I am just a guy who came across your blog. You seem mighty engaged with the republican party -- probably to the extent that I am engaged with the democratic party. Just as you are not even watching the democratic convention, I am tempted to not even WATCH the republican convention; i fear it will just make me angry.

Anyway... I have a question that you will probably think is ludicrous -- but I would like to understand how any rational person could be prepared to vote for Bush in November. If you have a moment, I would be gratified to receive a response. (I really am curious what kind of rational argument can be made.)

I'm a rational person, Bruce. I plan to vote for Bush because I believe in GOP principles. I believe in a strong national defense, low taxes, free markets, personal responsibility and small government.

Why are you a Democrat? And please don't tell us why you are NOT a Republican. I want to know why you ARE a Democrat. What are your guiding principles? What do you believe?

is anyone in the conservative blogosphere even gonna comment on the overwhelmingly obvious fact that throughout the entire Democratic convention (thus far) there is a miserable lack of focusing on TODAYs PROBLEMS??? All I have heard is talk of yesteryears greatness...restoring America's "this" or "that".

Why isn't any Democratic speaker focusing on the TRUTH of today– that being, "We are in a radically different war than "yesteryear". We are facing radically different enemies. Our problems cannot be solved with yesterday's ideas...we have to be agressive and sharply focused and risk the position of "walking alone" as a nation in this cold, cruel world. We shouldn't seek the permission or blessings of any nation in the effort to protect our interests or our national sovereignty. Period.

Why is nobody talking about solutions at the Democratic Convention? Where are the answers? All I hear are platitudes, tired rhetoric, and an astounding lack of individuality and leadership.

I couldn't be swayed one iota from this Luv-Fest of silliness.

Dear Ivan:

Thanks very much for your response. Let me first deal with your response to my question, and then I will deal with yours.

You said: "I believe in a 1)strong national defense, 2) low taxes, 3)free markets, 4)personal responsibility and 5)small government." (the numbers are so I can refer to them below) And that is why you want to vote for Bush. So those are your beliefs, but my question is how do you get from core GOP beliefs to accepting Bush as the person to get us there.

---

To answer your question (Since I am am alien here I felt the need to explain myself rather than do the bullet-point thing - this turned out to be kind of long.)
You may find this funny, but my faith is what drives me to toward the left. While I do think that each person is responsible to make the best life that he or she can (#4), I also think that we have a responsibility to take care of one another. The stong have a responsibility to watch out for the weak. A REAL responsiblity that is not discharged just by volunteering at the soup kitchen once a week, but by setting up our society so that the weak are not left behind. Watching out for one another also means that we contribute gladly to the common good. The government is the most natural structure we have to, as the constitution says, "promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." That means goverment has to be big enough to do those things that benefit all of us -- build roads, take care of the environment, watch out for the rights of workers and of employers, and provide a set of rules for business that applies to the whole country, so companies don't have to deal with regulation on a state-by-state level. It also means that taxes are a good thing that should be used WISELY (#s 3, 4 and 5)

The only one of your values left is #1 ("to provide for the common defense"). The world is a dangerous place, and a maintaining the strength of our military is indeed crucial. But I wouldn't have liked to live in the old, lawless west, with gunfights in the saloon, and with what safety there is relying on being the fastest gun. Not good for business, not good for raising a family. Good for gunslingers, and only for a while, until you get old. That is what the international community is like now. While I feel lucky to live in the country that is the "fastest gun in town," what we need is the rule of law. We need to build up the structures of international law, so that weak countries can also be lifted up and protected (e.g. current conversations at the WTO about cotton), so weak states don't become failed states and terrorist havens, and so when states do get out of line, there are lawful and swift consequences. Our national security lies first in being strong ourselves, of course, but ultimately resides in the establishment of the rule of law in the international community. We need to work toward that - we need to be "the city on hill" for the international community, not just in terms of radiating our values of liberty and justice, but in terms of extending the range of the rule of law. That is not something we can finish tomorrow, but it is something our kids might be able to realize if we get started today.

I am being a typical long-winded Democrat, and beg your pardon. But as I said, I felt the need to explain myself. I will stop now. :)

Bruce,

Thanks for the answer, and you're not an alien.

I don't have time to address all your points, so I'll just go with the last one. When viewed from an idealistic perspective, your answer might make sense. We should strive to be the shining beacon to all, make everyone our friends, take care of all the world's less fortunate and all live happily ever after.

The rule of law in the international community is a nice thing to strive for, but unrealistic. It's the classic prisoner's dilemma. We'll abide by international treaties and law, but the fact is many countries out there WILL NOT. North Korea, Syria, China, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and Cuba are all examples of countries that show blatant disregard for international standards. Recent French conduct is also an example...France uses the UN to oppose US action in Iraq and Sudan to further its own economic interests. There are two examples right there (Iraq, Sudan) in which a supposedly enlightened and progressive country has used international structures to impede action. Right now, Arab nations are actively blocking an anti-semitism motion in the UN. Why?

Malevolent governments exist in this world, and they wish us harm. By subjugating American interests to world bodies such as the UN, America submits itself to the whim of the very countries that wish us harm. Further, American ends up paying a hugely disproportionate share of these institutions costs. Now we have abandoned #1 in the name of international cooperation & and paid for it by increasing taxes (#2), which leads to the degredation of #3, and the opposite of #5.

Look, everyone wants peace and prosperity. Everyone wants good schools for their kids, clean and safe neighborhoods and a brighter future for their kids. What we disagree on is how to get it...government is not always the best answer. The Federal Government does not exist to take care of us, it exists to protect us. I'll gladly pay fair taxes to provide for the common defense. I don't like paying exhorbitant property taxes to continue propping up failed public schools. I don't like paying taxes to spend $15B to prevent AIDS in Africa, just to have the US government ridiculed by Nelson Mandela for not giving more (#4). I could go on and on, but I won't. I'm no isolationist, but the world has been using and abusing the fat kid on the playground (us) long enough.

Anyway, Bruce, my answer was as long winded as yours. I think you know where I'm coming from. Take care

I guess I didn't really answer your question. I'm voting for Bush because he's a supporter of #1-4 and thinks the same way I do about the world. He's working on #5, but any honest person will acknowledge the impact 9/11 and the recession (which started before he took office) has on our current deficits.

Remember, I don't share the beliefs of the GOP, they share mine. My beliefs will stay the same, and if the GOP strays from that, I'll find another tent. I don't believe this is true of the average Democrat. If America were a tree, Republicans would be the trunk and Democrats would the leaves blowing in the wind.

Hey Ivan -

Thanks for your reply. We are getting into some things now, which may lead to a very long conversation!

In response to your response about international relations:

1) We are not the fat kid on the playground! We are the richest, strongest kid on the playground. Do you really disagree with that?

2) As the richest and strongest nation, I really do believe that we have a responsibility to use our strength and wealth to help those who are weaker. (That goes back to my faith thing.) Do you think we have a responsibility, as a nation, to help those who are weaker? If not, why not? If so, how should we, as a nation, discharge that responsibility?

3) I never said that we should get rid of our military or our ability to react against imminent threats. Even the UN charter allows individual nations to respond with force to imminent threats. So you are making a "straw man" argument there.

4) I did say that we need to work toward a world in which international law works. Think about how it works on a national level, in which citizens give up some of their autonomy in exchange for receiving something good - a society in which laws are enforced against everybody, equally, AND a person can still shoot a burglar who has broken into his house. That is the kind of system of international law toward which we need to work. Nations would give up some of their automony in exchange for existing in a larger system that enforces the law against everyone, equally, and in which a nation can still defend itself.

Your argument about there being malevolent nations out there that would screw us if we did enter into a system of international law is like saying that individual Americans should secede from America because there might be malevolent people in power who will hurt them. (And now that I say that, it is true that sometimes even in America government officials are malevolent. And people do get hurt in those situations.) But just as I generally like living in America, under the rule of law, I want to live in a world governed by the rule of law. I thank God that we have police and firemen here in the States, and that I don't need to rely only on myself for protection. I want to live in a world like that.

Such a system won't come into existence tomorrow, but it is something I look for our president to be working toward - without abandoning our ability to "shoot the burglar."

5) With respect to France blocking international action on Iraq. (Here we go!) Iraq was never an imminent threat to America, and France reasonably disagreed with us about the best way to deal with Saddam. You forget that we had the world on our side after 9/11. If Iraq had indeed been a clear and obvious threat, few would have opposed our going after them, and would have even joined us. In contrast, I don't recall any serious international opposition to our invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban - which clearly was an imminent and ongoing threat, with their sheltering of al Qaida.

6) With respect to your paragraph beginning "Look, everyone wants peace and prosperity." In that paragraph, you agree with framers of the constitution that governement should provide for the common defense. But then you say, "The Federal Government does not exist to take care of us, it exists to protect us." What, in your opinion, should the government do to "promote the general welfare"? (By the way, I don't think the government is "always the best answer." No reasonable person does -- that is another straw man.)

7) With respect to Bush, as someone who thinks the government should at least try to handle its finances like you and I do, I find it irresponsible that Bush cut taxes and led us into a war. No president has ever done that. It would be like I offered to take a pay cut at work just when my washing machine broke and I wanted a new one. The government should at least try to pay as it goes!

Until next time --

Bruce

Oh come on, Bill, get real..."the burning helicopters in the Iranian desert"...yes, that happpened on Carter's 'watch'. So, on whose 'watch' did 9-11 happen, and should not that president share the same level of blame, in your blatantly balanced opinion? And as far as global diplomacy... I sincerely doubt that history will be kind to the absence of global diplomacy that the current administration has exibited. I am growing less proud that I voted for this president as each month goes along. I am also growing tired of BS from both sides of the aisle, particularly from bloggers who could take the high road and be bluntly honest without any fear of repercussions... so sad, Bill. I expected better from you.