In the next several weeks these pages will feature an enormous amount of material on the impending presidential elections. Columnists will tell you why you should or should not vote for this or that candidate. Some will woo you, cajole you and encourage you to vote for Dole, while others will, with equal fervor, remind you that Clinton is a far more suitable candidate for the presidency. On the whole, you will be left utterly confused so that the choice you make on that final day will entirely depend on which side of the bed you wake up on. This is a rather sad state of affairs, but it is bound to happen if you do not know exactly what you are looking for in a president.
Now, I have very limited formal political experience (almost null) and as a point of fact, all I do know about the operations of the U.S. government comes from the history and government classes I took several years ago in high school. Furthermore, I have no intention of ever taking government classes here on account of a hefty science course load. That notwithstanding, I do have distinct ideas of what a presidential campaign -- any presidential campaign -- is all about. It's in this light and spirit that I would like to share several ideas in regard to what machinations take place in the singularly important political business of electing a president.
First, let's start with the issues on the table. One of the prominent points of demarcation between Dole's team and Clinton's team is abortion rights. Though I am profoundly against abortion because I have always believed that human life is too precious to be reduced to a matter of subjective choice, I do not believe it should be a political issue. When it's all said and done, a woman will have an abortion if she believes it's in her utmost best interest to do so -- whether legislation is passed against it or not. To take a personally relevant example, in Nigeria, where I'm from, abortions are illegal, but that does not stop women from having them whenever they wish.
So what is it about abortion rights that makes it a political issue? The short version is power, influence and clout. The Christian Right wants you to believe that Hell will rise up if abortions are made indiscriminately legal, and they believe it is their divine duty to stop such an eventuality. On the other hand, the pro-choice movement will tell you that stopping women from legal abortions will erode the freedom and power that women have gained since Roe v. Wade. But is that really the case? Nope! The bottom line is clout. Both camps want to have an added advantage in terms of political voice when the elections are over and their favorites have won.
The next issue is "balancing the budget." Since -- once again -- I have no experience in economics, I will use what little I retained from night classes after high school. An intuitive and direct question arises as to whom the government really owes when it comes out with a deficit. (To have a deficit you must owe someone).
Alas, you guessed right: it owes the rich! In a country where the gap between rich and poor is ever growing wider, you would think a core human sense of philanthropy would prevail and push the rich to try to bridge this gap. But if you really thought this way, you would be shockingly disappointed.
When programs in education, social welfare and medical insurance are cut, who gets the brunt? Naturally, the poor. And when subsidies and tax relief are given to big business, who gets the cake? The rich. So, the rich get richer, the poor have babies and everyone is happy.
Or is that so? Is there a compelling reason to balance the budget by cutting down on social programs? Will the richest democracy in the world crumble just because it owes a minor fraction of its citizens some money?
Well, the astute reader might point out that the deficit could be generated by having trade deficits with countries like Japan. And I will say, investigate your international trade policies and fix them but don't, oh but don't, go shearing social programs. But that's just my personal opinion. If balancing the budget by cutting social programs seems like fair play, go for Dole. If erecting trade tariffs to bring the balance of payments vis-a-vis other countries sounds good, you will be better off voting for Clinton, although I admit Clinton has not said such a policy is his next step.
Since I didn't promise to be your resident political pundit, that analysis will do for now, but that will not be all. I will just urge you to think about the issues in contention before you make them criteria for selection. In due course, we will tackle the next several hot issues: affirmative action, gay rights and that all important but ill-defined cliche, "character."
