It might seem as though the election at hand is unfair. Clearly, most of the issues being bandied about are too onerous for individuals to actually, definitively, decide upon. But the divide between Democrat and Republican has never been deeper. As such, each voter should be able to find a position from which an informed decision can be made as to who should lead. The Sacramento Bee has been gracious in providing a number of topics about which Obama and Romney disagree. An appearance automatically forms, to those so inclined, that confers upon Democrats an upper hand. There is far too much danger in the world and turmoil at home to begin a dramatic hunt for new changes. For once, Democrats seem level-headed while Republicans drift toward the lunatic fringe. At least from a certain point of view.
Take abortion, for instance. Whatever Obama personally believes is not at stake, but as President, his being in favor of it is actually for the best in terms of a viable national policy. Romney, being Republican, must somehow show that he answers to a higher calling. This is unnecessary and could get out of hand, if not now then later. It is not a question of religion, but religious mania. Or take immigration dilemmas. Obama has a more compassionate approach and Romney, true to form, opposes programs that feed the bias of those who get heated up over "outsiders". Or take gun control. Romney wants less of it, Obama more. Perhaps neither one nor the other has the magical answer to these interminable struggles, but the Democratic platform takes reality into account whereas Republicans are too full of high-flying feelings that are simply out of touch.
In other respects, Republicans have the edge. The negative backlash to a sluggish economy is apt to make voters want to reject the incumbent. And the idea of higher taxes continues to stalk the Democratic Party after the fashion of an ugly rain cloud. Non-partisan ambiguities dealing with war in Afghanistan and neighboring countries are indeed troubling. But the greater warmonger turns out to be Romney, who is already challenging Russia and Red China, though not in office. True enough, World War III did not erupt after the election of Ronald Reagan, which was the word on the street, at least in NYC. But it might actually have happened had Gorbachev not been so accommodating.
Or, how about healthcare? Most people cannot afford it, even with insurance. But Obamacare got all kinds of bad press. It would have been nice if the healthcare industry could have been reformed. And as to this subject, as well as social security and taxes, both candidates have distinct differences of opinion. 2012 has the makings of an interesting contest between several alternatives. Like the previous administration, the United States remained free from foreign attack. Its safety and security should endure either way. This election is about many real values whose mindful consideration will continue regardless of November's decision.
More by this Author
An Iranian-American has written up a personal version of up-to-date events that help shed light on what is happening in the world of terror today.
Two authors wrote a lengthy book on the failures of modern nations. They place the blame mostly on "extractive institutions".
It took Nazi Germany just ten days to conquer Yugoslavia. Then, the Peoples Liberation Front got going.