Well, lets analyze one of the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates individually:
Mitt Romney (R)
As far as foreign policy goes, especially in Iran, Romney offers little as far as new ideas. In relation to Iran, he issues vague warnings against “the path that Iran is taking” (eg. nuclear aims, hostage-taking, etc.) as if he were giving Khomeini a slap on the wrist. He seems to have forgotten that this is not a recent trend for Iran: they have been taking hostages periodically since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the Ayatollah first took power from the Shah. In general, he maintains the relatively standard conservative opinion that tensions in the Middle East must be answered by excessive force, where it has not been effective in the past. In a policy summary, he stated that “radical, nuclear Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity.” He has failed to realize that democracy and Islam are simply not compatible as long as two distinct Islamic groups remain governed together. Yet he seems to remain fixed on this vision of bringing (or forcing) democracy into these nations, thereby created a motive for “radical, nuclear Jihad”.
In the economy, he still remains an idealist. Not only does support the Bush tax cuts, but he has proposed a further reduction in tax rates to stimulate the economy. This is illogical for a number of reasons:
America has one of the lowest tax rates in the world among developed nations. Yet at the same time, the U.S. government spends extravagant sums of money annually, accruing large budget deficits and inflating the already immense national debt. The attitude of recent presidents, particularly Republicans (including George Bush and Ronald Reagan), has been to use as much federal funding as is necessary to fulfill their own agendas; balancing the budget is far from their concerns. This has created a growing national debt that must somehow eventually be repaid, or at least reduced to a reasonable amount. The reason that Romney uses to justify tax cuts, to stimulate the economy, is ludicrous:
The economy is already growing!
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to understand that the U.S. economy is in a phase of expansion, which will eventually level-off and recede (as per the business cycle). No matter how high the economy climbs, it will fall sooner or later, and the higher it is allowed to grow, the more devastating the fall will be. Most of America’s most severe recessions, such as the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1907, and the Great Depression, have a key similarity in their causes: over-stimulation of the economy. Reducing tax rates, further increasing federal deficits, is an irresponsible attempt to gain a constituency among the middle-class. If anything, tax rates should be increased not only to keep the economy in check, but also to take advantage the economic boom to produce a federal surplus and reduce the national debt.
Perhaps the greatest challenge he faces is his background as a Mormon. Several of his idealist policies have given him a broad enough constituency that he could be a powerful contender, but the uneasiness that most people have towards his religion threatens his standing. It’s shaming to America that such a topic would ever be an issue in a presidential election. Past elections have been won or lost on the issue of whether or not the candidate was a “good Christian” — this is one of the evils of American party politics. I’m not a Mormon sympathizer (being surrounded by them is quite frustrating), but he should be hated for his policy agenda, which is quite hateable, not for his Mormon affiliation. In my opinion, Mormons in politics are almost identical to any other conservative Christian, only more conservative (the Republican party should be pleased).
Any input on this candidate or on any of the others running?
Al.