This blog is not a politics blog, although this area does come up from time to time. (As some of you know, I've also posted occasionally on the Yahoo message boards under my real name for the past several months on this topic.) In light of Andrew Sullivan's disastrous recent endorsement, I am going to, like many bloggers, pick a side, even if no potential voters are reading.
The recent editorials on the www.opinionjournal.com
site are eloquently stated and do not require further argumentation. Speaking to my Canadian audience, I'll simply say this: if you know what's good for you, hope for Bush victory, stop insulting the Republicans, and don't blast any of your American friends if they happen to say they're voting for the Republican ticket. Torontonians will be up to their ears in garbage if Kerry is elected and quickly closes the border in Michigan. Those in BC who don't like the way the US has dragged its feet through the softwood lumber dispute won't find any relief in the protectionist Democratic ticket. In fact, recent NAFTA and WTO rulings at the highest levels have been in BC's favor, but VP candidate John Edwards doesn't even like free trade as a matter of principle. A protectionist Democratic White House will exacerbate the current problems in Congress and in the States, and will result in Canada getting shafted both ways: for getting into NAFTA, and for staying in it. If the Democrats win the White House, their policies will slow economic growth in the US and around the world.
Meanwhile, those with relatives in the Middle East should be concerned as the forces of chaos and evil sink their teeth more deeply into whole countries at a time. As a resident of South Korea, I do worry about the sanity of the regime in the North. There is one thing that I do believe, however: North Korea is not likely to attack South Korea if they know the South has a strong ally who is willing to act to defend it.
There are many countries, but there is only one planet. What happens in one part of the world will make itself felt in our countries, too. To bury one's head in the sand, as Kerry has done for his entire career, is self-defeating. While President Bush hasn't been perfect, he has faced up to reality in a way that Kerry has not. Unlike Kerry and his running mate, who blab and blab about multilateralism while threatening to renegotiate the trade agreements by which the US is bound, George Bush, has, by and large, lived up to his international obligations, including his obligations to Canada. From a Canadian perspective, Bush is better for Canada than Kerry. From a global perspective, also, Bush is preferable to Kerry. In short, whether one is idealistic or pragmatically self-interested, President Bush is the candidate of choice this year. I endorse him.
(Well, not that that mattered very much.)