The most important presidential election ever?

Is this the most important presidential election ever? No, that's ridiculous. But it is the most important election in a generation, probably since the election of Kennedy and maybe since Roosevelt beat Hoover in 1932.... and maybe even before.

Why? Because we are in a time of tumultuous change. We are now in a global economy like none ever experienced. The world has shrunk, thanks mostly to the Internet, but also because of cheap air travel, the telephone, and Federal Express. You can sell your Fiestaware dishes to someone in Japan in real time, like you're both sitting at your kitchen table looking at the dish set, and then you can ship it express and your new Japanese friend can eat sushi on Fiestaware three or four days after you ate a hot dog on it.

There's much more. You can type a phrase into Google and get hundreds of thousands of documents and Web sites. You can subscribe to a daily prayer or scripture reading, delivered to you without ever cracking an actual Bible. A hostage is beheaded in Iraq and you can see the video within minutes. The list seems to have no end... nor any rhyme or reason.

These specific uses of the Internet are insignificant. What is truly significant is that the instantaeous nature of the Internet, combined with the utter lack of discrimination about its users (i.e. everyone is colorless, sexless, ageless), has completely changed the way many of us--particularly the young--think about the world. In this world there are few absolutes, precious little stability, instant gratification, almost no privacy. It's called postmodernism.

Anything is possible today, isn't it? Really, think about it. To launch a business all you need is an idea, a computer and an "Internet for Dummies" book. People haven't felt this kind of sense of possibility and opportunity for a long time. Maybe since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Maybe since the apex of the move westward. (Opportunity for some, genocide for others.)

Compare that with the world 20 years ago during the Reagan administration. It was marked by stability, an absolute identity of the good guys and the bad guys, traditional values and systems. It was a mechanical world in which every thing and every one had a place, just like a skeleton or the internal combustion engine.

George W. Bush still lives in that world. That's why we invaded Iraq. Bad guys need to be brought to justice. We're right and Saddam is wrong. It's that simple. He forgets that terrorists today are not operating under the same set of rules we are. The Geneva Convention? Forget about it! Heck, we sodomize our prisoners, the terrorists behead there's. In the Arab world, there isn't much different. (Most Arab Muslims would probably prefer to have their heads cut off rather than live with the shame of being sodomized.) Just because we brought democracy on a khaki platter doesn't mean we're the good guys. It's a new world, W.

Another example... cut taxes to the rich to increase investment to increase jobs to decrease poverty. That's an argument with some merit in an industrial economy. But what about an economy that's based on information industries that are hiring Indians and Pakistanis a quarter of what they paid their former U.S. employees? This is now a service / retail / credit card economy. Cutting taxes to the rich means they can eat out and travel more and build bigger houses increasing the need for waiters, lawn cutters, cheap construction labor, and chamber maids. There are few heavy industries--the kind with good paying union jobs--to invest in anymore. Tax cuts just make the rich richer. In this economy a rising tide doesn't float all boats... just the yachts of the wealthy.

Like I said, it's a new world. The question is this: which of the two candidates do I trust to shape American policy in this new world? I honestly don't know if Kerry is the guy to do it, but he's shown that he adjusts to situations and that's what we need right now. Here's a guy who went to Vietnam, saw what was going on there, and came back a changed man. He then had the courage to go before a congressional panel and tell them that the war was wrong. That, my friends, is bravery.

W, on the other hand, has a perception of the present that is completely based in the past. He wants to mold the world to the will of the U.S. This is pure, unadulterated folly. Great nations and empires (and we are an empire built on economic might) fall when they deify themselves, thinking they are the determiners of the future. In George's mind, our military might, which is already fading in case no one has noticed, will be able to crush terrorism.

Anyway, I ramble. But you get the point. The world is changing rapidly. Bush is old school. When old and new cultures collide, there is always conflict. The culture war won't just be in the Middle East, it will be global. And that includes right here in the U.S. Kerry has the personality and skills to handle change. Bush does not.

Footnote: My pick for the most important ever: the election of Abraham Lincoln. If Lincoln had lost, the ripple effects could have been tremendous. The greatest impact would have been the perpetuation of a nation that was really two nations... an agrarian South and an industrial North. Who knows? Maybe slavery would have been abolished peacefully. But I think it's more likely that the South would have grown in power and stature until the North could no longer force its will upon it. Then the South could have seceded without a fight, forming a nation with a system of racism and subordination similar to apartheid.

But who knows?