Vital national interests and the 2008 elections

Many issues are in our national interest. How many are vital to our American security and our economic future are certainly a smaller number and worthy of thinking about when deciding one’s vote. And vital national interests are both foreign and domestic. And vital national interests may be expressed locally, nationally, or internationally.

If all national issues are vital, then none are if all are treated equally. Determining what is vital can be a cold heartless process for the determined voter. Most Americans find it easier to determine what is not a vital national interest, and to critique with the jaundiced eye of the cynic those that lead the discussion of vital national interests. For example, humane treatment of our pets is a national interest, but not a vital national interest.

A confusing problem is separating a vital national interest from a plan to implement it. An example is the education of our children, our future generations, which is a vital national interest. How we do it: public education, private education, or vouchers, can confuse the voter trying to make up their mind about vital national interest.

The US involvement in Mesopotamia is another example of the usual confusion separating a vital national interest from a plan to implement it. Most would agree homeland security from foreign terrorist attacks on American lives and political and economic targets is in our vital national interest. This is not a casual subject. Yet there is much debate, often acrimonious, over how to implement an American plan to defend this vital national interest. The wise voter should think about both: vital national interest and an implementation plan vis-à-vis Mesopotamia.

The present plan to implement in Mesopotamia is evolving it seems, about as fast as our elected leaders in the executive and congress, and their hired staffs, can learn. They have shown themselves to be inexperienced, and smart, a dangerous combination. This learning curve is distinct from vital national interests when voters consider both in their voting decisions. Goals and performance, and confidence in same, are both worthy of voting decisions in 2008.

It has been disappointing so far to perceive certain nation interest subjects as being off the table for the Presidential debates from both national parties. Social security and Medicare and Medicaid solvency come to mind. Are they vital national interests, or not. That it is not being debated is of concern. This idea suggests the politicians and the media control the subject of vital national interests, and are avoiding the debate. Other ideas suggest the voters control the subject of vital national interests as will be expressed in the vote beginning in 2008.