The question of endorsements

I’ve long been uncomfortable with the practice of major newspapers and media outlets “endorsing” a candidate or party in an election.

I’m not so naive as to think that the media is truly objective, but I do believe it ought to at least strive for objectivity. A newspaper ought to report the news, not be a propaganda vehicle for a given party or candidate. Endorsements directly negate any semblance of objectivity.

This US election, we’ve seen bloggers – large and small alike – boarding the endorsement train. Damian Penny is endorsing Bush. Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Kerry. Some blogs, like LGF for Bush and Daily Kos for Kerry, have become de facto campaign tools.

In a way, I’m much more comfortable with blogger endorsements than with media endorsements… because blogging is all about relating one’s personal opinion. People read bloggers for a certain viewpoint or perspective, not for objectivity. A blogger offering an endorsement is akin to offering his or her opinion, which, let’s face it, is the raison d’être of blogging.

But I’m not about to be presumptuous enough to offer an endorsement here. Why? Several reasons:

• First of all, my readership — all 9 of you — doesn’t really care what I think about the election, and even if you did, most of you are Canadian and can’t vote in it anyway. “Endorsement” differs from “opinion” in the grandiosity of the words. An opinion is just that — a mere opinion. An endorsement, on the other hand, implies a certain importance. And I don’t harbour any delusions of importance, nor do I really believe that anyone would — or should — be influenced by my opinion.
• Secondly, I’m not American either. And again, while I can have my opinions, the issues I’d be concerned about as a Canadian are not the same issues as American citizens have to weigh in this election.
• And finally, because I don’t think that either Bush or Kerry is worthy of endorsing in this election. I was “undecided” for a long time and now I’m in the “I don’t care, just pick a leader” camp. Of course, this is an easy cop-out, given that I’m Canadian. If I were American I’d probably have to weigh the issues and finally hold my nose and vote for one or the other, because I firmly believe that it’s extremely important for every citizen to vote, and I wouldn’t be able to justify not voting. But I don’t have to make a decision, so I won’t.

It’s a cop-out, perhaps, but I refuse to believe that the issues are as black-and-white as the Democratic and Republican campaigns are trying to make them out to be.

For example, the Republicans claim Kerry’s unfit for leadership because he flip-flops on issues. But I think that a good leader should be willing to make situational decisions, and to change a decision based on input or new information. Maybe Kerry’s more nuanced style isn’t weakness but openness. I also think that Kerry’s not foolish enough to truly compromise American security or to pull troops out of Iraq prematurely. Despite what some people claim, he knows that the US created the situation in Iraq, and that the US can’t just leave without solving it.

Similarly, I don’t think that the innuendo-based attacks on Bush are fair to him. The widespread panic about reinstating the draft is nothing more than a scare-tactic designed to turn voters away from Bush. And instead of banding together against terrorism, Democrats are blaming the Bush administration for failing to correctly interpret warning signs before 9/11 and failing to prevent the attacks. The 9/11 commission uncovered some glaring mistakes, to be certain… but if Al Gore were President, would he really have done any better? Remember, this was so far off anyone’s radar screen before 9/11 that anyone who warned about it incessantly would be accused of fear-mongering.

I’m equally torn on domestic issues. Bush has created a huge deficit and giant economic woes… but was that entirely his fault? The economy was on the verge of recession when Clinton handed him the reins, and between the tech stock crash and 9/11, economic problems were a near-certainty. Nor do I truly believe Kerry will end NAFTA, as many Canadians fear. But economy-wise, it’s hard to tell who would be better. Kerry seems disturbingly like a protectionist, while Bush has implemented tariffs. The rhetoric about “tax cuts for the wealthy” is a Kerry campaign favourite, as is the notion that Bush is subsidizing the outsourcing of American jobs, but I doubt Kerry would be able to do much about either.

The Bush team has crawled steadily to the right, pandering to interest groups who believe that guns are good, abortion and gay marriage is bad, and decisions should be made based on Christian faith. This, too, is a bit of an oversimplification; in four years in office, Bush hasn’t directly done much to threaten the separation of church and state. But I’d trust Kerry’s judgeship appointments over Bush’s, in terms of setting out a future for the country. The fact that the Republicans would use a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a campaign tack, even though they know it would never pass, says a lot about the types of divisions they’re aiming to create in American society.

Kerry, for his part, is more solid on these issues but his “internationalist” policies concern me. Though AIPAC’s record on Kerry shows him to be a good friend to Israel, the amount of faith he has in the United Nations concerns me. Similarly, many American allies are very concerned about Kerry because they think he’ll try to get them on board on issues that they have no intention of supporting. For them, it’s easier with Bush, because at least he won’t ask so they won’t have to refuse.

Nothing’s as simple as thirty-second campaign spots make it out to be. But ultimately, the right to vote is what’s important. My only hope for this election is that a leader is chosen quickly by the people, not by the courts.