With Super Tuesday behind us, and it seems like Kerry is the democratic candidate. I have to say that I wished Edwards was the candidate for the democrats. He seemed much less of a politican and more of a fighter for ideals, such as the welfare of the shrinking middle class. Here's John Edward's speech on 2 Americas which I thought was very inspiring. However, I have to admit that me, not being a strong democrat or republican, and one who voted for Bush but at the same time has criticized his actions, I find myself in a very unpopular place. My identity as a whole does not fit into the main constituents of either party, or the green for the matter.
Interestingly enough, the paradox is that people who voted for Kerry, who is more pro middle class, were lower class people, while people who voted for Edwards, who is pro lower/middle class, were affluent Americans. Part of the reason being that the people who don't have much don't think they don't have much, or that if they work harder, they will earn what they don't have, so they vote for the middle class values, while people who are educated and affluent, see that there's injustices with the wealth gap, vote for the rights of the working class, even though they themselves are not working class. You still with me? Here, I think this article explains more.
Then I found a really good article written by the Atlantic Monthly in December of 2001, right after 9/11. It was trying to figure out how people voted in the 2000 election, and what it means to live in "Red America", the parts of America that voted for Bush, and "Blue America", parts that voted for Gore. Here's the Atlantic Monthly article: One Nation, Slightly Divisible .
I urge you to read the article, because it has really helped me understand the factors that unite and divide America.
But going back, yeah, it was hard for me to vote for a candidate back in 2000 and it looks like it'll be hard for me again in 2004. I'm an immigrant upwardly mobile educated minority christian living in an urban area rife with liberal thinking but has sent few troops to Iraq to die for what I think is a good cause but was poorly handled. Whew, yeah. We as a nation has become really polarized. In viewing the candidates, maybe it can be divided in several ways. Bush might not be the sharpest tool in the shed and I cringe at some of his policies, especially environmental and unilateralism, but he posesses character, moral consistency, and loyalty. That seems to be in direct contrast to Clinton, who was very good in running a nation, and we were properous as a nation at his watch, but was morally very corrupt, arrogant, and cheated repeatedly on his family. So I guess some would say, "I'd rather have someone who is morally corrupt but can run the country well", another would say, "Well, Bush makes mistakes, but his character is what I want in a leader." Of course, I'd rather have a bright, eloquent president who is morally consistent and humbly admits his mistakes, but there isn't a candidate out there like that is there.
At any rate, politics, and religion, we can go on and on. They're really important and hits deep in our hearts. I guess I'm just offering my 2 cents.
Interestingly enough, the paradox is that people who voted for Kerry, who is more pro middle class, were lower class people, while people who voted for Edwards, who is pro lower/middle class, were affluent Americans. Part of the reason being that the people who don't have much don't think they don't have much, or that if they work harder, they will earn what they don't have, so they vote for the middle class values, while people who are educated and affluent, see that there's injustices with the wealth gap, vote for the rights of the working class, even though they themselves are not working class. You still with me? Here, I think this article explains more.
Then I found a really good article written by the Atlantic Monthly in December of 2001, right after 9/11. It was trying to figure out how people voted in the 2000 election, and what it means to live in "Red America", the parts of America that voted for Bush, and "Blue America", parts that voted for Gore. Here's the Atlantic Monthly article: One Nation, Slightly Divisible .
I urge you to read the article, because it has really helped me understand the factors that unite and divide America.
But going back, yeah, it was hard for me to vote for a candidate back in 2000 and it looks like it'll be hard for me again in 2004. I'm an immigrant upwardly mobile educated minority christian living in an urban area rife with liberal thinking but has sent few troops to Iraq to die for what I think is a good cause but was poorly handled. Whew, yeah. We as a nation has become really polarized. In viewing the candidates, maybe it can be divided in several ways. Bush might not be the sharpest tool in the shed and I cringe at some of his policies, especially environmental and unilateralism, but he posesses character, moral consistency, and loyalty. That seems to be in direct contrast to Clinton, who was very good in running a nation, and we were properous as a nation at his watch, but was morally very corrupt, arrogant, and cheated repeatedly on his family. So I guess some would say, "I'd rather have someone who is morally corrupt but can run the country well", another would say, "Well, Bush makes mistakes, but his character is what I want in a leader." Of course, I'd rather have a bright, eloquent president who is morally consistent and humbly admits his mistakes, but there isn't a candidate out there like that is there.
At any rate, politics, and religion, we can go on and on. They're really important and hits deep in our hearts. I guess I'm just offering my 2 cents.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home