rumored to being considered to increase security will not restrict travel or require personal identification at all times for every citizen.
The key is that the question is asked now before we elect because after we elect.......?