What's your ideology?

I think that the 2-party election process is not so much about any specific candidate and what they want to bring to the table. It's really a conflict over idealogy. On the one hand is the idealogy of helping the disadvantaged, regulating corporations for the public good, positive environmental policy, progressive taxation that attempts to correct for the unequal distribution of wealth, and trying to preserve individual rights. On the other is the idealogy of bootstraps, trickle down economics, deregulation of industry, fighting wars to ensure corporate access to the resources of other nations, and a dominant religion influencing public policy at the expense of personal liberty.

For those of you who are undecided because your ideology is split or some other reason, I offer a simple reason to vote for Barack Obama. He offers a message of hope. We are a country burdened by a poor economy, 2 wars, trememdous debt, 8 years of negativity and having been manipulated by fear. It's time to replace the fear with hope. With a belief that we hold the power to change our fates, and a willingness to make that happen.

For the rest of you, struggling with the ideologies, if you look at the whole list, it seems pretty obvious which party has the best interest of the American people in mind. It's easy to focus on just one point, rather than taking the list as a whole. For those of you who are voting republican based on economic policy, I direct your attention to this excellent article in the NY Times "Would Obama's Plan be Faster, Fairer, Stronger?" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?scp=1&sq=Obama.
It reports the history of the US economy from 1948-2007, and summarizes the nations economic health according to which party held office. Turns out trickle up economics is better for EVERYONE! Even the wealthy. Gross national product rose an average of 2.78% annually per capita during Democratic administrations versus just 1.64% with the Republicans in the White House. Family income growth rose for the wealthiest 2.12% annually with Democratic presidents versus 1.9% with Republicans (a smallish, but significant), and for the poorest 2.64% with a Democratic President versus 0.43% while under Republican dominion (Wow! That's where the huge wage gap and impoverization of the nation came from!). This shows that the pocketbook vote ought to go the the Democrats, regardless of your current wealth.

I see the heartland of this country foregoing their best interests on issues of public safety and economics because they have narrowed their focus on what they belief is a moral issue.
Faith is a powerful motivator. The ideology of "sanctity of human life" strikes the emotional response. If you are motivated to base your political views on that issue, I sympathize. I also offer an alternative. I believe that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Provide access to affordable birth control, educate people (especially the youth) on how to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies and disease. Of course let them know the safest way is not to have sex, but accept that atleast 1/2 of them will ignore that advise (Yes, 1/2 of them, at age 16, its 50%). Those people need to know their options, and the reliability of each one. I believe the next best way to prevent abortions is to improve a person's socio-economic standing. Education is the number 1 way to do this. Employment with a fair wage is number 2. By and large desperate people take desperate actions.

I believe that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy has a choice between several bad options. In most cases, any choice with irrevocably change that woman's life, and likely leave her with regrets and heartache. Option 1--Keep the baby. We are a society that judges people first. Someone who is pregnant without meeting the normal conditions (adult, married, steady income) is ostracized. Add to that the burden of raising children without adequate financial means. That's a recipe for regret. Option 2--Give the child up for adoption. This choice must be a terrible emotional burden. Carry a child within one's body for 9 months, suffer the wear and tear of the pregnancy, develop a relationship with the unborn child, then right after birth, give that child to the unknown and spent the rest of your life wondering what became of him. Option 3--Make the problem go away. Avoid the 9 months of discomford, stares and whispers of strangers, and dramatic farewell. Try to come to terms with the decision. In some cases, make this decision under diress with the additional burden of severe defects, risk to personal life, or pregnancy resulting from assault.

If it were me, I would not want to decide which of those fates to take. It would be some small assurance to atleast know that the consequences were my own making. I feel lucky that I was armed with the education necessary to avoid having to make that decision. I hope to have the courage not to judge another's choices and support their decision.

It's beyond my comprehension how "sanctity of life" surpasses every other idealogy when applied to a tiny budding embryo that resembles a bean or a tadpole, but is no longer part of the conversation on the issue of foreign policy. I think someone who was true to the ideology of preserving life must by definition be a pacifist. Dropping bombs on poor people overseas is reprehensible, should be avoided, and never taken lightly. Capturing people overseas with scant evidence of their political leanings, holding them in secret locations, and torturing them in an attempt to extract information to justify our actions is reprehensible. It shows a disregard for others life, liberty, and human dignity. Cloaking this activity in a robe of patriotism and national security seems to have blinded the nation's apparent moral fortitude.

The 2 party system gives an indication of what a candidate brings to the table. But it gives voters a false sense of security that a candidate from their "Party" will share their belief system. It's an excuse not to educate one's self on the issues. I think we'd be better off with a non-partisan system with a primary, followed by a run-off between the 2 highest vote getting candidates. With such a simple system, voters would be encouraged to learn about the candidates, and it would be much harder to conceal bad ideology behind a curtain of single issues.