| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2007 07:08:20 AM · #1 |
Tomorrow Australian’s will vote in a federal election.
I will be making my vote based on the foreign policy of our current Prime Minister John Howard. I will vote against John Howard because of the way he has blindly followed the lead of George Bush by invading a foreign country in the name of “the war on terrorism”.
Every leader who takes his country to war should expect a backlash especially when the war has been based on lies and deceit and has been extremely unpopular amongst the general public.
I ask the question does foreign policy matter in a countries election? Because according to the Howard campaign we should be looking at the economical record of the incumbent government. The problem I have with this is that the our country is riding high on a mining boom from the exporting of minerals thanks to the booming economy of China and India, This thriving economy would have been achieved by any Australian political party because of the thriving economy of other countries.
Out of curiosity I’m asking what effect does foreign policy have on the way you would select your countries leader, this question is directed mainly at Americans but I would very interested in hearing replies world wide.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 07:14:05 AM · #2 |
A very good question, and one I always struggle with when we have elections here in Ireland. On the one hand I want to make sure I'm sorted out personally (i.e. the local facilities, shops, public transport, and roads, also taxation) - So I look first and foremost at how I can benefit. But the trouble is the foreign policy of the party who promises all this is often at odds with my ideals.
To be honest, I don't think there is such a thing as a party that you agree with 100% on all aspects of their home and foreign policies. You have to take the good with the bad.
And remember, you can always establish your own political party! |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 09:06:39 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Tomorrow Australian’s will vote in a federal election.
I will be making my vote based on the foreign policy of our current Prime Minister John Howard. I will vote against John Howard because of the way he has blindly followed the lead of George Bush by invading a foreign country in the name of “the war on terrorism”.
Every leader who takes his country to war should expect a backlash especially when the war has been based on lies and deceit and has been extremely unpopular amongst the general public.
I ask the question does foreign policy matter in a countries election? Because according to the Howard campaign we should be looking at the economical record of the incumbent government. The problem I have with this is that the our country is riding high on a mining boom from the exporting of minerals thanks to the booming economy of China and India, This thriving economy would have been achieved by any Australian political party because of the thriving economy of other countries.
Out of curiosity I’m asking what effect does foreign policy have on the way you would select your countries leader, this question is directed mainly at Americans but I would very interested in hearing replies world wide. |
Before answering the question "Does foreign policy matter?", I would question the validity of your statement that John Howard "blindly" followed the lead of George Bush. If he actually did follow "blindly" then he should not only be voted out of office, he should be tried for dereliction of duty. I would hope that he made the decisions he did after evaluating all of the information available, in consultation with trusted advisors.
Secondly, if a leader is expected to always do what the general public feels should be done, then no leaders are necessary at all - just put every issue up to vote by the general public. Of course, in order to insure that the general public votes intelligently, all state secrets must be made public, even though that would result in giving enemies of the state the knowledge of what measures would be used to discover and thwart their plans. The only alternative, as far as I know, is to elect leaders that WILL guard and evaluate secret information and use it to make informed, intelligent decisions that will insure and protect the best interests of the people he/she serves.
Now, as to your question: YES. You should evaluate a leader's, or potential leader's, foreign and domestic policies, as well as their characters ( honesty, integrity, morality, etc. ), and vote based on your assessment of how well they fit your own views and values, and, perhaps more importantly, how well you think they can be trusted to do what's best for your country without regard to how popular the decisions might seem to people who do not have access to state secrets.
As has already been said, it is often difficult to find one individual who you can agree with 100%. |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 11:47:47 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Out of curiosity I’m asking what effect does foreign policy have on the way you would select your countries leader, this question is directed mainly at Americans but I would very interested in hearing replies world wide. |
I'm Canadian. It usually doesn't matter what the foreign policy of the current government is, because unless I've gone insane, I will always vote for the Liberal party. What matters to me most are social issues.
While the Liberal party aren't perfect, they are the party most closely aligned to what I value, and that has any hope of getting elected federally. I would vote for NDP (analogous in many ways to many of Europe's Social Democrats), but they hover at around 20% of the popular vote, and at that rate, they'll never form the government.
It so happens that the Liberals' take on foreign policy is what I am comfortable with. They don't kow-tow to the United States, as does the current Conservative government, and they view Canada's role in the world as peace-keeping, whereas the current government favours war-making. When they governed, Liberals lead the charge in this part of the globe on a world moratorium on the death penalty, in step with the European Union. The current Conservative government has chosen to abandon its own citizens, who are about to be murdered by foreign regimes that support death for criminals, like the US. They have also abandoned working toward a world moratorium on capital punishment. They have said they don't intend to reinstate capital punishment in Canada, but they have been shown to be duplicitous politicians, something they were always spitting bile about during the fourteen or so years of Camelot we had under the Liberals. |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 12:13:53 PM · #5 |
I am most interested in the humanity of a candidate. And since I do not have the neanderthal belief that my country is inherently more important than other countries, foreign policy is as important as domestic policy. In short, what will this candidate do to promote human rights and deter human suffering at home and abroad?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 01:19:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
On the one hand I want to make sure I'm sorted out personally (i.e. the local facilities, shops, public transport, and roads, also taxation) - So I look first and foremost at how I can benefit. |
Taken at face value, this statement is a little frightening.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 01:29:26 PM · #7 |
Americans only have one candidate running with any foreign policy experience to speak of and he isn't likely to win so we are pretty much going to be following someone who is completely reliant on the advice of others. Again. Problem is you don't get to vote for the 'others', they are handpicked.
Obviously foreign policy matters unless you can completely isolate your nation from the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 01:58:44 PM · #8 |
Certainly foreign policy matters but I don't think it changes much from one president to another. Candidates are free to say whatever they wish, but when elected they take on a different higher level of responsibility.
No matter what is said today, it may very well be a Democratic President in 2009 that leads us into a war with Iran and not out of Iraq.
Message edited by author 2007-11-23 13:59:10. |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 02:31:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Certainly foreign policy matters but I don't think it changes much from one president to another. Candidates are free to say whatever they wish, but when elected they take on a different higher level of responsibility.
No matter what is said today, it may very well be a Democratic President in 2009 that leads us into a war with Iran and not out of Iraq. |
You REALLY think Al Gore would have led us into war with Iraq post-9/11?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 05:18:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jhonan:
On the one hand I want to make sure I'm sorted out personally (i.e. the local facilities, shops, public transport, and roads, also taxation) - So I look first and foremost at how I can benefit. |
Taken at face value, this statement is a little frightening. |
It's intended to be taken at face value. My priority is my family and their well-being, next comes my finances and my business. While everything else including foreign policy has an indirect effect on me, I base my vote on which party's policies will benefit me directly.
Foreign policy does come into my decision. For example, there are a number of American companies (Intel, Microsoft, Dell etc.) based in Ireland, and I've done contract work for them. So I'm quite keen that Ireland maintains a US-friendly foreign and taxation policy (even if this does mean turning a blind eye to CIA flights through Shannon)
On the Iraq war; I initially took a liberal stance but in reality the main impact on me is at the petrol pumps (and indirectly through the performance of the US economy) - I want cheap petrol, what do I care who's running Iraq? Let America sort that mess out. Me standing in the cold and rain booing Dubya isn't (and didn't) change anything. |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 06:29:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jhonan:
On the one hand I want to make sure I'm sorted out personally (i.e. the local facilities, shops, public transport, and roads, also taxation) - So I look first and foremost at how I can benefit. |
Taken at face value, this statement is a little frightening. |
It's intended to be taken at face value. My priority is my family and their well-being, next comes my finances and my business. |
I understand what you're saying, and I presume you'd weigh everything properly. That is, while YOU might personally get rich, say, off a particular policy, it might not be good for the country as a whole, or even just for your neighbors as individuals.
"'Self'-interest" as a motivator is scary. "Enlightened 'self'-interest" is less scary.
The USA is currently being governed in Washington by a gang that put 'self'-interest above the national interest, and lied to the American people to get them to buy into the program.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-11-23 18:29:20.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2007 07:55:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Certainly foreign policy matters but I don't think it changes much from one president to another. Candidates are free to say whatever they wish, but when elected they take on a different higher level of responsibility.
No matter what is said today, it may very well be a Democratic President in 2009 that leads us into a war with Iran and not out of Iraq. |
You REALLY think Al Gore would have led us into war with Iraq post-9/11?
R. |
Yes Robert, sadly I do. It's just my opinion, but one that I believe. |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 08:07:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You REALLY think Al Gore would have led us into war with Iraq post-9/11?
R. |
Yes Robert, sadly I do. It's just my opinion, but one that I believe. |
Of course, this begs the question of whether there would have been a "9/11" if Al Gore had been President ... |
|
|
|
11/23/2007 10:53:54 PM · #14 |
| Yeah, that was the first question that came to mind. Well, second. First I had to stop thinking about how the moon landing was staged. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 02:28:17 AM · #15 |
I would wager that it is easy to surmise from the comfort of your own home in a country where you have a good job and do not fear your family being murdered either intentionally or accidentally that the US should not be in the Middle East. I will not defend or deny the policy or rationale that put us here (beyond my pay grade) but I would like to hope coalition forces being here is doing more good than bad at the people vice government level. In Afghanistan, all the males who are willing are hired by the bases/camps near their villages and towns. In Iraq, it seems as though some of the warring factions are actually banding together to defeat the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" group, probably in hopes that by doing so, the "infidels" (us) will leave sooner. Do I honestly think that the warring factions in Iraq will give it up? No, but there's hope that at least they'll come to some sort of working agreements.
And as an aside, but somewhat related, go pick up the book "A Thousand Splendid Suns" and read it. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 02:50:43 AM · #16 |
In terms of how it influences how you vote, foreign policy definitely matters. Although it involves international issues, foreign policy is still a domestic issue to those within the countries involved. That is, how the head of state conducts political affairs in the international realm directly affects you as a citizen, and therefore he or she is still accountable come election time.
I'm sure anyone who voted following the implementation of NAFTA (in North America) would agree that foreign policy is fair game for an election. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 04:12:25 AM · #17 |
Who the hell cares! your toilets flush backwards!!!
Message edited by author 2007-11-24 04:12:45. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 08:47:04 AM · #18 |
Looks like foreign policy does matterâ€Â¦. John Howard has been kicked out of office by a landslide loss at the election.
So the three architects of the coalition of the willing Bush, Blair and Howard have all been victims of the democratic process. What a great thing democracy is.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2007 09:21:35 AM · #19 |
John Howard might have won some fights but he lost the war.... in more than a figure of speech. No sympathy from me, he became known by the company he kept.
Looks like the 3rd biggest player, no name no packdrill, is also going to pay a price for snugging into a bush-thug's ass. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 09:50:31 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
So the three architects of the coalition of the willing Bush, Blair and Howard have all been victims of the democratic process. What a great thing democracy is. |
There was nothing democratic about Blair's exit and his Labour government are still in power... |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 11:44:03 AM · #21 |
As an American, I apologize for our President's actions.
There's not much we can do here except wait for the next election cycle, impeach him, or have a bloody revolt. I'm all for an election or impeachment, but the whole bloody revolt isn't too popular.
Remember, President Bush only won the last election by a small margin and no American President has ever been voted out of office during war time. It was the Christian majority that was afraid of having gay marrage with the last candidate.
I almost think that's how they stay in office. With Regan, it was the war on drugs. The first Bush didn't have a war to keep him in office (that's why he lost). Nixon had Vietnam (and he was impeached out of office). It's only democrats who keep their office based on non-war issues.
Once again, sorry for the past 7 years. We'll try to do our best to handle him until we get someone new.
Of course, I'm talking from a state who elected a moviestar as it's govener. We really didn't know what he stood for and he was elected (of course, I didn't vote for him). He's done a good job of pissing everybody off at the same time.
(sorry also for the spelling, it's Saturday morning and I'm typing and watching the kids.)
Message edited by author 2007-11-24 11:44:26. |
|
|
|
11/24/2007 11:52:41 AM · #22 |
I'm sure the rest of the world can't wait to see how Americans vote next, Nullix. After all, all the frothing at the mouth Bush-haters ran to the polls and ushered in the most pathetic Congress ever to fill the halls of power. Can't wait to see where it goes from here.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2007 12:37:05 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I'm sure the rest of the world can't wait to see how Americans vote next, Nullix. After all, all the frothing at the mouth Bush-haters ran to the polls and ushered in the most pathetic Congress ever to fill the halls of power. Can't wait to see where it goes from here. |
What about the "Do Nothing Congress" Harry Truman campaigned against in 1948?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2007 12:38:11 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Of course, I'm talking from a state who elected a moviestar as it's govener. We really didn't know what he stood for and he was elected (of course, I didn't vote for him). He's done a good job of pissing everybody off at the same time. |
Two of them, actually; the other one eventually became President Reagan...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2007 01:00:37 PM · #25 |
| I see that backlash 'voting' works about as well in Oz as in the US. Howard lost his local seat to a news anchor. Too bad countries can't be governened by the best and brightest rather than the richest and most famous. |
|
