|
|
|
Bob Nichols According to the conventional wisdom, the upcoming presidential election, in addition to being one closest in history, is also one of the most divisive. Certainly, if the recent attacks and vitriol are any indication, both sides are extremely worked up about the race. Anti-Bush sentiment, combined with allegations of disenfranchisement and fraud, have many on both sides seeing the other as the enemy rather than the loyal opposition. While debate and difference of opinion are good for the country, many recent events have been disturbing. Most notably, the recent furor over disenfranchisement and fraud cannot but lead to post-election contention and, possibly, drawn-out legal battles that could shake the foundations of our democratic system. While such allegations are nothing new (one of the unproven conspiracy theories regarding the 2000 Florida race is that many black voters were prevented from making it to the polls), they have received high-profile attention this year. A lawsuit in Nevada charged that a conservative get-out-the-vote group ripped up Democratic registrations. A suspected DNC memo was circulated urging Democrats to “charge voter intimidation, even if none exists.” Both campaigns are dispatching lawyers to ensure that there is no “foul play” by the other side. There’s certainly reason to worry. A man pled guilty to filling out 100 fake voter registrations in exchange for crack. Republican campaign buildings have been shot at, broken into, and vandalized. If partisans will go to these lengths, then surely there are those who would fake votes for their own side or try to prevent the other from voting. While these people are clearly motivated by a desire to see their candidate prevail, their reprehensibility is only matched by their stupidity. Granted, it is entirely rational to worry that if Bush is reelected, international opinion of America will not improve, or if the Democrat prevails there will be hesitation to use force in contravention of world opinion. If Bush wins, people may see smaller government checks; if Kerry does, we may have higher taxes. However, those on either side who predict apocalyptic results if the other is elected clearly are letting hysteria get the better of reason. Bush is not Hitler, and he is not trying to ship us all off to warforoil while taking away our right to free speech. Likewise, Kerry is not going to disband the military and replace Old Glory with the hammer and sickle. I have expressed anger at Kerry and his advisors in the past, especially regarding Kerry’s criticism of Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi’s government and denigration of our allies in the Iraq War. Understandably, Kerry wants to paint Bush’s policy as flawed so that voters will want a new Commander in Chief. However, instead of offering another option, most of what Kerry does is try to paint a bleak picture so voters will feel going to war was the wrong decision. While it is entirely reasonable to oppose the war, and to feel that it was the wrong decision, to engage in rhetoric with the only apparent purpose of reducing American morale (and getting elected) is, in my mind, blameworthy. It is nearly impossible that we will lose in Iraq because of an enemy military victory; we will only lose if public opinion convinces us to give up. I feel that a withdrawal would be disastrous, for reasons that most likely fill up another article (or perhaps a blog post), and so was angered by what I viewed as Kerry’s unintended aid for the enemy. However, I don’t believe that Kerry wants us to lose the war in Iraq, or the global Terror War in general. While I agree with Zell Miller’s doubt for Kerry’s judgment, I don’t think that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous. We might suffer another terrorist attack, or sow the seeds for a later attack, but as horrible as another three thousand (or three million) deaths are, our country can survive them. The greater and more immediate threat to the country comes from the hordes of lawyers and bitter partisans who will do anything to win. As Stephen Green writes, some people (Democrats, he argues, but I’ll leave aside arguments as to which party is mostly to blame) are “trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it.” If a significant portion of the country were to doubt the legitimacy of our democracy and leaders, it would be more damaging to the country than any terrorist attack. People will only consent to be governed when they feel that the rules are being followed. The minute enough people feel fake votes and voters can determine the outcome of the election, or real votes can’t, our whole government will be in danger. As Green says: Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win.What the partisans on both sides have to realize is that America can survive either a Bush or a Kerry presidency far better than it can survive what is viewed as an illegitimate presidency. A contested, bitterly disputed election that is ultimately decided by the courts would be far more damaging than any weapons the terrorists could potentially use. Bob Nichols is a sophomore and a columnist for The Soap Box |
| Or comment via email. |
|
|
|
|