Musings on the 2012 US Presidential Election

             
             What's the point of all these words? I don't know. Perhaps, it's therapeutic. Perhaps. So, in that spirit I'll record them.

                In a couple of days the people will be given a choice to vote for their ruler. The choice is between the Democratic candidate of the Democratic Party Barack Obama, and the Republican candidate of the Republican Party Mitt Romney. I don't know, it just feels like there's not much of a choice here. But, of course there's always a choice. I suppose the only thing that comes to mind as to the real thing being decided is that people who own property, and whose incomes are great will feel it in their account balances at the end of the month. So, I suppose if that was me I would vote for the Republican candidate because he has promised not to increase tax rates. Therefore, the real choice of my decision I would savor in the coming months, and years. 

                Of course, I'm Canadian and it's not for me to decide this ruler. But, everybody in the world will be affected by this decision. Will they? Well, that's the thinking. Will it affect me, and my suffering in my daily life? I don't think so. I have an entirely different set of problems that's not really explicitly covered by either of the candidates. In so far as it is I who feels, the complex of emotions are leading me toward supporting the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Why? Probably because my suffering justifies his election. On the other hand my thinking justifies voting rationally for the Democratic candidate. Why is this?

                I have a rational idea of the direction in which the world has been trending for the past twenty years. Especially for the past twenty years, a trend called globalization has taken hold. In this vein of thinking I know rationally that the Republican candidate’s policies and thinking don't seem to make sense. This is especially the case with regard to the ‘big government’ argument. The Democratic candidate has promised to move in that direction. He has promised to focus on nation building at home. A lot of people even in the economic community and intelligentsia aren't informed as to the precise details of the implications of globalization in our everyday lives.

                I have studied globalization extensively, and I think my research has privileged me to a couple of key insights. One of these insights is that despite the predictions of the of globalization gurus, and their conclusions in the 1990s, globalization itself has had some curious effects which deviate peculiarly from their conclusions. In particular, one of these conclusions was that economies would take over governments, and governments would lose the ability to regulate the economy. There was a need for global institutions of regulation that spanned national borders. The state - it was predicted - was dead.  

                But, look at what happened. After September 11, 2001 the United States embarked upon a radical shift in the organization of its security apparatus. The military-industrial complex was expanded in many ways. Big brother and so-called surveillance increased radically. The Department of Homeland Defense was created. Civil liberties were infringed upon in ways which it would have been thought unthinkable, especially under the Constitution. Federal regulation of the economy especially in the United States increased not decreased.

                Here is a very clear, and instructive example of how the predictions of the globalization gurus have not all come to pass. Admittedly, I have not examined these issues with the surgical precision of an academic or scholar, but I do feel that my argument is a powerful one. My recurring insight and intuition as to this peculiar development mentioned above is that the leading capitalist state namely the United States of America is increasingly being influenced by the culture of the rest of the world namely the Islamic culture, and the culture of China. 

                My intuition leads me to think that the draconian authoritative style of government prevalent in China is rubbing off on the United States. How does one, after all, explain the expansion of the security apparatus despite the globalizing tendencies of a globalizing economy? Despite the ideology of globalization and its utopian visions, the realities of everyday life are themselves shaping globalization in unpredictable ways. Globalization, and the world in dealing with globalization is spawning these interesting peculiarities, and deviations from the ideology, and thinking. 

                This is the most vocal concern with regard to the upcoming Presidential Election, and their consequences to me, and to the rest of the world. As a concern, it is recurring because - personally - I can feel the conflict in my heart. It is between my emotional support for the Republican ideology versus the rational outcome of my training, and intellectual experience. So, it's very much with a view to the conflict in my own heart between these two candidates, and their leadership ideas that I hope to express in this post.

                 Ideologically, and experientially I don't have much confidence in the competency of government to sort out the problems being doled out by globalization. That being said, I confess that it is disconcerting and perhaps irresponsible to not even try to regulate such emergent threats as radical Islam, and international terrorism as represented by the Department of Homeland Defense and the Patriot Act. I confess that I don't have much faith in these new, and vastly powerful institutions, and despite their existence I have little faith in their ability to protect me from these emergent threats.

                Simultaneously, I do not agree with the ‘big government’ argument especially with regard to the economy. I have a recurring intuition that it's going to harm our economy rather than help it. Moreover, I have a strong intuition, and I do believe that it's going to result in a lot of waste. So? What's to be done? If I cannot resolve this profound conflict in my own heart how can I expect the nation and the citizenry to reconcile this conflict themselves? Moreover, given all of this information what is the best thing to do, and what would be best for all of us or for the most of us at least? It comes down to the choice between the Republican candidate and the Democratic. Applying some kind of calculations to the words I have just written in order to come to a choice would perhaps be easier. Much easier. What do the words say about how I should vote or about how the country should vote?

                 I suppose a summary would be that I have a huge concern - as does the rest of nation - as to the future of our security in these turbulent globalizing times. Our best thinking, it seems, is out of date, and out of touch. That being said, the lessons we have learned from the violent trials with reality and humanity especially of the 20th century remain valid, and we should not forget these lessons.

                Broadly speaking, this is a conflict of civilizations. Is this behemoth entity of global civilization we have created worth protecting? That's what’s being done, or at least attempted to be done with this massive security apparatus. We've become obsessed with protecting the institutions of global economy such as financial institutions, the law of private property, and the means with which we carry them out such as our transportation infrastructure namely the automotive sector, and our airports. Ideally, implementing a bigger federal government, and security apparatus would be sufficient for preserving this emergent entity, and the emergent threats to it. The minority suspicion, and fear in our hearts which we are ashamed to admit even to ourselves, is the doubt as to whether it's worth protecting at all?