Lat night I saw only the post about soft money, and missed the LWV's overview on the large issues completely! WAtched a movie and fell asleep- another exciting night at the Rambi house. SO here goes--
International:
I am the most unequipped person imaginable to have an opinion on free trade, so I defer to others on this. On the surface, what you say about everyone playing by the same rules sounds logical, but I just have no economic background and am not qualified to make an intelligent decision.
While I believe we should respond to humanitarian needs (food and medicine), I am opposed to military intervention unless national interests are threatened. I am not
convinced that countries warring for thousands of years, particularly over religious issues, are worth any loss of US life and I don’t trust Washington to make anything but
politically motivated decisions anyway. This may reflect my being from the Vietnam generation and also as you know, having two sons of draftable age, although I have
always felt this way.
I have very mixed feelings about the UN also, but am opposed to our troops being under any command but our own.
Education:
Actually, this summary by the LWV seems inaccurate. From what Bush has said, Republicans demand MORE accountability than the Democrats in terms of a meeting a national standard. Gore does not ask much in the way of testing standards where Bush has asked for yearly testing and a national reading program. However, HOW these standards are met is up to local control. (And I am for this.)
I think the issue of the voucher system has been overemphasized and should not be dismissed as a possibility without proof that it will fail or that it will have the result you fear. The schools as they are now do NOT encourage acceptance and universality. While I agree with
your dream of schools being “places where the majority of our citizens become well educated with their fellow citizens of every race, religion, and socioeconomic group”,
this isn’t happening under our system as it is today. In fact, my children were probably exposed to more diversity in their small private school, ethnically and religiously, than they were in the large Dallas public school they briefly attended. I'll go further and say that I didn’t WANT my children exposed to the kind of “diversity” Dallas public schools offered, which is why we pulled them. We would have sacrificed our children's education as we believed it should be.
In smaller communities with a good proportion of professional families and involved parents, where the schools have a more balanced population, I think you will find less (probably no) demand for vouchers. But in the large, urban systems, which are heavily minority and where many lack the necessary basic language and social skills for starting school, there is an alarming lack of diversity and a terrible price to be paid by the children who are ready, and are forced to sit bored and unchallenged.
I am STRONGLY opposed to religion being taught in public schools. You and I are in full agreement there. (although I think music is the one area we should not ban religious content)
Environment:
Hmm- my problem with this is that I think Al Gore is an extremist and I don’t trust him on this issue. I think I must fall sort of in the middle of the parties on this. I think we should protect national lands, but the story of the federal government unilaterally taking lands without making any effort to work with the state involved alarmed me. I am a big believer in State rights.
Social Security:
I don't think Gore has addressed the real problems in this program. I have to trust that what the Republicans are saying about the money being sufficient to meet demand if their plan is put into effect. Returning some control to the individual is an extension of my basic belief that we need to take personal responsibility for our own futures. If we choose to do that and screw up, though, we forfeit our right to that particular portion of SS. We can’t come back and cry foul. I do not believe that if I don’t need social security at retirement I should not get it. This is just another way of punishing those who have worked very hard, been practical with their money, and planned for their futures.
We qualify for nothing under any of Gore's programs.
Medicare:
I think I’ll join you on this one. Many insurance programs don’t cover preventive procedures such as colonoscopies, mammograms, pap smears so that people don’t get the
check-ups they should, and run the risk not only of not catching problems early, but of huge medical costs in the future.
We pay a lot for insurance so that we don’t have to use an HMO and so that we can choose our physicians. I am opposed to a national health plan and feel that Gore tried to
soft-pedal his position on this, but that he really believes that’s the right way to go.
I, too, am pro-choice and realize that I am taking a chance on the appointments a Republican president might make to the Supreme Court. However, I think that there will be enough outcry about these appointments and their position on this issue, that it will mitigate drastic choices. I thought Gore’s response that he would NOT use a litmus test,
but that he would NOT appoint anyone who would vote against Roe (which of course IS a litmus test) was an indication of mealymouthing hypocrisy and I just can’t trust the guy. |
