Since everyone and their dog on the internet is posting their biased pre-election political opinion, I thought that I might as well put in my own two cents.
This is my own opinion. Like most others writing political posts online, I did not look up any information and have based this editorial solely on the memories of what I've heard and read on the news, learned in AP Government and AP US History class, and talked about with fellow students and people in my debate league.
I'd consider myself mostly conservative. I support reducing gun control and welfare, and expanding business freedom and capitalism. I believe people should be free to succeed on their own and should not expect their governments to "build that" for them. I want a strong international prescience like the one America had under Reagan and Britain had under Thatcher at the same time. I support cracking down on illegal immigration as long as the immigrants aren't helping the American economy or are taking jobs from unemployed Americans, and, although I don't have religious values, I believe in protecting life and banning abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or health issues, and I strongly support the death penalty and three-strikes laws.
But I can't agree with those who say that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president.
Yes, Mr. Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, and yes, he is a successful businessman. But an entire country is a much bigger responsibility than a state or a business. He'll have to deal with problems a lot bigger than the budget. He wants to drill for more oil and find cleaner coal, but that will only get us closer to an energy crisis. He won't have the diplomacy skills or the international admiration that Obama has, and he's barely elaborated on his plans more than giving us a basic idea and asking us to trust him.
His want to privatize certain institutions is misled also. Government has certain responsibilities that they need to keep. You can't privatize social security. That defeats the entire purpose. Rescue missions during storms also should be government-run as it is the government's first responsibility to provide safety for its people. I admire New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for putting people before politics and thanking Barack for his work during Sandy.
Romney is too radical and a transition to him would be volatile. And, though Obama hasn't done a great job, he hasn't really had the time or ability to do everything he set out to do. He had a difficult task to overcome, and the Republicans using the fact that he didn't fix their mistake shouldn't be their argument for election. In fact, it should be an even bigger sign that their plans do not work. I don't believe in socialism, but unrestrained capitalism without the government bailing out (ex. auto) industries and taxing all levels equally (same percent for all levels) is just as bad. We need an economic system that compromises in the middle, like the one Obama has put into action and like the one that got us a surplus in the 90's. Obama's plan won't fix our recession immediately, and perhaps not even within another term, but it'll probably do a whole lot better than Romney's plan, an overused Republican economic plan which has caused multiple recessions and has only benefitted the highest few when implemented. If Republicans were less radical about their economic policies, and were a bit more considerate about the environment and foreign policy, they'd be the perfect party for me. But since they can't get off their high horse, I think it'd be beneficial if Obama won re-election tomorrow.
Obama is not just good for America, but he's good for the world. He's likable, charismatic, and promotes peace while making sure America's enemies are brought to justice. I wish he would be a bit more aggressive, but his conciliatory ways are a lot better than what I'm sure Romney would be. He doesn't have the trustworthiness of Obama and you can't be sure he'll try to keep his promises. Obama has at least tried, and his multiple failures are surely partly due to the Republicans in congress holding him back. And, don't get me wrong, they are doing their job in rejecting his proposals- but they're not exactly "reaching across the aisle", which Romney has claimed he'll do.
Many Romney supporters claim that we're in the same position as we were 4 years ago when the recession started. They're not completely wrong. Unemployment is still a problem and the deficit is still terrible. But it hasn't really gotten worse. It's been a two steps back, one step forward process, but at least we're on our feet. The auto industry has kept rolling, albeit set back, and we're making environmental improvements. Osama Bin Laden's dead, we're making at least some progress in the Middle East, and we're still a big international presence. And, for the record, I'd much rather be living here in America than in my homeland of Britain.
In four years time, when the economy has improved and international relations have progressed, a Republican administration will be a wiser choice. They're the conservatives, whose job is to keep things the same- when things are good. During times like we're in now, when we are the aggressors in the Middle East and our economy is in shambles, a liberal government, one that can make changes, however slow they may be, is what is necessary. I won't like all of the changes an Obama administration will make. It will give out more welfare payments than necessary and will make restrictions on guns tighter and on abortions looser. But it will tighten America's grip on its fluctuating economy. Obama has shown strengths and weaknesses, and it's his strengths that matter the most. He must be re-elected.
Although I'm a moderate conservative, my hopes are that Obama will win re-election tomorrow and will keep this country, and the world, on the right track. Only after another 4 years of economic recovery will America's economy be safe enough for a Republican government to take the reigns.
This is my own opinion. Like most others writing political posts online, I did not look up any information and have based this editorial solely on the memories of what I've heard and read on the news, learned in AP Government and AP US History class, and talked about with fellow students and people in my debate league.
I'd consider myself mostly conservative. I support reducing gun control and welfare, and expanding business freedom and capitalism. I believe people should be free to succeed on their own and should not expect their governments to "build that" for them. I want a strong international prescience like the one America had under Reagan and Britain had under Thatcher at the same time. I support cracking down on illegal immigration as long as the immigrants aren't helping the American economy or are taking jobs from unemployed Americans, and, although I don't have religious values, I believe in protecting life and banning abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or health issues, and I strongly support the death penalty and three-strikes laws.
But I can't agree with those who say that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president.
Yes, Mr. Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, and yes, he is a successful businessman. But an entire country is a much bigger responsibility than a state or a business. He'll have to deal with problems a lot bigger than the budget. He wants to drill for more oil and find cleaner coal, but that will only get us closer to an energy crisis. He won't have the diplomacy skills or the international admiration that Obama has, and he's barely elaborated on his plans more than giving us a basic idea and asking us to trust him.
His want to privatize certain institutions is misled also. Government has certain responsibilities that they need to keep. You can't privatize social security. That defeats the entire purpose. Rescue missions during storms also should be government-run as it is the government's first responsibility to provide safety for its people. I admire New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for putting people before politics and thanking Barack for his work during Sandy.
Romney is too radical and a transition to him would be volatile. And, though Obama hasn't done a great job, he hasn't really had the time or ability to do everything he set out to do. He had a difficult task to overcome, and the Republicans using the fact that he didn't fix their mistake shouldn't be their argument for election. In fact, it should be an even bigger sign that their plans do not work. I don't believe in socialism, but unrestrained capitalism without the government bailing out (ex. auto) industries and taxing all levels equally (same percent for all levels) is just as bad. We need an economic system that compromises in the middle, like the one Obama has put into action and like the one that got us a surplus in the 90's. Obama's plan won't fix our recession immediately, and perhaps not even within another term, but it'll probably do a whole lot better than Romney's plan, an overused Republican economic plan which has caused multiple recessions and has only benefitted the highest few when implemented. If Republicans were less radical about their economic policies, and were a bit more considerate about the environment and foreign policy, they'd be the perfect party for me. But since they can't get off their high horse, I think it'd be beneficial if Obama won re-election tomorrow.
Obama is not just good for America, but he's good for the world. He's likable, charismatic, and promotes peace while making sure America's enemies are brought to justice. I wish he would be a bit more aggressive, but his conciliatory ways are a lot better than what I'm sure Romney would be. He doesn't have the trustworthiness of Obama and you can't be sure he'll try to keep his promises. Obama has at least tried, and his multiple failures are surely partly due to the Republicans in congress holding him back. And, don't get me wrong, they are doing their job in rejecting his proposals- but they're not exactly "reaching across the aisle", which Romney has claimed he'll do.
Many Romney supporters claim that we're in the same position as we were 4 years ago when the recession started. They're not completely wrong. Unemployment is still a problem and the deficit is still terrible. But it hasn't really gotten worse. It's been a two steps back, one step forward process, but at least we're on our feet. The auto industry has kept rolling, albeit set back, and we're making environmental improvements. Osama Bin Laden's dead, we're making at least some progress in the Middle East, and we're still a big international presence. And, for the record, I'd much rather be living here in America than in my homeland of Britain.
In four years time, when the economy has improved and international relations have progressed, a Republican administration will be a wiser choice. They're the conservatives, whose job is to keep things the same- when things are good. During times like we're in now, when we are the aggressors in the Middle East and our economy is in shambles, a liberal government, one that can make changes, however slow they may be, is what is necessary. I won't like all of the changes an Obama administration will make. It will give out more welfare payments than necessary and will make restrictions on guns tighter and on abortions looser. But it will tighten America's grip on its fluctuating economy. Obama has shown strengths and weaknesses, and it's his strengths that matter the most. He must be re-elected.
Although I'm a moderate conservative, my hopes are that Obama will win re-election tomorrow and will keep this country, and the world, on the right track. Only after another 4 years of economic recovery will America's economy be safe enough for a Republican government to take the reigns.
Photo Credit: zazzle.com
