Another Angle | Voters disregard significant "wedge" during 2004 presidential campaign

Amanda Melillo Opinions Editor

During this presidential election of cheap digs (the waving of flip-flops at the Republican National Convention comes to mind), the need for the candidates to out-testosterone each other (such as Kerry’s need to prove his masculinity by strapping on camouflage gear and going goose-hunting with a big gun), and the ridiculous ad campaigns (the wolves prowling through the forest WILL hunt you down if the Democrats win), so much of the campaign focus has been on the war in Iraq. Voters polled have said that aside from the economy, the war is the most important issue to them when they go to cast their ballots.

There has been such an emphasis on the war that even during the second debate, which was supposed to focus on domestic issues, the candidates managed to drag Iraq and Saddam Hussein into every single response they made. Furthermore, Bush has tried to bank on a “tough guy” image, flying on Air Force One in his army fatigues, to win the trust of voters who view him as a strong president and just the man we need to get us through these perilous times of potential terrorism, while portraying Kerry as an indecisive, ineffectual wimp. So much of the campaign rhetoric has revolved around Iraq that the American voters have been successfully diverted from domestic issues that could hugely impact our lives even beyond the next four years.

The fact is, both Bush and Kerry have the same immediate plans for Iraq—Bush will not pull out because he actually seems to be under the impression that we can enforce American-style democracy in Iraq, while Kerry can’t withdraw troops because he recognizes that we’ve already gone in and destroyed their country and we cannot leave until we’ve fixed what we’ve broken.

What truly differentiates these candidates are issues that will majorly affect many Americans long beyond the office of whoever is our President—during the next term in office, crucial decisions will be made concerning Supreme Court appointments, reproductive rights, and stem cell research.

More than anything else, the president will have a long-term effect on our judicial system. Bush has already appointed 201 Federal Appeals Court and trial judges during his term in office, and it is possible that hundreds more could be appointed within the next few years. Most importantly, potentially two to three Supreme Court justices may be appointed if current members step down. This could drastically swing the highest court in the land to either the conservative or the liberal side. Not only could this have an effect on issues such as prayer in the classroom, but it will influence a case in which America remains morally divided—Roe vs. Wade. The reversal of this 1973 case would make abortion illegal within the United States, the thought of which outrages many reproductive rights advocates.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court could make rulings completely banning gay marriage. In the 2000 election between President Bush and Al Gore, each candidate had named possible judges that they admired and would consider appointing. In this election, the issue has not even been raised.

In addition to the legal status on abortions, the president will affect a halted but potentially “miracle working” scientific field: stem cell research. As an extension of the abortion debate, stem cells have proved a controversial topic, since they are derived from day-old embryos. Ethical questions have been raised about an embryo’s right to life and the possible expense of life for the sake of science, as well as “playing God” by interfering with nature. On the flip side, stem cells may hold the key to curing neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and paralysis.

Currently, federally-funded stem cell research relies on “leftover” stem cells, some 400,000 that were already in laboratories under Clinton’s administration. Bush rationalized that these already-frozen stem cells were acceptable for research as long as no more destruction of embryos occurred with federal funding from his administration.

However, even those stem cells might not be used for useful research—many may be discarded if stem cell research is outlawed completely, and many conservatives feel that if these cells are not going to be taken by the original donors, then they should be adopted by other families desiring children. However, since many would rather see their embryos destroyed than raised by a different genetic family, those cells could possibly go to waste.

The next administration could even affect something as daily as our diets—or rather, whether or not we can eat fish due to levels of mercury poisoning within the water. Bush has been relaxed with power plants by weakening rules that would make them use technology to clean the air. He has sided with oil companies and other environmental polluters. Nearly a year ago in December, the FDA had to warn women that could conceive children to limit their intake of tuna, shellfish, and other fish to only 12 ounces a week to avoid heightened mercury levels in their bloodstreams because high mercury levels could be potentially dangerous to developing fetuses. In 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that one in 12 women have mercury levels above what is deemed normal, due to Bush’s environmental policices. This means that 325,000 babies born each year are at risk for mercury poisoning that could lead to severe defects, which certainly conflicts with his belief that every fetus has the right to life.

With all that could potentially go wrong over the next four years and beyond, why have these issues been virtually untouched during the campaign? It’s time that Americans start getting as passionate about issues that affect our daily lives and civil rights as they are about the war in Iraq.