Apparently the Bush administration has agreed to let an European delegation "observe" our elections this November. Both Drudge and Newsmax covered this one today (click here) and (here).
I simply cannot understand how it is possible that anyone with as much sense as President Bush has consistently exhibited could allow this breach of US sovereignty. Don't get me wrong, I love the President, but this is absurd.
We simply cannot give the global community the notion that they can have ANYTHING to do with how we run our country. Clinton tried to give away our sovereignty to the UN over and over again, and Kerry and Edwards and every other liberal Democrat are saying "yes" and "amen."
Why would we allow countries that can't even take care of themselves to try to tell us how we should run our country. We've been doing it just fine for over 200 years!
Mark my words - the United States will one day have to fight a war against the UN to protect its sovereignty. One day, someone with a little savvy will get in control in the UN and will take advantage of the inches that we have given them and demand a mile. If you think taxes under our government can be bad, you have seen nothing compared to what the UN would do to us.
This one will incite a rare letter of criticism to the President from me. ...But he's STILL better than that goofball Kerry.
Monday, August 09, 2004
This Just Totally Infuriates Me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
At the risk of stirring up a beehive (and not sure that I even really want to get into this one...) - if the USA insists on observing (and even influencing) other countries' elections, then why does the same not apply to them? I don't want you to get me wrong, but am just wondering as an outsider on this one.
It's certainly a fair enough question, Michelle. From my perspective, I'd have to say that the US tampering with others' elections is improper as well - at least in countries where it has been demonstrated that fraud is not rampant in those elections. Actually, I'd go as far as to say that tampering with another country's elections is always wrong. I dare say that the US hasn't ever tampered with European elections - at least not among the countries that were our allies in World War II, but it is possible that I may be wrong.
I can, however, think of one instance where the US was clearly out of line, and that had to do with the Israeli elections when Benjamin Netanyaju was running against Ehud Barak. Bill Clinton and his administration clearly favored Ehud Barak and acted appallingly.
So, I am willing to concede that we haven't always done things exactly right.
I do think that it is appropriate to provide security or oversight in the case of countries that have a strong track record of electoral fraud or intimidation. I don't think that this should necessarily be a "one country" sort of oversight though (a team approach would be better), unless that oversight is explicitly requested by the people or the government of the country holding the elections. And I think that it is totally inappropriate for the overseeing country or countries to attempt to exert any influence whatsoever over the outcome of that election.
Of course I welcome your thoughts and insights in response! Thanks for commenting.
And thanks for not taking offense! After hitting "publish" I remembered you said you're FIERCELY patriotic, and had images of me being cyber-attacked by a rabid American tiger... :)
In my opinion, it's generally a good thing to have outside observers (note, OBSERVERS not INFLUENCERS) - both to let the world see things are free and fair, and to keep the voting country aware of the fact that they need to stick to the rules. It's when the outside countries try influence things that I don't agree with the procedure.
But you can also end up with the buddy-buddy situation, as in last years' Zimbabwe elections. All the African states who wanted to curry favour declared it free and fair, when it was clearly not, and was stated as such by all other observers. I know that many African leaders see democracy as good - until they get into power and it becomes a dictatorship. It's a trend across the continent.
Perhaps instituting a single set of voting guidelines, the world over, and making the voting country accountable to those guidelines, is the answer. But maybe not.
Then again - I really do not know much about politics, so I could be way off the mark.
Hey, Michelle,
I did promise to "play nice" with people who were polite when I first started this blog what seems like ages ago. I am not afraid to debate what I have published! I appreciate your input.
I hear what you are saying, but I think that the problem with "observers" is just what you suggested. How can you insure that the observers will merely observe and not interfere or influence? That is my greatest concern.
I am also skeptical that a worldwide uniform policy for the running and observation of elections could be agreed upon. And even if it could, you're right back to the sovereignty question. The emerging scandals in the UN have shown that they are untrustworthy, so who can you trust? I'm dearly afraid that the answer to that question is "no one on this Earth!" At least not anymore.
I am sure that the US has used its "oversight" in various elections to influence those elections at times. I mean, if you make it easier for people to oust a blood-thirsty killer through the electorate, aren't you still actually influencing that election? I do think that overall the US intent has been honorable even when the means to achieve the ends have been questionable. At least I hope so, but then again, I am a bit of a romantic when it comes to my vision of the US. I can see her flaws, but I do hope that our core beliefs haven't been abandoned.
I still tend to think that countries should jealously guard their sovereignty. Yes, I could pretty easily be pursuaded to volunteer Americans to oversee elections in some place like Zimbabwe or Somalia or Cuba or even China, where the threat of force against the people voting, or the extreme evidence of voting fraud, has been the rule rather than the exception. But a country's sovereignty should be respected and defended.
PS, Michelle, Thanks for the "Tiger" compliment! ;-)
Post a Comment