Politics

(The following is a response to a political debate between some friends of mine, thus the opening statements. Other than that, this writing is rather self-sufficient.)

I see that this debate is as beneficial as the presidential debates; arguments "ad hominem" take the place of reason. As Plato would say, "The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."

Let's look at two similar quotations that are also from Plato:

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

Reasonably, both candidates are presenting themselves as protectors. McCain follows Plato's logic more literally, in claiming the danger of Islamic extremists and citing Islamic leaders' goals, intentions, policies, of destroying, or at least attacking, both Israel and the United States. Obama tells us that he is the protector of America, from itself more or less. He proclaims that we need protection from the economy, poor health care, etc. Now obviously each has plans relating to everything (aren't our candidates just so universal?), but looking at each candidates main point, in following with Plato, we have McCain as the protector from foreign attacks, and Obama as the protector from internal decay.

Now under this logic, I would look at which problem I feel I need the most protection from. On the one hand, extremists have bombed well...almost anything they can get explosives to; or on a more serious note, tens of thousands of innocent people. The other hand reveals that the economy is collapsing at the moment, and not everyone has health care, or education, etc. Both problems exist, but can both be fixed by government? Isn't that what we're electing after all, a man to run the government and not our lives? There's a difference, consider it.

While I'm on the topic of Plato, I'll note that he also stated that "The curse of me and my nation is that we always think things can be bettered by immediate action of some sort, any sort rather than no sort." This wisdom could be applied to both internal and external affairs at some level. However, when it comes to foreign affairs, it seems that to sit back and wait for other countries to act is foolish. What's the use in having an army that waits to be destroyed before mobilizing? That's not to say that the military should go Rambo on everything, but neither should it be completely passive.

As for internal affairs, the capitalist market is designed to correct itself and fully function without government intervention. There are of course high's and low's, but it is often arbitrary laws that restrict market efficiency as a whole. One may argue that the New Deal saved our economy in the past, that Democratic economy-fiddling is good; then I may point out that such fiddling has led to our current predicaments in some form. Hard times will come, but the government is not a financial institution. It is, however, our protector from foreign enemies.

Let our protector be elected to protect us from a real threat, and let's keep the people in power.