What's at Stake?
I think I've started this entry six times now. I wanted it to be inspiring, I wanted it to be well-considered... I even hoped it might be persuasive. In the end, I've settled for thorough. Sorry.
I've always thought of myself as an "issues" voter. It makes a certain visceral sense, after all--vote for the guy whose policies are most in line with your own, and you're more likely to see your pet policies implemented, right? But what do you do when no viable candidate represents you on a majority of the issues?
(Warning: This is a long one.)
Chapter One: McCain
Let's take Senator McCain, for example, since I am (after all) a white, male Republican. He says that the Republicans have forgotten how to control spending. Well, I definitely agree with that!
On the other hand, he is a strong proponent of "filtered" Internet access in public places like schools and libraries. Uh-oh! I have to deal with BYU's Internet filter (they block YouTube! YouTube is one of the best places to get independent news reports!) and it impedes my ability to conduct research about once a month, but there's no functional or expeditious way to appeal a block. While it's really thoughtful of Uncle-Nanny Sam to protect me and mine from the psyche-warping dangers of unshielded exposure to the human breast, "benevolent" filtering inevitably devolves into a political statement. Should children have access to sites discussing uncomfortable contemporary topics like abortion and torture? What about religious sites? Should they have to brave the condescending looks of librarians every time they come to a screen that says, "Your parents trust you to be at the library unsupervised, but that's only because they know the government is doing an excellent job of raising you for them. Check with a librarian if you really want to bypass the filter and visit the website of this homophobic, hate-mongering religious group." The law of unintended consequences is best formulated by this question: "How would my ideological opponents use this law against me?" McCain bleats, "think of the children," I say, "think of the fit you would throw if public Internet access were limited to what your opponents think is appropriate for children."
Senator McCain also opposes torture and recognizes that waterboarding is wrong. Bravo.
On the other hand, he's repeatedly endorsed the inaptly-named PATRIOT act, eroding civil liberties. I think it was Bush who was stupid enough to claim that Muslim terrorists attack us because they "hate our freedom." Well, in that sense I guess the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act helps defend our country by jettisoning those freedoms one-by-one. Although the safety of Americans is important insofar as it enables our freedom, the freedom of Americans as such hasn't really been threatened by an outside enemy since Pearl Harbor, and even in World War II the United States didn't have much to worry about in terms of invasion. The only credible and effective threat to our freedoms in the past century has been from within--either reactionary conservatism or nanny-state liberalism.
Senator McCain believes that gay marriage is a state issue. I have my doubts as to whether marriage should be a government issue at all, but McCain scores some points for being a good federalist here.
But he also thinks that violent media causes school shooting. That's right, McCain gored my sacred cow (so to speak) and suggested that movies and video games cause criminal behavior. Rubbish and poppycock, Senator. One human being kills another because the killer is hungry, or addicted to a controlled substance, or mentally unstable, or a religious zealot, or a political zealot, or racist, or scared, or ordered to do so by the supreme executive of their country, or any of a million causal reasons any schoolchild could name. One does not kill another because they played a video game or watched a movie. Were that the case, violent crime among youth would be on the rise. It isn't.
Chapter Two: Obama
Right, well, enough about McCain, you get the point. Let's contrast this with Obama, who happens to be my personal favorite democrat. (I will never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton.)
Senator Obama wants to increase funding for basic research and expand broadband access. He favors Net Neutrality (a very important part of preserving the Internet as a democratic medium), transparency in government (facilitated by Internet technology), and in short he understands technology. Clinton and McCain do not. I believe that technology is the key to human advancement, and I do not want frightened rabbits like Clinton and McCain to strangle the Information Age in its infancy.
On the other hand, he voted against notifying parents when their teenagers get out-of-state abortions. Now, I'm a huge advocate for the independent rights of children, especially teenagers, but this is really inconsistent. Obama opposes lowering the drinking age to 18. Teenagers are regularly prosecuted under "child pornography" laws for taking racy pictures of each other. Yet here's Obama talking about recognizing a teenager's independence by letting her get an abortion without parental consent. One step at a time! The choice to get an abortion carries at least as much gravity as the choice to drink heavily and pose lasciviously and get pregnant in the first place. If we're going to condescend to individuals under an arbitrary age, let's at least give their parents a right of first refusal.
Senator Obama also wants to close tax loopholes for corporations relocating abroad. I'm not sure why this wasn't taken care of years ago. Oh wait, yes I am! It's because of the corporate world's "No Congressman Left Behind" program, assuring that every congressman gets enough bribes perks campaign funding to keep their seat in D.C. At any rate, good call. You do business in America, you pay taxes in America. It's only fair.
On the other hand, where's my flat tax!? Seriously, guys, whatever happened to comprehensive tax reform? It was the grand promise of the 1990's. Maybe a national sales tax, or a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax... I don't know but the present system just doesn't make a ton of sense. It seems like the biggest pinch is in the mid- to upper-mid income range. Why would you do that to the middle-class? The thing about percentages is that bigger percentages hurt less the more your initial number is. For example, if you make ten million dollars a year and you have to pay half of that to the government, you're still incredibly rich. But if you make a hundred thousand dollars a year, giving half of that to the government really takes the wind out of your sails! Tiered taxation makes a lot of sense, but at present we only tier it to benefit those who make below average money. Helping the poor is all well and good, but when someone earning $20,000 per year has about as much discretionary income as someone earning $40,000 per year, you've screwed something up.
Chapter Three: The Sober Leader or the Inspiring Visionary?
At any rate, this is an exhausting exercise and you get the point. You can't really be an issue voter if you have more than about three informed opinions. And besides, it turns out that the President has to make so many compromises in getting bills legislated that "the big polarizing issues"--gay marriage, abortion, health care, et cetera--don't actually get addressed that often once the elections are through and everyone can get back to the business of lining each other's pockets. So maybe, despite the powerful rhetoric of "issue voting," the issues don't actually matter that much.
Thus my dilemma. America's next president is going to be in a position to either correct Bush's egregious mistakes, or compound them. Bush did not limit his mistakes; both foreign and domestic policy have been a train-wreck under Bush's nightmare administration. Bush's two biggest mistakes--the PATRIOT act and Iraq--are likely to be compounded by McCain (with more PATRIOT acts and, likely, Iran). So if I'm strictly interested in a President that will drag America out of the hole Bush has been digging, then Obama is the clear choice. But then, Obama will do nothing to advance federalism, and whatever money he saves by not starting new wars will doubtless be spent on domestic programs. Which is not all bad, but I'd much rather see the federal government downsized a bit.
On the other hand (lots of those today), Obama is likely to appoint intellectual judges, which would be a refreshing change from Bush's anti-intellectualism. (With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, when an uppity 2L at a top-40 law school can confuse you with a simple question about legal philosophy, you are not an academic--which may well be a compliment of sorts, but I think our judiciary needs less gut-level responses from ideologues and more theory-laden responses from philosophers.)
And then there's that je ne sais quoi, that tertium quid, that extra unquantifiable thing. All issues aside, even theoretical ones, McCain is a leader--and Obama, a visionary. Whatever their respective positions, McCain is not destined for greatness, and Obama really is. I think McCain would be an adequate defender of the status quo, but Obama is ready for an adventure. He's not afraid of failure, as long as we can learn something in the process. He's inspirational, charismatic, infectiously optimistic. McCain is proud of what America is; Obama, proud of what America has the potential to become. Even if he's wrong, no one can say he isn't ready to try, to be enthusiastically wrong.
And, at heart, isn't that the true difference between a conservative and a liberal? The conservative fears tomorrow's unknowns while the liberal embraces its possibilities. Sometimes the liberal finds himself hugging a cactus, but the conservative is convinced that cactus will bring about the downfall of Western civilization. I think, at the dawn of this bright new Information Age, the capacity to embrace change, to harness change, is more important than the capacity to resist it.
It may even be that, as President, Obama would do more good for this country simply by being an inspirational and enthusiastic figurehead than he or anyone else could ever accomplish through actual policymaking. So, my Democratic friends and colleagues with state primaries yet to come, pick Obama. This white, male, Christian Republican is ready to vote for him, issues be darned.
But I will not vote for Hillary.
UPDATE: Looks like the Financial Times agrees with me.
Wisdom
"Let's dance for a while; heaven can wait..."
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Media Consumption
What I'm Reading
What I'm Playing
- Mass Effect: Yeah, the one that caused all the pointless hysteria.
Recently Watched
- August Rush: Pure fantasy, in the best possible sense.
Anxiously Anticipating
- ?? ??? ????: Avatar: The Last Airbender Season 3 Conclusion
Comments
:)
Thorough, indeed! I dunno exactly how *I* feel about things, but it's nice to know that while my relatives all have very strong opinions, they have opinions with very strong reasoning behind them! :) Most of my friends will tell you that I really prefer not to talk politics, but I have been curious about different stands of the candidates and have dabbled in looking up tidbits here and there. As a registered republican, I hadn't worried about looking up much on the democrats yet. I figured they would narrow things down for election time and then I'd take a look, considering I wasn't satisfied with any one republican candidate.
Do you think that who these candidates choose for their running mate would make a difference in your support? I suppose not, considering there's no one that would "change" or even shrink the issues you have concerning these candidates.
Also, what do you think about what I've heard called the "inevitable" assassination attempt on a black president or a woman president? I'm sure that there are crazy people all over that would just love to end some president's term early, and obviously it gets tried now and again, but do you think that having a woman or an African American in the oval office would raise assassination attempts above what the Secret Service may consider "the norm"? Though I disagree with the reasoning, I do know people that won't vote for Clinton or Obama because they don't want to set either person up to die. I've also heard people readily desire to put Hillary up there for the same reason... ;)
On a mostly unrelated topic: How many red flags do you think I threw up to "Big brother" by asking you this? :)
Regarding Assassination
You pretty much answered your own question regarding running-mates. I suppose if Obama tapped Hillary (not likely), I would be wary; conversely, even if Hillary taps Obama, I still won't vote for her.
As to assassination, I cannot fathom a more globally visible and strongly reviled office than that of the President of the United States of America. Consequently, I doubt there is a more carefully guarded human being on the planet. The kind of crazies who would try to kill a president for being black or for being female are a good deal less sophisticated than the kind of people who want to kill the president for genuine sociopolitical reasons. Which is a very complex way of suggesting that the KKK is a good deal less likely to successfully assassinate a black president than Al Qaeda is to successfully assassinate any president--an unlikely event in itself.
Anyone who refuses to vote for Obama because "he's more likely to get assassinated" isn't thinking hard enough. From a strictly historical perspective, it is our best presidents who tend to attract assassination attempts (or at least the attempts of which we are aware). Maybe that's a retrospective gloss, but I think it probably goes deeper. The best presidents are those who bring about the most positive change, and change tends to unhinge the kooks. So even assuming that protecting Obama would be a bigger job than protecting Bush, it may only be more difficult in proportion to how much better a president Obama would be.
Or maybe that's just tortured logic attempting to address what is kind of a silly point in the first place, but hopefully it makes some sense. d^_^b
I know it was a rather
I know it was a rather irrelevant point to begin with, but it comes up so often - either seriously or as a joke - in the circles I tend to hear, I couldn't help but ask howhat you thought. I think I'm going to bring up the whole KKK vs Al Qaeda thing next time. Thanks. :)
On Being an Issues Voter
First, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly about the limitations on being an issues voter. The more things you feel strongly about, the less say you have in them (unless, of course, you set yourself up to be one of the candidates.) That doesn't mean, however, that you can't be an "issues voter," merely that you must pick your battles, like anything else in life.
These are the three things I vote on:
1) National Defense
2) Fiscal Conservatism
3) Social Libertarianism
First, defense. Defense is, more than any other category of responsibility, the one thing the government has to do, and do well. I won't try to convert you, but I will say that in my (not inconsiderable) personal experience, I think Obama is woefully unequipped to be the Commander-in-Chief. He's thrown around a lot of isolationist rhetoric, and isolationism is the course of action that has historically preceded our largest, bloodiest conflicts. I fail to see how pulling out of pretty much everywhere is going to work any better this time.
Second, fiscal issues. We seem to be generally in alignment about this one, but in this contest, it's pretty much a non-starter, since none of the candidates do more than pose as fiscal conservatives. McCain's fiscal cred comes largely from being the "other senator from Arizona," and talking a lot of talk while Kyl actually gets down in the trenches and does the work. I'd be interested to see something concrete from Obama about tax reform, but I remain skeptical of any "visionary" on this topic - visionaries are men with lots of ideas, and ideas cost money. I recently remember seeing Thomas Jefferson quoted as saying, "The government that is capable of providing everything you want, is that most capable of taking everything you have."
Finally, social stuff. I got a little excited when you talked about thinking of what your opponents would do with power you seek for yourself, as that is the prism through which I view social issues. I am emphatically not concerned with trying to force someone else to live a righteous life - God does not give us agency that we might exercise it to deprive others of it. As I recall, someone else once had the idea of making everyone be good boys and girls, and then we'd all get to heaven! ~_^. On the other hand, I *am* concerned with someone else trying to force me and mine to live *unrighteously*. The more power we give the government to regulate social issues, the more power people who don't like my beliefs may eventually have to harass me. It's of worth to point out that this is possibly the single most hated political stance I've ever had. Try explaining to your girlfriend's mother that you don't support the FMA or a Right-to-Life Amendment, but you know homosexuality to be immoral and abortion to be a sin. (Or explaining to your brother that your opposition to the FMA still doesn't mean you think it's a good thing that he's gay, for that matter.)
----
Of course, all that begs the question, "then who are you voting for, Mr. Issues Voter?" Honestly, I don't know. All my "acceptable" candidates are gone. All I know for certain is if it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I'm cheering for McCain 'till my throat is hoarse. I can only guess at Clinton's future as CinC, but I already know what she'd do with the budget, and she's exactly who I fear coming to power when I talk about social issues. Obama vs. McCain? I dunno. I'd like to see a little more substance from Obama; the problem with a heretofore unknown one-term senator as a candidate is that he can talk all he wants, and he doesn't have much of a record to prove or disprove his promises.
Good Points
In fact, good points all around. I would only clarify that while I agree that the Commander-in-Chief position is an incredibly important one, it is also historically the single most abused presidential power. I've actually taken to telling people, "Vote Obama. Because an overcorrection is a kind of correction."
I believe that McCain would continue to abuse the presidential role of Commander-in-Chief, but I cannot argue with you about Obama on that point. So I guess I'm saying that, if I can't get the pendulum to stop in the right place, I can still try to swing it in the right direction...
Finally, I know what you mean about hated political stances on social libertarianism. I actually saw a really interesting piece on YouTube where a reporter asked pro-life protesters (1) whether abortion should be illegal (to which they all responded in the affirmative), and (2) assuming abortion was outlawed, what the penalty should be for getting an abortion. That really stymied them. Most of them said "no penalty" and when reminded that a "crime" with no penalty is effectively a legal activity, they didn't know what else to say. A handful did respond with "jail time" but pressed further they usually appealed to the legislature's discretion.
That one can be passionately committed to the idea that certain things are wrong, but equally committed to the idea that some of those things should not be addressed with governmental force, is a difficult concept for many, many people.
I really enjoyed your article
Kenny, that was an impressive overview of the election.
In the case of a McCain vs. Hillary, will you vote for McCain or a pro-liberty smaller party.
I will likely vote third party in either case.
Obama's Economic Plan
Obama's campaign posted a 6-page Economic Plan document at their site. For those without patience, a short summary:
-Lots of refundable tax credits for the working poor/middle class.
-First $4,000 of any American's higher education paid for by the government in the form of another refundable tax credit.
-Overhaul the mortgage and credit card markets with heavy legislation.
-Eliminate taxes on senior citizens making less than $50k, and lots of other legislation making it easier to retire.
-Universal health care.
-Several fair trade initiatives.
-Heavy investment in cutting-edge research and manufacturing.
-Heavy investment in renewable energy.
With the notable exceptions of a blanket universal health care system and several of the fair trade initiatives, I think they're all nice ideas. Sadly, the "economic" part of the plan seems to be about reducing federal revenue while increasing federal spending. That having been said, I think there are 3 likely parts to his economic plan he must have accidentally left out.
1) Raise taxes on the very wealthy. I'm not especially opposed to this, however historically it's only minimally effective, since the very wealthy can afford to hire the best accountants to find a way to avoid 90% of any new tax.
2) Raise corporate taxes. This is almost certainly going to be Obama's target revenue source for all these programs, and that's a shame. The U.S. already has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the modern world, and that's *after* they were heavily cut during the first couple years under Bush. We're likely to see an even greater exodus of corporate presence from the U.S., as businesses find it ever cheaper to operate out of anywhere else.
3) Just let the deficit grow and close our eyes really tight. I anticipate anything he doesn't cover with 2) will come from here. Again, not so much a good idea.
All that adds up to a very large mark against Obama in my book (not that I honestly expected a Democrat to talk sense on economics, but I could always hope.)
Interesting
Which one of those choices did Bush select to pay for Iraq? Ah yes--he chose to shovel that debt onto me and my children.
While I agree that Obama is no economist, McCain would be just as bad, except instead of helping the poor, he'd be helping the military-industrial complex. I'm all for lower taxes and a more sensible economic policy, but if the government is going to spend too much money, I guess I'd rather have them spending too much money domestically than too much money on wars of aggression.
What I wouldn't give for another Contract with America. Too bad that version of Republican Party has gone the way of all flesh.
Post new comment