Post by botany on Oct 17, 2004 13:23:45 GMT -5
Why is Kerry called a "flip flop"? Because he's not a hardline extremist, such as Bush is. The basic message I get from Bush is: it's either his way, or terrorism. The classic good vs. evil. Perhaps Kerry doesn't have such an extremely radical view on the world. Kerry sees other in-between stances. People seem to call him a liberal, for some unknown reason, but I believe he's actually more of a moderate. Why do I say Kerry is a moderate? Kerry does not have a real at-odds stand with Bush. His agendas are not completely contrasting with Bush. Liberals and conservatives are on the extreme ends -- opposite each other. Moderate is in the middle. It's a fairly open area, with room for play and to adjust positions.
How much has the U.S. benefitted from Bush's conservatism? (Don't even try to spout off "jobs, economy" and other BS like that. That has more to do with the general economy/market than the president. Yes, the president can influence it a little bit one way or the other, but not much other than that unless he really screws up.) Bush's gung-ho yeehaw policies on Iraq has led to a more volitile situation than before. Bush's indifference regarding the environment is leading the U.S. down a road toward more pollution and a wasteland. (Don't get me wrong -- I do respect Bush, in one teensy way. I respect that he had the balls to stand up and fight for what he believed was a threat. However, that's all I can give him.)
Kerry is more of a moderate. Moderates are in the relatively large middle area, incorporating both liberal and conservative views on a less volitile level. I'm going to throw around some "scale" numbers here... 1-10: 1=liberal, 10=conservative. Liberal = roughly 1-2.5; moderate = roughly 2.5-7.5, and conservative = 7.5-10. Now, this doesn't mean that the groups always fall within their own labeled section. Sooo... a moderate has a range of 5 rather than a smaller range of 2.5 for the extremes. Perhaps on issue X Kerry feels a 4, and on related issue X.1, he feels a 6.5. The discrepancy between the two related issues can easily lead to a possible "flip-flopping" label. However, it is still within the moderate range, not swinging into the extremes. Moderates realize that the world is not black and white. There are many shades of gray that are much more stable than black/white. Moderates agree with portions of both liberals and conservatives, but not in their entirety. We need a moderate in office to try to calm down the two sides and bring some balance back. If there's an extreme, whether liberal or conservative, that could lead to polarization of the senate/congress/whoever passes the laws, etc. which would lead to less productiveness.
Look around us... there are examples of the detriments of polarization all around us. Crops, for one, have a problem with diseases and insects. Why? The monoculture planting provides a prime target for outbreaks. Thus, we have to apply literally tons of chemicals to try to swing the balance away from the disease/insect scourges. It's a vicious cycle of extremes. Another example is the sea of buildings and pavement in cities. Without plants, trees, etc., the air quality declines, temperatures rise in the vicinity, precipitation becomes a problem, and people's mental health declines. Plants filter out many toxins from the air, provide much needed shade to help moderate temperatures, provide a sponge for the rain/snow instead of no place to soak in. Regarding the mental health... would you rather look at buildings and pavement all day, every day, or would you rather incorporate some trees and other plants - providing a softer, more natural buffer - amongst the buildings and pavement?
From talking to people and hashing ideas over, I've definitely come to the conclusion that Kerry is in fact a much better candidate than I originally, and for the past several months, thought him to be. I believe that he would be much more capable of achieving something for the good of the U.S. and the world than Bush is. Kerry's moderations and "flip-flopping" are what we need in order to bring some balance to the sea of politics which Bush has whipped up to "The Perfect Storm" proportions.
andy
How much has the U.S. benefitted from Bush's conservatism? (Don't even try to spout off "jobs, economy" and other BS like that. That has more to do with the general economy/market than the president. Yes, the president can influence it a little bit one way or the other, but not much other than that unless he really screws up.) Bush's gung-ho yeehaw policies on Iraq has led to a more volitile situation than before. Bush's indifference regarding the environment is leading the U.S. down a road toward more pollution and a wasteland. (Don't get me wrong -- I do respect Bush, in one teensy way. I respect that he had the balls to stand up and fight for what he believed was a threat. However, that's all I can give him.)
Kerry is more of a moderate. Moderates are in the relatively large middle area, incorporating both liberal and conservative views on a less volitile level. I'm going to throw around some "scale" numbers here... 1-10: 1=liberal, 10=conservative. Liberal = roughly 1-2.5; moderate = roughly 2.5-7.5, and conservative = 7.5-10. Now, this doesn't mean that the groups always fall within their own labeled section. Sooo... a moderate has a range of 5 rather than a smaller range of 2.5 for the extremes. Perhaps on issue X Kerry feels a 4, and on related issue X.1, he feels a 6.5. The discrepancy between the two related issues can easily lead to a possible "flip-flopping" label. However, it is still within the moderate range, not swinging into the extremes. Moderates realize that the world is not black and white. There are many shades of gray that are much more stable than black/white. Moderates agree with portions of both liberals and conservatives, but not in their entirety. We need a moderate in office to try to calm down the two sides and bring some balance back. If there's an extreme, whether liberal or conservative, that could lead to polarization of the senate/congress/whoever passes the laws, etc. which would lead to less productiveness.
Look around us... there are examples of the detriments of polarization all around us. Crops, for one, have a problem with diseases and insects. Why? The monoculture planting provides a prime target for outbreaks. Thus, we have to apply literally tons of chemicals to try to swing the balance away from the disease/insect scourges. It's a vicious cycle of extremes. Another example is the sea of buildings and pavement in cities. Without plants, trees, etc., the air quality declines, temperatures rise in the vicinity, precipitation becomes a problem, and people's mental health declines. Plants filter out many toxins from the air, provide much needed shade to help moderate temperatures, provide a sponge for the rain/snow instead of no place to soak in. Regarding the mental health... would you rather look at buildings and pavement all day, every day, or would you rather incorporate some trees and other plants - providing a softer, more natural buffer - amongst the buildings and pavement?
From talking to people and hashing ideas over, I've definitely come to the conclusion that Kerry is in fact a much better candidate than I originally, and for the past several months, thought him to be. I believe that he would be much more capable of achieving something for the good of the U.S. and the world than Bush is. Kerry's moderations and "flip-flopping" are what we need in order to bring some balance to the sea of politics which Bush has whipped up to "The Perfect Storm" proportions.
andy