From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 92 10:33:40 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <s64m6INNnsf@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>>In article <s3679INN6s0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

>Right now I'm a Perot backer, not necessarily because I like him, but
>because I think it's important that we smash the two party system into
>tiny little bits.

1) What _ever_ he does, short of constitutional reform, will not smash
the two party system into tiny little bits.  The two party system is a
natural outgrowth of the way the system is set up, despite the fact
that the framers weren't too crazy about parties as a concept.  The
most that someone like Perot or the Libertarians can do is displace
one of the current parties.  Basically, the way things generally work
on the national level is the two parties represent a fairly broad
cross-section of American opinion between them.  (I don't like the
fact any better than you do, but 34% of Americans identify themselves
as Democrats, 31% as Republicans, and the vast majority of the
remaining third swing between the two majors.)

If it looks like some new idea is catching hold, one or both of them
grabs it.  The point about the 1928 Socialist platform is one example.
Free coinage of silver is another.  Of course, in the short run, the
party whose views are closest to the challenger loses support to the
challenger, and the other major party wins an election.  That's where
the pressure comes from, but it also means that a strong third party
will tend to result in national government moving away from the third
party's desired aims for a while.

The only known example of a new major party coming into existence came
at a time when there was, effectively, no other, and the first
Republican president was elected when there were four seperate
presidential candidates splitting the vote, including two Democrats
and one Constitutional Union party candidate.  Given the Democrats'
record for the last three elections (and considering Carter as a
Watergate fluke, since 1968), its arguable that the country is ripe
for another of those major shifts.  But it'll still be a two-party
system at the end whether Perot or Marrou or Gus Hall gets himself
elected President, and in fact, I'd still lay you two-to-one odds that
the Democrats will survive to elect another president rather than
collapsing (though I'd also bet it won't be this time, though that at
only even money).

As for whether that's a good thing, that depends on your view of
the two party system.  Obviously, the LP doesn't like it, and you
don't.  Given the experiences of countries with multiparty parliamentary
systems, I think ours works better in the long run, but since it would
take constitutional reform to alter the fact, I don't really feel like
arguing the point either way.

>[blah blah blah]

If you wish to discuss things reasonably, that's fine, but this
"blah blah blah" business is insulting.  Mr. Sugent is neither
stupid nor was _he_ insulting, having better cause after your
first response to his message.  ("If you don't vote for Perot,
the world will end," indeed.  Catchy campaign slogan, that.)


>I really don't care to debate with people who... for some reason or
>another, pick the wrong side of the argument... and then refuse to
>accept that this side has many flaws.  Right now, any vote for the
>Status Quo is a vote AGAINST America.  More on this later.

Hmmm... I don't recall Mr. Sugent claiming that he was particularly
enamored of President Bush.  Certainly Bush has his flaws, which, as I
recall, Mr. Sugent freely granted.  He simply stated that of the
available candidates, so far Bush seems the least of the evils.  You
disagree with him.  So say why, and don't call those who disagree with
you names-- or, if you "don't care to debate" with him, then don't.

>In your last message, which I tore to shreds, you sounded like a 
>sheep.

"Tore to shreds."  Basically, you suggested that the way to solve our
budget problems is to give the federal government, which already
controls 25% of GNP, more money.  (Somehow, FDR managed to build
government bigger than it had ever been before with government
controlling 10% of GNP.  Our GNP was _much_ lower in real terms, as
well.)  "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey
and car keys to teenaged boys."  The only way we're going to solve the
deficit is to cut spending, and people are talking about new
entitlements programs.  While Congress is insisting that when we make
defense cuts we not do it to National Guard programs.  Yes, if anyone
ever invades Ada, Oklahoma, we'll be ready for them.  One advantage of
having a President and Congress of different parties is that at least
they're slowed down from agreeing on nonsense like that.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are pro-choice want to put
_all_ of the nation's health care money into the hands of the folks who
gave us the abortion gag rule at federally funded clinics.  So the
solution is to make _all_ doctors federally funded.  (Yes, I know a
Democratic administration wouldn't promulgate the gag rule, and I
don't know what Perot would do.  But you're trusting that _every_
administration from now on will be pro-choice.  Touching faith,
really.)

Oh, yes, and you suggested that Mr. Sugent learn some economics.
That free trade benefits both countries involved is pretty basic
economics, actually.  Perhaps you should read some economic history.
Start with the history of the Smoot-Hawley tariff and its relation
to the Great Depression, and then take a look at the world economy
since GATT liberalized the world's trade regime.  Just out of curiosity,
if it weren't constitutionally forbidden, would you suggest that
states enact protectionist legislation, so that Michigan, for example,
could prevent cars from California from entering the state?  Do you have
any idea why that was made unconstitutional?

Oh, and you called him names.  I suppose perhaps that was the
part where you "tore him to shreds"?

>This depends on what you think are bad.  1) He's pro choice.  2) He favors
>gun control.  3) He wants to continue fighting the War on Some Drugs
>(my biggest beef with him).  4)  He seems to put the family unit on such
>a high pedestal that he would make hire/fire decisions based on the
>employees's (sp) marital status, or who they live with.  E.G. I understand
>that he would not allow 2 of his employees to live together unless they
>were married.  Really evil shit, you know?

Well, I wouldn't want him for a boss.  What's he like as President?
So far, his only qualification is being a billionaire, as that's
the only reason people are taking him at all seriously.  It's
as if someone took a novelist seriously because he was rich enough
to buy a publishing company.  Maybe he's great, Presidential
calber material.  But right now his major qualification is
"Not Bush or Clinton."  But _I_ have that qualification.  Admittedly,
I don't have a hundred million lying around, but wealth doesn't
make anyone more qualified for the presidency (though it may make
them more likely to win it).

>>   Can he win once he gets through the media scrambler?

>Dude.  He says he'll spend at least $100,000,000 to get elected.  So far,
>he hasn't spent more than a few thousand and he's going to be on the 
>ballot in at least 49 states.  All he has to do is convince minorities
>that he isn't racist, convince Bisexuals and Gays that he respects their
>right to exist, and persuade those fighting AGAINST the War on Some
>Drugs that he would at least participate in a good debate.

Oh, is that all?  Hell, that's all _Bush_ would have to do.  Is he
any more likely to do so than Bush is?  If not, I suspect many people
will prefer the devil they know.

>>  ...  He, at least, gives lip-service to fixing
>>the "bads" in our government. ...

>More lip-service stuff.  Dude.  You have to realize that lip-service
>means "to shit from the mouth".  :-)

Clever.  Basically, all he's saying is that a president who knows
what should be done but is too wambly to do it is marginally
better than a president who wants to make the problems worse,
as there's always the chance that he'll have a fit of backbone
and do something right by accident.  Unlikely, but our choices
in this election are not pleasant.  And anyway, what's Perot
done save give lip-service to _anything_?

>>Patrick Sugent                       

>Yeah.  Mr. "I'll vote for bush because Quayle told me he at least
>KNOWS what the problems facing the country are... "

Ah, I take it then that you've read and considered the seven-part
series in the Washington Post (not exactly a major fan of the
Republican Party or the Administration) by Bob Woodward (not precisely
a lap-dog for Republican administrations, at least since he and Carl
Bernstein broke that little story about Nixon and the plumbers) back
in January which suggested, basically, that Dan Quayle was not
especially stupid.  That the records, both paperwork and the testimony
of the officers involved, show that he didn't use improper influence
to get into the National Guard?  (The troop he joined was 10 under its
authorized strength, and there was no one waiting to get in.)  That he
suggested action on the recession a year before it occurred to Bush?
That he recognized that the US should shift its focus to Boris Yeltsin
and the republics long before it occurred to the administration?  That
he was instrumental in convincing the Administration to lower trade
barriers against Eastern Europe and thus give it a chance to climb out
of the economic disaster they're in?  That he opposed the budget deal
which led to Bush breaking his "No New Taxes" pledge?  Not to mention
his suggestion that perhaps there's too much litigation in this
country and some suggestions as to how to deal with it.  He's no
genius, but I don't see any geniuses out there running, and our most
intelligent Presidents (e.g. Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer, Herbert
Hoover, engineer, Woodrow Wilson, university president) have not been
our best performers.

A good argument could be made that, despite his tendency for
malapropisms, Quayle would be a better president than Bush.  In any
case, to dismiss his opinions because he got tongue-tied when
confronted with the media is hardly just.  It would be more just to
dismiss them because he _has_ to say good things about the President;
it's part of his job.

Not that I'm about to start the Quayle fan club.  There are a lot
of problems I have with him.  But I don't exactly have to stand on
a soapbox to run down the man's reputation, do I?  It's been pretty
well trashed, possibly beyond repair, and it seems only fair to
try to inject a bit of balance into that debate.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_