For years, the Bushes (father and son) administration and American auto makers have strenuously argued that we have to do a balancing act between preserving the environment and creating a thriving economy. As usual with the Bush politicians, the argument has been flawed from the beginning, but the evidence hasn't really proven this claim.
Until now. This article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/business/16auto.html) shows that the auto making industry in the United States may be completely and permanently doomed to subservience to energy-efficient Japanese automakers for the first time ever. This is due to the insistence upon creating gas-guzzling humongous trucks, vans and SUVs, ignoring smaller cars, and ignoring the need to be flexible in assembly line plants, something Toyota planned for ages ago.
This blatantly stupid decision by U.S. automakers will do much more than endanger the jobs of U.S. autoworkers, it will transfer the money currently funneling into domestic automakers profits into foreign automakers profits, subtly shifting the wealth of the United States overseas.
In short, it forces the U.S. to reconsider its dominant financial position in the long term, and as a result, its dominant military position. The aggressive posturing of the Bush administration combined with the stupid economic decisions could in fact make the U.S. a more dangerous place to live than it has been for 200 years, since the British shot up Washington D.C. in 1812.
In case it isn't obvious, if you thought your vote doesn't really matter, it does. Every political opponent of the Bush family has a better environmental record. Forcing higher fuel economy 6 years ago would have potentially saved Detroit now. Even if fuel economy were not forced to be higher, a different president would have never invaded Iraq, which is a primary source of increased fuel prices thanks to the thriving civil war and insurgency, both of which prevent oil pumps in Iraq from operating at near capacity. Your vote in November for the Senate and the House of Representatives is critical in this regard. If you vote for those who support the current economic and military policies, you are casting a direct vote for the eventual insecurity of the United States.
This is not a Republican/Democrat issue per se, there are several Democratic incumbents who have been guilty of prolonging the problem. However, if you have a choice between a conservative Democrat and a much more conservative Republican on the environment and on the military, this is always a difficult choice. Seek advice of external groups that monitor the voting records of candidates, and that document fundraising sources. For instance, a quick look at the backers will often reveal a candidate who is supported by oil companies, Wal-mart, etc., and give you a better picture of their real policies than what they say are their real policies.
Be smart this fall - help reinvigorate the U.S.'s lost moral and economic imperative and improve the world order as a result.
