2004 Election in Retrospect for this Election

Check out the election in 2004:

Obviously, Bush won that election.  Now during that election, the main issue that got people interested was the War.  The War on Terror and the War in Iraq had an interest of the public and 43% of the people said that their main concern was that issue.  But I wonder if the candidates seriously knew of the impact it had.  They both referred to 9/11 but I think that the people who knew mostly about it were the people themselves: those in New York and Wash. D.C.  After all, they were the ones that were mostly affected, and so it seems to make sense to ask them how they were affected because they were the ones that seriously got hurt.

I was shocked that no one mentioned this during the debates, but more surprised that no one mentioned this until after the election.  Yes, I realize that this election is over and we have another one coming up, but this may be important to this election and future elections.  Doesn’t the area where it was mostly affected have any significance to the policies?  Notice that in NY, DC, and PA all voted Democrat that year, and they were the places that got attacked.  If we want to know how to prevent attacks and make sure that we’re safe, what better place to go to then to those three places.  The argument stands like this:

  1. Those who were attacked would not want to be attacked again.
  2. Those who were attacked would know some precaution or at least a method of preventing such attacks again.
  3. Those who witnessed such attacks cannot know (at least in the epistemic sense of know-how) what it is like to actually be attacked.
  4. The experts on these attacks would have to be those who were actually attacked, not the witnesses. (From 2 and 3)
  5. We should consult experts because they know better than the “average” person. (This was also mentioned in a previous post.)
  6. Thus, we, as witnesses to the attack, should pay attention to those who were attacked on what they want so that they won’t be attacked again. (From 4 and 5)

So based on this, it seems that these experts wanted Kerry in office and not Bush.  After all, Bush and Kerry only witnessed these attacks.

Now we can apply this to this election.  I think most people are still concerned about the War and economics.  With the war, NY, DC, and PA all want Obama.  With economics, it’s hard to tell which part of the nation got really hurt the most.  After all, many people everywhere are losing their jobs.  But the main concentration is probably in the DC area along with NY, so again this goes to Obama.  Another big issue is energy and health care.  I won’t pretend to know where in the nation this is fully concentrated on.

I guess my question is should we give more consideration to places where they got hit the hardest?  Suppose the minimum wage was $6.00 but all of the states except for Utah had a minimum wage of $7.  Does it make sense to go to CA and ask them if the wage should be raised to $7 if their minimum wage is already  $7?  I think these issues shouldn’t be a blanketed feature across the nation, but rather more specific to each locale.

If there going to be comments, please no political rhetoric, bashing, or fallacies; otherwise I will delete or edit the comments.

About shaunmiller

I have just completed a visiting position as an assistant professor at Dalhousie University. My ideas are not associated with my employer; they are expressions of my own thoughts and ideas. Some of them are just musings while others could be serious discussions that could turn into a bigger project. Besides philosophy, I enjoy martial arts (Kuk Sool Won), playing my violin, enjoying coffee around town, and experimenting with new food.
This entry was posted in 2008 Election, Experts, Government, Health, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to 2004 Election in Retrospect for this Election

  1. Killer J says:

    #4 claims the attacked to be experts. In #2, you justify this by claiming by virtue of being attacked, the victims somehow know a precaution or preventative method to avoid being attacked again.

    Being attacked makes you an expert on what it is like to be attacked, not an expert on defense and military strategy.

  2. shaunmiller says:

    You’re right. Being attacked doesn’t make one an expert on defense or military strategy, but I think you can still say which strategy you find more appropriate. Thus, I think one can have some knowledge on what kind of defense one wants after an attack.

    Think of it this way. Let’s say I’m depressed. I’m not an expert on medication, physiology, or brain chemicals. But I have some sort of knowledge of getting treatment and getting a certain type of treatment. If some psychiatrist told me I needed Benadryl to treat my depression, I would say, “wrong.” So I think one can still know what treatment to get, especially if they are undergoing that symptom.

  3. Killer J says:

    Your logic works on paper, but not in this case. NY, DC, and PA voted Democratic before 911. It’s not like the voters specifically considered war strategy due to their newfound expertise and voted Democrat instead of Republican.

  4. shaunmiller says:

    Hmmm. . . I’ll get back to you. In the end, I think you maybe right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s