Tuesday, the day of the U.S. presidential election, I sat in English class discussing politics. At first, I expected to hear the same old complaint that George W. Bush lacks eloquence and intelligence. However, a classmate of mine suddenly made a statement which not only gained my attention, but thoroughly frustrated me: he voted for Bush solely because he believes Bush is the better leader for times of war.

If, as a reader, you are confused at this point, let me explain my political stance. I supported Kerry, and would have voted for him if I could have. I have rather liberal values, and consequently stand by the donkey when it comes to moral issues. I reject the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy and the trickle down theory. However, I am not your typical Bush-bashing liberal. I believe that Bush actually could be an acceptable president were it not for the environment in which he holds office.

The state of the U.S. government, the nation, and the world in general is what makes me worry about Bush as a president. To be specific, the Republican majority in the Senate, the age and health of the Supreme Court justices, the prominent Christian bias in the U.S., and sentiment towards Mr. Bush overseas led me to believe that voting for Bush was the wrong choice.

My primary concern lies in the U.S. judicial system. The prospect of Bush appointing up to four Supreme Court justices in the next four years perturbs me. Given his opposition to gay marriage, stem-cell research, and his pro-life stance, any judges appointed would likely be conservative, and would push the already conservative balance of the court (5-4) to the extreme. Seeing the Republican majority in the Senate, there would be little of a check to Bush’s selections for the Supreme Court. Should federal policy regarding same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research be decided by a predominantly conservative set of justices, states’ rights to choose regarding the current ethical issues will most likely be curtailed. Ultimately, such will increase the "uncivil war" (in the words of Time magazine) in the U.S. today and could even engender some sort of succession. A far-fetched point? Probably, but when the number of hits that the Canadian immigration website receives from U.S. citizens increases six-fold (there was an increase from 20,000 hits to 115,016 after Bush’s re-election, according to Reuters), there is reason to worry.

In addition, this election has made me question to what extent there really is separation of church and state in the U.S. While I recognize that one’s religion is undoubtedly going to affect his or her values and morals, it frustrates me that religion is currently so apparent in politics. In 2000, the Graduate School of the City University of New York conducted a nation wide survey which found that 76.5% of religious Americans were Christian. When you have a president who acts on religious beliefs (according to Bush with regards to Iraq in debate two) and is of the same religion as the majority of religious Americans, I believe there is slightly too much religious involvement in government. Look at the U.S. from an Arab’s perspective. The president claims that he turned to his spiritual father when deciding to attack Iraq. Isn’t that what Islamic fundamentalists do when engaging in jihads? However, the enemy is wrong, according to the president in an interview with ABC. "I think they pray to a false God, otherwise they wouldn’t be killing … like they have been," Bush said. I think the bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t be happy.

Finally, I think that given the need for strong and astute foreign policy, Bush is the wrong man for the job. I won’t go into all of the things Bush has not achieved as far as international relations go, a la Kerry. However, what his administration has done is enough to make my point. With Poland as an exception, U.S. relations with many allies have been harmed during Bush’s first term. Japan is hesitant about continued involvement in Iraq due to Shousei Kouda’s murder. Spain pulled out, and even a substantial number of the British are against the war, despite Britain being the U.S.’s primary ally. Last, but certainly not least, there is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s "old Europe" invective. While this might not have been the catalyst for French antipathy towards the Bush administration, it certainly did not help matters. Having lived in France for six years, I have connections who keep me informed of the general French sentiment regarding the U.S. In the words of a peer living just outside of Paris, "people around here are just dealing with it [the election] and are hoping that the Bush administration limits its damage in the next four years."

Ultimately, I believe that Bush has the charisma and conviction to be an effective leader. That said, I do not think he is suitable for dealing with today’s problems. Seeing the significant ethical issues that modern technology has generated, the U.S.’s need for harmonious and productive foreign relations, and global religious tension which has arisen, I believe that Bush is not the man for the Oval Office right now. It is for those reasons that I am frustrated when people say they voted for Bush because he is the better leader for the War in Iraq. While the war is important, there are clearly many other things at stake.