My opinion in this matter is, of course, rather useless, considering I am neither a US citizen nor have much of an understanding of the issues and politics involved beyond the merest trifiles that have come my way. I am, certainly, more traditionally a Conservative/Republican in outlook than Liberal/Democrat (on most issues, though not all... then again, I have a certain bit of aversion to the concept of representative democracy as it is, but that's another issue entirely.) Anyway, this may be an idiotic reason for taking a stand on this, but...
...merely seeing the way that McCain seems to have picked his running mate, indeed someone who apparently (from what I heard, though I may be mistaken), threatened war with Russia were Russia to go aggressive against Georgia again, I have lost quite a bit of respect for the Republican stand. Though every political party plays its cards so as to win (always has been so, always will be, from the self-glorifying monarchs of deep antiquity to the demagogues of democracy), at least some semblance of care rather than blatant pandering can be achieved. The selection of Palin seems to have been something done not with the slightest thought to the best interests of a country, but a simple and silly attempt to win a few more votes here and there. In my mind at least Obama keeps a certain level of solemnety about himself. Of course, that is hardly the best way to judge someone (after all, he is an excellent orator, as was Hitler), but nonetheless, it almost seems to me as if the Republicans can't be taken all too seriously anymore and, rather, the seriousness is if such a party should now take power. Even if Palin could make a fair Vice President (and, of course, we won't entirely know until we see how she governs in that context), what if McCain dies in office? Why, as much as one must respect all people, and whatever duties they have had to see to, I somehow do not see a hockey mom as being quite the ideal choice for the first female president of the United States. If she were a figure like Margaret Thatcher, well and good. But Palin doesn't seem to have that Elizabethan strength to her.
As such, were I an American, I think my vote would be going to Obama and his Democrats... much, I must add, to the chagrin of some of my friends.
Then again, and I must stress this, both my understanding of the issues of the politics and my regard for the democratic system are both rather low, and as such my opinion is of slight weight. I am considering spoiling my ballot here in the Canadian election simply for the fact that neither party seems to really be dealing with things in the manner that I would consider useful. The Conservatives have more strength and power to act, but their ideas sometimes lack proper foresight; the Liberals have some grand and altruistic ideas, but lack the ability to put them into effect. Caught between those two, I'd have not the first clue which I'd prefer all told. But that's Canadian politics. And anyway, I've always been an opponent of the Democratic system as it is. The rule of the mob and the unknowledgeable is not something I see to be for the better good. To quote 'Men in Black': a person is smart, people are stupid. My vote's always been towards aristocracies and monarchies, as much as those have the chance to end in despotism. I do not think just because the many, the hoi polloi, say it is good, it is so... in fact, oftentimes it may not be so. Should we all have a say in how we are governed? No. There are those trained and empowered to leadership by chance and time. That we should in our ignorance be made to pick between them is a testament to good intentions but bad ends. After all, the election of doctors is not made by the people, nor is the advancement of academics. Leadership in politics is a field and calling just as these things are, and even so it is not something that should be left to the common view... indeed, less than these other things. If we are not to leave the treatment of our diseases, the advancement of our sciences, to popular consensus, why should we be leaving the country to this?
Of course, some common conception of what society desires should be upheld. These things are enshrined in constitutions and what not. Even total rulers should not break constitutions in ideal. But at any rate, something does not sit well with me with the application of democracy. After all, might not democracy be not the freedom of the people but, far more despicable than slavery to the will of a despot, a mere illusion of freedom? After all, we are decieved by the demagogues all the time. Hitler did it, and it was done before him, and done after, and will be done again. Does, maybe, this dear concept of a 'vote' only give to us the false illusion that we decide our own country's destiny? I would say that the people are no more free when the mass rules than when they enslaved to the will of one. At least in the latter they know where their bonds lie. Here now we say 'we are free', yet we are not. Perhaps had we direct democracy... but as it is, we're caught beneath the heel of demagogues. Sometimes... I think the cry of 'freedom' we are so wont to cry in these governments of ours is as hollow as the war some of you Americans think you wage upon abstract 'terror.' You Americans especially... have no more free a democracy than Athens of old did under the command of Perikles. His word was law, just as though he were an autocrat, but because he had possessed the hearts of the people, an Obama or McCain of antiquity. What a tyrant! Because the Tyrants of the old states.... what were they but aristocrats who championed the cause of the people against their fellow aristocrats? They were champions of the people, and as such we may well call some demagogue a tyrant in a very similar manner. But anyway, I'm throwing out general ideas here rather than specific arguments. I must recall one more thing, however.
How much America is as the Athens of old. For they, too, came to dominance after a great war which saw the old world powers overthrown. And they, too, besotted with this extended the reach of their will over others, till they became very much an empire. And then, in time, through further war, they fell from their high position into one again of mediocrity from which they were never to rise. This all over a period of 76 years. Or how of this, the very undemocratic reaction of the North to the states that wished to leave the Union? Did they not have the right to leave if they wished? How very like when Naxos wished to leave the Delian league of Athens! Where then was freedom, in either country that held to some vague ideal of democracy? Athens and America... they are very similar, it seems. And I doubt the effectiveness of democracy in either. But, as with all things, we'll only be able to see in retrospect.
Poll