The Republican Party is naturally raising the specter of what would happen if a President John Kerry were to die in the White House. This is clearly designed to scare people about the possibility of the young, less experienced, John Edwards then being president. Compared with the obvious gravitas and experience of Dick Cheney...who hardly bothered to mention young George at all during his debate with Edwards on Tuesday.
But perhaps everyone should consider what would happen in a Bush/Cheney White House if Dick Cheney died! Now that could be even scarier!
But on a more serious note, there was one thing no one seems to be commenting on. That during this debate we heard, perhaps for the first time in this election, more than a passing mention of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And only then because the candidates were actually asked about it. (Bush, during the first debate, did add to his list of justifications for the war on Iraq that it would help "secure Israel.")
Given that Israel has been the most painful thorn in the side of the Arabic-Islamic world for nearly half a century, and this whole election is meant to be about making America safe from Islamic fundamentalists…. The response: Edwards and Cheney both repeated Israel’s right to protect itself, while the only mention of the Palestinians was when Edwards blamed them because the Israelis, “don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.” You could almost hear Osama clapping his hands in glee.
It is so clear how “democracy” and its inevitable by-product ― the need to beg for money so you can afford to beg for votes ― this time the US-Jewish vote, produces such a miserable and self-defeating outcome.
In reality, there is an army of well-informed people who really do understand the issues and could provide intelligent proposals, and do. Tom Friedman, just as one example, is one of those people who actually try to look beneath the surface at the root causes of Islamic anger. He wins the smart-quip-of-the-week award, by the way, for a comment in his piece, "The Battle of the Pump," in The New York Times. He contrasts Bush’s under-funded, “No child left behind” program with the current US policy in the Middle-East, including the related energy issues, which he describes as their fully funded, “No Mullah left behind” program.
Democracy may have been a great advance on tyranny two or three hundred years ago, but can’t we come up with something better after all this time? Replacing “the divine right of kings” with “the divine right of the lowest common denominator” may work for the election of the local dogcatcher, but is it really the best way to deal with complex, inter-dependent global issues? The result speaks for itself.
Is democracy or any alternative even discussed? Like a meritocracy for example? Imagine a world without politicians! Now there’s a thought.
