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. ..