Wanted
I always have mixed reactions when I hear students discuss politics. On the one hand, I am delighted that they are engaged; on the other, I am sometimes humored by their observations, the same way a parent finds humor in watching their toddler, tentative and awkward, take his first steps.
That does not mean, of course, that all students are incapable of understanding the complexities of the modern political world, but when an 18-year-old begins to talk about the political and economic realities of 1988, it’s safe to assume that his conclusions are based on what he has read rather than what he experienced.
In what was certainly an impassioned article, yet one that lacked focus and appropriate diction, Kevin Lavelle spoke about the last 16 years of political and economic life in America as if he had experienced it firsthand, instead of in his car seat.
Ah, to be young, impressionable and idealistic again! Young Kevin probably doesn’t remember Ross Perot split the vote in both 1992 and 1996 making it impossible for any candidate to win 50 percent.
As for his self-deluded comment that Bush “solidly defeated” Kerry, let me provide Mr. Lavelle with an analogy that perhaps he can understand: OU beat Texas this year 12-0. That is a solid victory. On the other hand, OU struggled to pull out a victory against A&M, winning 42-35. President Bush’s victory, far short of a mandate, resembled the latter much more than the former.
As for the red states versus the blue states, if you’re looking solely at landmass then, yes, there is more red than blue. There are also more cattle in Montana — a red state — than people. What is your point, Mr. Lavelle? Here’s a statistic for you to teeth on: Texas’s divorce rate is almost twice that of Massachusetts, and its teenage pregnancy rate is over twice that of Sen. Kerry’s home state. What does that say about former Governor Bush?
As for the economy, consider these indicators: The dollar is melting against the Euro, and the Senate just voted, almost entirely along party lines, to raise the debt ceiling by another $800 billion, the third such increase in as many years. We are in debt up to our proverbial eyeballs — maybe that’s what’s keeping you from seeing clearly — to foreign banks and governments. Apparently, to some, a good economy means having an SUV and their parents’ gas card to fill the tank.
In international news, Bush lost what little credibility he had left when Powell submitted his resignation, and lost even more by not demanding one from Rumsfeld who, by the way, has made downsizing the military his number one priority since becoming secretary of defense.
Just as the president gets rid of an attorney general who arrogantly boasted that his mission to secure the United States was complete, he nominates a man who not only single-handedly redefined the basic tenets of the Geneva Convention, but also served as counsel to Halliburton, a relationship that will serve Cheney well when the Justice Department begins its investigation the vice-president’s former employer.
As far as Kevin’s argument about a war-time economy, although I’m happy to hear that he’s been listening to Rush Limbaugh et al. enough to be able to regurgitate their talking points, the basic economic rule of war is that it acts as a stimulus, witness World War II. Where’s the stimulus today?
What Kevin does not realize, unfortunately, is that the United States, and the Republican Party in particular, has a looooong history of inventing wars — especially against abstract nouns like communism and terrorism — to help keep the defense industry afloat.
Now, let’s talk about Iraq for a moment. Our strategy in Iraq, from any angle, is failing miserably. We have no clear mission, no exit strategy, and Bush (via Rumsfeld) has overextended our troops, troops who are suffering from low morale, inadequate supplies and insufficient training. Just as Fallujah has been declared a success, insurgents mount major offensives in other cities. The whole of Baghdad is a war zone. Does that mean I don’t support our troops? Of course not. It means I am old enough to remember Vietnam.
Let’s revisit the issue of Iraq in a year. I pray to God you’ll be able to say, “I told you so.” I know I’ll get no joy or satisfaction if I am able to say those same words.
Then there’s the question of a draft. Yes, I know Bush said he had no plans to reinstate the draft, but his father also promised not to raise taxes, a lie that got him elected.
Promise or not, it seems very suspicious that just days after the election, the Selective Service Office instructed the Department of Education to conduct an audit to determine whether college males were in compliance with mandatory registration.
That only leaves us with the question of morality. The thing about morality is it’s very relative. An Evangelical would certainly define morality differently than a Buddhist. Moreover, an atheist is likely to have his own moral code, which may or may not vary from that of a non-atheist. And, young Goodman Lavelle may interpret morality very differently than his grandparents did.
Personally, I don’t hold President Clinton in very high moral regard, but I do recognize that his past transgressions are as irrelevant as President Bush’s. The difference is President Clinton’s lapse was a common human failing that everyone has had at one moment or another: lust.
President Bush’s flaw, which I hope does not prove to be fatal for our country, is his hubris. And if I remember my Greek tragedy correctly, Oedipus’ flaw was his unwillingness — because of his hubris — to see the truth, which describes President Bush and his followers to a T.
George Henson is a lecturer of Spanish. He can be reached at [email protected].
