Decius wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] ] It's "not possible" to fix him on the
] ] ] liberal-conservative scale, he said. "Where I am on the
] ] ] political spectrum is a convenient way to avoid talking
] ] ] about issues."
] ]
] ] A brief article in the Washinton Post about Howard Dean...
] ] the quote above is my especial favorite.
]
] Well, I've got to say this is the first interview with Dean
] thats made me think maybe he's not such a good idea after all.
]
]
] Should countries that trade with the US have the similar human
] rights and environmental ideals? In general, yes. You don't do
] business with people who do things that you think are immoral.
]
]
] Can we decide tommorow to stop doing business with everyone
] who doesn't conform to our exact standards. Absolutely not.
] This issue is way more complex then that.
]
] 1. This isn't a case of linear maturity of human rights and
] environmental standards. In some cases, the US is scene as the
] laggard. For example, the US is one of the few countries in
] the world where minors can be executed. Why do we assume that
] our standards are the bar to which everyone else ought to be
] held?
]
] 2. These countries are not the same as the United States, and
] the rules that apply here do not always make sense there. Can
] China have the same minimum wage law as the US? No. There are
] too many people there for that. Such an action would cause
] massive unemployment. Can India conform to the same clean air
] standards? No. They are in a different stage of
] industrialization and they cannot afford the kind of clean
] industry that we engage in here. If you force third world
] countries to obey first world emmisions standards, then those
] countries absolutely will not industrialize. This is well
] understood. Countries that industrialize have a massive
] increase in emmissions before those emmisions start to drop
] back down (as they are in the United States).
]
] 3. The economic chaos caused by such a radical action would
] plunge world markets into depression and damage the standard
] of living for everyone on the planet.
]
] Yes, we should have standards that we expect people to meet,
] and we should have timeframes in which we expect them to be
] met, and we ought to use our weight in the marketplace to keep
] that progress on schedule. Furthermore, we SHOULD (and
] frankly, do) stop trading with countries that we beleive are
] acting immorally.
]
] However, to simply stop trading with everyone who has not
] reached out level of sophistication and expect them to adapt
] overnight is to give in to the oversimplified rhetoric of the
] most radical socialist elements in our society.
]
] I won't vote for that.

you make good points. i think this is one of those positions that candidates often have based on strong ideals, that are unworkable when put into the proper context. it's not so much pandering as not quite having a full grasp on the situation as it stands, because, lets face it, once you're pres, you have access to more and better info. i think that some of the time when a president seems to renege on an issue, it's not that they were lying during the campaign, but that they got into office and learned a lot of new information that changed the premises on which they based their former position. a good president comes out and says that this is the case. i don't expect that the first action of a Dean presidency would be to implement this plan. It's campaign talk and even the most upright politicians have to do it. He's talking about what he believes, which isn't necessarily gonna fall in line with what is possible. more than likely a middle ground will be reached similar to what you describe -- a "roadmap" for moving countries towards practices we believe are right, with a timeframe and supporting economic policies. I don't see and sane human stepping into office and saying "Ok, China's got bad labor practices, no more trading with them."

anyway, for me, i can't make my decision on the basis of only one issue for the most part, unless someone comes out with a pro donkey-sex stance. i already know i don't like lieberman for quite a few reasons, and i haven't heard enough of Kerry's or Clark's positions to decide on them. I'm not saying i'll never change my mind about dean, just that it's gonna take more than any single issue. when it comes right down to it, of course, i'm going to pull the "not bush" lever next november, no matter who that candidate happens to be.

RE: Defining Dean (washingtonpost.com)