Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 13, 2000)
Friday Editor in chief: Jack Clifford Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P-O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-maii: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com Election: three perspectives the saddles. When it’s time to fill out your ballot for president this year, you will have to de cide whether you have faith in your fellow citizens, or whether you should vote for A1 Gore. Texas Gov. George W. Bush has real plans to change Social Security so that by the time the college students of today retire to morrow, they’ll have a larg er benefit from a program that will actually be viable when it’s time to hang up Or, you can vote for Al Gore because you fear change; he has essentially threatened old people that if his Republican counter part is elected, it will mark the catastrophic end of all social services in America. You can vote for Bush’s morally justified across-the-board tax cut, where the largest benefit goes to the poorest of Americans, and the rich will actually pay a higher bur den. Or, you can vote for Al Gore, who is essen tially running on a modified “four more years” theme with tax cuts available only for those who obey certain behavioral pat terns. It may seem like a good idea to make college tuition tax deductible, but why is it fair to give a tax break only to those who have children in that age group and are already wealthy enough to pay for college anyway? The common knock on Bush is, of course, a supposed lack of intellect. The lib eral elite enjoy scoffing at his poor grammar and Southern drawl. But make no mistake, his ideas are real, and he is no longer giving Gore a free pass on issues such as foreign policy _ or social programs, /£' where Gore once roamed alone. /\\ no longer Gore’s ^ \\ j kjmA lonely playground. After Wednesday’s de- xy 1 l bate, Bush showed that he IL has a grasp on history and p the delicate balance our nation must \ achieve when dealing with other na T tions of the world. At the same time, I Gore showed no real passion for S rible notion of nation-building. Bush has also taken on the is sue of education, usually allied to the Democratic Party. He has real sure recently that foreign policy is Bush has made foreign affairs outside of the ter plans for accountability in failing schools, which are necessary to end the soft bigotry of low expectations. Finally, why waste your vote on Gore when there’s no way he can win re-election in four years? The man is not ~ K personable, and he has no passion for (G-i I any cause but victory ii self. Vote better education. Vote smaller govern ment. Vote integrity. Vote Bush. Bret Jacobson is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emer ald. His views do not neces sarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at bjacobso@gladstone. uoregon.edu. Giovanni Salimena Emerald I’m voting for Al Gore. Now, I don’t like everything about Mr. Gore’s politics, but he’s the best candidate in a field of capable men and women. My roots are in the old Re publican tradition , the mantle of Lincoln. In basic terms, a socially progressive phi losophy mixed with fiscal conservatism. Combine that with a zest for radical cen trist policy, and you have my platform. Since John McCain is no longer running, and I’m not totally comfortable with Ralph Nader, I’m choosing Gore. I can’t vote for Nader because he’s a one-issue candidate. A great issue, mind you, but his record is severely lacking on the broad spectrum of factors affecting Americans today. And Texas Gov. George W. Bush — not only is he dumb, he’s dangerous. Our next presi dent will likely have the responsibility of appointing between one and four justices to the Supreme Court. Both Bush and Gore have denied using a litmus test to filter candidates, but their true beliefs are clear. Gore is pro-choice, and his election would keep a woman’s right to choose safe. It’s funny how most Republicans want government out of their lives but in side other people’s bedrooms and bodies. Which brings us to issue number two, civil rights. Gore has said he would seek to remove the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy from the armed forces, permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly. This is not only the moral ly correct choice, but a logical one as well. People against gays in the military use the argument that it would damage credibility and morale. They said the same thing about women and minorities serving, and they were wrong. Gore would also end racial profiling, a cancer in our law-enforcement system. The Clinton-Gore administration has the best record of any presidency in appoint ing minorities to positions of power. Democrats once suffered a stigma of be ing fiscally irresponsible and deservedly so. For the most part, they have improved. True, Gore’s plan would spend more on so cial programs, but overall, it’s actually more responsible and conservative than the plan of Gov. Bush. Gore takes heat from die-hard environ mentalists for not being perfect. But make no mistake: He has done more to promote clean air, water and sustainable communi ties than any other major politician. Finally, Gore has experience in leader ship that far exceeds his competition. No one leader can change the system alone, but a Gore administration will move us in a better direction. Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emer ald, currently serving an internship at the National Journal Hotline in Washington, D.C. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at epfeiffe@gladstone.uoregon.edu. On “The Simpsons” a few years ago, voters had two identical, slobbering aliens as presidential candidates. One character said he would vote for a third party rather than support an alien taking over the Earth. “Go ahead,” the alien said menacingly, “throw your vote away.” The idea that a third-party vote is wasted has been forced on voters for so long that it was lampooned by a primetime cartoon. Why, then, are third-, fourth- and fifth-par ty candidates still campaigning, and why is more of the electorate disenfranchised? The ans wer is simple: representation. Despite the rhetoric of the major parties, American voters increasingly feel that they’re not properly represented by Democ rats or Republicans. Compromise is one reason why. Let’s take a look at that very democratic idea. Running a large country with a vast pop ulation holding many different ideals takes compromise. Ideally, no one party, nor any one set of ideals, gets to set the agenda. Un less, of course, your interests are capital ism, in which case you need only buy off the two major parties and own the media, and pretty soon everyone will believe they have only two corporate-approved choices. Is that democracy? Not entirely. People are still voting, but for what? Voting for the Democrats or Republicans is voting for compromise that has already happened. In European countries with many par ties and proportional representation in their legislative bodies, compromise hap pens when everyone sits down and de cides what they can all agree on and what they're willing to trade for support of their ideas. This is real compromise and real democracy. In America, compromise happens before voters even have a voice. The major parties water down the issues that matter to vot ers, trying to find a palatable middle ground that, like Muzak, tries so hard to offend no one that it ends up offending a lot of people. American third parties still need im provement. They still need top-notch can didates and money to get their message out. But voters must realize that they’re NOT throwing their vote away, so that third parties get enough votes to be consid ered worthy of a seat at the table. Read about all the presidential candi dates before you vote. No matter your ide ology, you may find that another party represents your views a whole lot better than do Texas Gov. George w. Bush or Vice President A1 Gore. With enough support, those opinions can be heard. Otherwise, we may get taken over by slobbering aliens. Michael J. Kleckner is the editorial editor for the Ore gon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily rep resent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at opededitor@journalist.com. Yugoslavian democracy elicits premature euphoria Guest Commentary Ronald Wixman Jubilation about the democratic ouster of Yugoslavian dictator Slo bodan Milosevic is welcomed by all interested in the democratization of what is left of Yugoslavia. Unfortu nately, this euphoria may be prema ture. The success of real elections, demonstrations and the unwilling ness of the Yugoslavian army to shoot at the masses are important steps in the right direction. But this does not solve the problem of why Yugoslavia fell apart to begin with, nor does it address the reasons for NATO intervention. Lifting the em bargo and pulling out troops may sound appealing, but it may not be the right course of action. The destruction of Yugoslavia did not happen because Croats, Slovenes, Bosnian Muslims, Alba nians, or Macedonians were hos tile to a united Yugoslavia. Yu goslavia did not have a minority problem, it had a MAJORITY prob lem. The rise of ethnic Serbian na tionalism, which resulted in Ser bia’s seizure of one-third of Croatia, all of Bosnia-Herzegovina and all of Kosovo, and the mass deportation or slaughter of non Serbians is why the republics left the Yugoslavian Union. It was not traditional ethnic ha tred, but rather a neo-Fascist Ser bian nationalism that attempted to rewrite history and create an en larged, ethnically pure Serbia. While Milosevic led this move ment, he was not alone. Years be fore the Yugoslavian wars, ethnic Serbs demonstrated against Milose vic's secret police and brutal poli cies. Serbs wanted communist rule and tyrannical leadership ended. But when Milosevic shifted to radi cal Serbianism, these same demon strators flocked around him. The same Serbs and newly elect ed leaders, like Yugoslavian Presi dent Vojislav Kostunica, were staunch supporters of the ethnic cleansing of Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovan lands. Kostunica has not condemned radical Serbian na tionalism, but rather condemned Milosevic for selling out Serbian interests to save his neck and for leading Serbia down a ruinous economic and political path after NATO’s bombing. Kostunica and his Serbian allies have not handed Milosevic and other war criminals to the world court for trial or dis cussed reinstating the Kosova Au tonomy for Albanians. Just be cause Serbs have rewritten the history of Kosovo, Bosnia and else where to suit their nationalist de signs is no reason for anyone to be lieve these revisions. Unfortunately, Europe and the United States, in their desire to leave Yugoslavia, may play into Serbian nationalist hands. Will we let war criminals off the proverbial hook for expediency? Will we give Kosovo and Serb-held territories in Bosnia to Serbian radicals and de clare them democracies just to exit with grace? One would hope not. How tragic to set a precedent that if one votes democratically to deny human rights to ethnic, religious, or social minorities, that it is OK, be qauge it wa§ dQpe aj 3 jpqljojl , ,, , rather than on a battlefield. Will we now chastise Albanians and Bosni ans for demanding their rights from Serbian thugs because our demon, Milosevic, is no longer there, but a democratically elected nationalist is? We need to wait and see what the new Yugoslavia will be before we jump for joy. If Kostunica and the new Yugoslavian Parliament apol ogize to ethnic minorities for the harm inflicted upon them, if they immediately vote to reinstate the Kosova Autonomy and the rights of its inhabitants, and if they hand over the criminals, then we can feel euphoria for the triumph of real democracy. Ronald Wixman is a professor of geography at the University and a consultant to the u,s, $t^ Pwdijientpo NtepppiiUcs. ..
