From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Bush Deserves to Lose, and Other Thoughts
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:07:55 GMT


	As I was watching the debate last night, the I became a bit 
sad.  None of these candidates seems to represent me, and none really 
addresses the problems that I consider important.  I have come to expect
this.  I suppose that I'm not all that hot on democracy:  it seems to
consist of a crowd of partisans, searching for cameras and microphones,
eager to lie in favor of their man, or their ideals.  But democracy is
certainly not the worst political system, and so I find the frenzy to
be humorous.
	At one time, I planned to vote for Bush.  This was shortly 
after the Gulf War, and I was profoundly impressed by his leadership.
I was optimistic that he would bring this same leadership to motivating
the economy out of the recession.  He seemed like a decent man, and 
having seen the scoundrels in Washington for myself, he appeared to
be different.
	I was misled, simply put.  William Safire has shown in a series 
of columns how the Bush Administration gave succor to Iraq nearly until
the moment of the invasion; this pragmatism distuRbs me.  I have been
disappointed in Bush's failure to give a spirited defense of the free
market in response to Sen. Mitchell's claim that the Eighties were a
decade merely of greed, one in which only the wealthy prospered.  This
is contrary to the evidence, but Bush concedes this point:  he is 
unable to take a stand on economic principles.  
	These things I considered liabilities, but not reason enough
to vote against him.  Then came the campaign.  I was troubled by the 
remarks of Bush and his aides concerning the "character" of Bill Clinton.
The Republican Convention offended me.  Had Bill Bennett set the tone
of the "family values" discussion, then I think that it would have appeared
to be a legitimate argument, that social problems originate mostly in
the breakdown of the family.  But the Convention was turned over to
Robertson and Buchanan.  These men never quite explain their reasons 
for believing what they believe.  The intensity of their conviction is
more dangerous even that the convictions themselves.  They like to piss
in the punchbowl, and they really do not care who they offend.  If you've
ever made the mistake of reading a John Birch alarmist tract, then you
would be pressed to distinguish Buchanan and Robertson from the other kooks.
	The final straw for me was a comment that Bush made over the 
weekend:  " I think it is wrong - just plain wrong - to demonstrate against
your country when your country is at war. "  He has since appended "..in
a foreign land. " Still, the first statement stands.  How contemptuous of
our liberties! 	I am impatient with demagoguery, and this simply goes too
far.  Not only is Bush a poor leader,  but he is a poor guardian of the
Constitution.
	I was talking to my father, the world's greatest entrepreneur, last
night.  He has long despised Bush, precisely because he once respected him,
as I did.  He despises Bush because Bush does not understand that the
continued economic stagnation is in large part a function of public 
apprehension.  Congress is certainly a great bit of the problem, but Bush
could have indexed capital gains for inflation, or tried to use a line-item
veto on the budget.  Instead, he avoided confrontation.  Bush campaigns
against Congress, but when has he confronted it?
	My father believes that Clinton would be a better President than Bush.
I'm not sure.  I am opposed to his apparent rejection of low-tax models, of
his potential judicial appointments.  I wonder how much larger the federal
government would get under Clinton.  
	Perhaps he would be refreshing.  Reagan turned the economy around
in part because he was so optimistic.  Bush is simply not convincing.  He
seems only to want re-election.  My friends think that it is funny that I
am culturally liberal, that I make some conservative political arguments,
and that I end up often voting for liberals - even campaigning for them.
This year, with many misgivings and a bit of sadness, I will probably vote
for Clinton.  Ideology is not important as principle to me.  Bush has shown
that his principles are just bargaining chits.
	Bush tries to raise the "character" issue, but is not forbearance
an important part of one's character?  Bush has sold his, and by so doing,
has lost my vote.



Andrew Aiken