The Synchronized News Conference...

What passed for a Presidential Candidate's Debate last night was probably more aptly described as two news conferences in parallel.

A few things stood out for me:

1) Bush's Rigidity

2) Kerry's Underlying Honesty

I've felt for a long time that one of the biggest problems in the current White House administration is an inability to change policy. It's one thing to be a firm leader with a clear direction; it's another thing altogether to be unable to change direction. A good leader is able to do both - change direction when it's needed, and appear to firm and decisive. Several of Bush's comments, especially regarding Iraq, made it abundantly clear that _HE_ is unwilling to change direction. To me, there's a huge distinction between good solid leadership, and blind adherence to a particular dogma/position.

The Bush campaign has tried to portray Kerry as "inconsistent" and a "flip-flopper" on matters of policy. One exchange I heard on the radio this morning was quite interesting. Bush put a question to Kerry about his apparent "changes of position" on Iraq. Kerry's answer was a simple, but eloquent "I made a mistake in how I spoke about the war - my opponent made a mistake in invading Iraq - which is worse?" I think that Kerry handled himself quite deftly, and the answer had a certain candidness about it.

While Kerry may seem somewhat ambiguous on some matters of policy, I suspect he's simply realized that in order to make the best decisions, he has to be somewhat pragmatic. I also got the impression from Kerry that he is willing to acknowledge when he's made a mistake - to me, that's very important. I've seen leaders that cannot acknowledge mistakes in the past, and the results are inevitably disastrous.

What does the world have to look forward to? (Like it or not, who the US elects as President has profound consequences for both the United States and the world at large)

If Bush is elected:

• Four more years of increasing instability in the Middle East. (Sorry George - but the historical record shows that the chances of stabilizing that region in 4 years are approximately zero)
• Continuing, blind support for Israel. Yes, suicide bombers are awful, the Palestinian Authority has made a mess of things - but then again, Sharon hasn't exactly been a poster child of good conduct either. His heavy handedness has served to inflame Arab resentment towards Israel. You cannot examine the Middle East without dealing with Israel as well. In the eyes of many nations, GWB's administration has no credibility as an "honest broker" for peace. This factor contributes enormously to the Middle East stability problem.
  
• Four more years of legislation and policy in areas such as biotechnology that will leave the US biotech and medical tech. industries behind the rest of the world, not leading it.
• Tax cuts that benefit the wealthy elite (it's a rare tax cut that does the average joe any real good) and don't create the jobs and opportunity that they should.
• Social programs cut off due to a lack of funding (it'll all be landing in Military's hands)
  
• A debt incurred as a result of the wars in the Middle East that will serve as a millstone around the neck of America's future. This year alone is headed for a deficit that breaks all records - that deficit will become part of America's debt.
• Four more years of foreign policy that alienates the rest of the world, isolating the United States on the world stage, and leaving it very little 'trust capital' to negotiate with.
  

If Kerry is elected:

• Four more years of war in Iraq. No matter what happens, it will take years to restabilize Iraq - Kerry is doomed to that reality. (Of course, with any luck, Kerry won't do something foolish - like invading another country in the meantime)
  
• A rebuilding of international cooperation between the United States and the Rest Of The World (ROTW). Kerry made it quite clear that he would be willing to _ask_ the world to help stabilize Iraq.
  
• A safer America by making it part of the world community, not an isolated, fortified hold.
• A debt much smaller than 4 more years of outright aggression is going to create. (Again, no president is going to avoid the debt question any more than they are going to avoid the reality of the Iraq mess)

I can't say that Kerry will be better or worse for the US economy than GWB - that's a crapshoot in many ways. I don't believe that government policy necessarily has the impact on economics today that it once did. The rise of trans-national corporations has done much to change the balance of the world's economy as a whole, and local nation politics don't have the same impact that they once did. Economically, the only thing I 'know' is that what little social safety net exists today will be eroded more and more as the Republicans decide to cut programs as the national debt grows to pay for the war(s) in the Middle East. (It should be noted that Bush has all but promised to invade Iran if he's re-elected. Those precise words haven't been stated, but the themes have all been rattled around enough to convince me that it's a likelihood that should not be ignored)

Of course - this is just what I think is likely to happen - and my crystal ball is cracked...