Opinion:

The lesser of two evils is not really a choice

I think anyone who has read this weblog knows I'm not a raving moonbat, nor am I automatically anti-Bush. However, I have been very concerned about how the so-called "War on Terror" has been fought, namely in the passage of the misnamed PATRIOT Act and in the use of an extra-legal prison of no appeal located at Guantanamo Bay to give legal deniability. I have also been disturbed by the attitudes show by the President and many members of his administration. Refusal to answer questions, or assuming an arrogant, belittling tone (à la Donald Rumsfeld), or lately a coarse one (Dick "Go fuck yourself" Cheney) is not appropriate behavior for those who are supposed to be SERVING the citizens of the United States. It is the obligation of these PUBLIC SERVANTS to answer questions as fully and completely as is commensurate with public safety.

Two recently published political cartoons do a fine job of illustrating my feelings in a way that I could not express without using a thousand words. Regarding Rumsfeld and Guantanamo Bay:

Regarding the lack of respect for the legal system in place to protect civil rights:

Yes, we are at war, but that is no excuse to ignore our over 200 years of history of respecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A prisoner of war camp is entirely appropriate, but the labeling of citizens as enemy combatants with no method of appeal is a dangerous precedent that combined with a prison that resembles a legal oubliette begins to resemble at least in passing the machinery put in place by the Communist Party in any nation it has gained control to retain power.

So, what am I saying here? I feel that the behavior of this administration, both in the assault on civil rights (does anyone really want John Ashcroft to get all the police powers he's asked for?) and in the arrogant tone taken both with our own citizens and with our nominal foreign allies, has been not only distasteful and childish but also ultimately counterproductive.

This is not to say that I find the alternative being presented in this election year any better. The Democratic Party does not present a viable alternative because far too many members of that political grouping are playing the ostrich and refusing to even acknowledge that there are cases where the United States not only should but absolutely MUST use military means to defend ourselves. I have fewer things to say about the Kerry/Edwards campaign at the moment because they have yet to define what they stand for since Edwards was just named. The Democratic Party has not mounted a wholesale assault on the Bill of Rights, but neither have they shown the will to do what is necessary to address the many foreign enemies we have to deal with. In general, based upon what I saw in the primaries, though, I doubt they will present anything that I can wholeheartedly support.

I have not yet decided how I will vote, but it does not look promising. So, as usual, I will be voting against someone rather than for someone.

How did we get to this point? How did it become a choice between enriching those who are already wealthy while mounting a creeping assault on fundamental rights in the name of the "War on Terror" versus an refusal to use our power in necessary defense coupled with an over-readiness to use the blunt instrument of government programs to correct social ills that are more appropriately addressed through an expectation of personal responsibility?

Answering that question requires quite a bit of thought, the results of which I will write about in the next few days. Don't worry, it won't be all Bush-bashing. It is easier to point out flaws in the policies of the administration because they have been in power for over three years. There is more than enough wrong with the Democratic alternative that neither choice is truly worthy of the office that they seek.