I'll be quite honest: I've soured on the idea of writing endorsements in general. I'm quite clearly not a moderate--I skew to the right. So any endorsement I write will inevitably be colored by that fact. But I'll do it anyway.
--------------------------------
Five years ago, if you had told me that a liberal State Senator with the middle name "Hussein" was going to be on the cusp of the presidency, I would have said that you were insane. Barack Obama's five-year rise from obscurity to the verge of the highest office in the land is a wonderfully American story, and it is one that should be repeated. It is among the most implausible--indeed, Abraham Lincoln's response to Stephen Douglas at Peoria had brought him some publicity as early as 1854, and Lincoln got in at the ground floor of a brand new party. Obama ascended to the top of an entrenched party with unbelievable speed.
Barack Obama, of course, represents an historic opportunity for America. Obama's election would be irrefutible proof that the US is far less racist than its reputation. As Andrew Sullivan has written, there is an inevitable surge in American "soft power" by electing a dark-skinned man named "Barack Obama" in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where America is viewed as evil. His election could empower millions of disillusioned African-Americans who see that they too could be successful in a country where the odds often appeared dramatically stacked against them. If Barack Obama can be elected president, America is really a land of hopes and dreams.
All of these things would be negated by a McCain victory. Commentators would write with feigned apoplexy about American racism preventing Obama from his ascension to the highest office. Abroad, Americans would be perceived as irreparably racist in refusing to elect a black man who represents a significant change during what are clearly tough times. Disillusioned African-Americans, perhaps having invested a lot of stock in an Obama election, will wake up even more disillusioned about the promise of America.
Together, this is what I would call the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election. On its own, it represents a compelling reason to vote for Mr Obama--in this respect, the world is a better place on November 5 if Obama wins, and a far worse place if he loses.
Any vote I could cast for Barack Obama would be based on this narrative. It's as if circumstances are pointing a gun at my head: even though you disagree with the man, you should vote for him anyway, because the end result is better for the country.
I can't in good conscience cast a vote for that reason, though I won't fault anyone if they do. At the end of the day, no matter how hard the media tries to paint him as a centrist, Barack Obama is a hard-left liberal. He is hostile to trade and wealth, and he believes that government is the solution to just about any problem you can concoct. I disagree with those positions.
Barack Obama is torn, of course, between what he must know to be true--that international trade is critical to economic growth--and the xenophobic pro-labor elements in his party that fear international trade and find scapegoats for job loss.
Obama is not an anti-trader like John Edwards (the worst kind of scum in the Democratic Party). He is, however, an opponent of free trade. A unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA at this time seems pretty silly to me.
Why does trade matter? Well, for me, as someone who finds the Republican social conservative agenda to be a bit abhorrent at times, it's refreshing to find a Democrat who ardently defends trade. Bill Richardson impressed me for this reason (but sadly for few other reasons). As a conservative free-trader, if the Democrat doesn't support free trade, it's awfully hard for me to pull the lever for him/her. And Barack Obama is simply more opposed to free trade than I would have hoped.
Obama is also hostile to wealth in general. McCain was not the most qualified candidate to bring this to light--because he is equally hostile to wealth (compare their post-financial meltdown speeches and McCain's likening of Wall Street to a "casino"). It took the musings of the great philosopher-craftsman Joe the Plumber to bring in a philosophical defense of lower taxes:
This is the first moral defense of a flat tax I have seen on the national political stage since Steve Forbes. Joe the Plumber, of course, is a conservative. He probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. But by bringing this into the discourse, Mr. Wurzelbacher has done a service to the campaign.
These economic issues may seem petty, particularly in comparison to the sheer volume of "symbolic power" that an Obama election would represent. But there's much more at stake this time. Odds are strongly in favor of the Democrats picking up seats in House races, perhaps driving the majority to a 90-100 seat difference. There is a mathematical chance that the Democrats also get 60 votes in the Senate--essentially, a filibuster-proof majority. As much as Obama claims to want to work across the aisle, can he really stop the rush of programs that would inevitably come from an anti-market, anti-wealth, pro-labor party? Would Obama veto any excessive spending in that environment? A reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine?" The oxymoronically-named "Employee Free Choice Act?" Hostile new restrictions to trade? It's inconceivable.
But most frightening is the sheer amount of power that the Bush Administration has assumed in this financial crisis. The best president to have at this time would be Calvin Coolidge--one who believed that the powers of the presidency were limited. Neither McCain nor Obama is anything like Coolidge. McCain's beau ideal of a statesman is TR, who presided over a massive expansion of the powers of the presidency. Obama's appears to be FDR. But Obama would be working with a liberal Congress. McCain would at least be working against it.
McCain's hostility to wealth aside, there's plenty to recommend him. He has a legitimate record of working across party lines, making him neatly qualified to manage divided government. He is not an aggressive social conservative, and he seems to be a federalist on most social issues. He has pushed for lower taxes in this campaign, and he prefers to reform government rather than to expand it--I like his "hatchet" approach of a necessary spending freeze. He also strongly opposes torture, as a victim of it, a welcome change from recent Republican talking points.
McCain's health care policy also makes intrinsic sense--people should not be forced (economically) into an employer-provided health care system. The details would be hashed out in the Congress, I'm sure, but the basic principle of liberating health insurance from a World War II-era regime of employer-based coverage is a sound one. It will certainly help to lower costs, which is the fundamental problem with the current system.
On foreign policy, Obama would bring a welcome realism to the fold, while McCain is still an idealistic Wilsonian. But on Iraq, McCain was right--the surge worked. And while silent evidence problems abound in just about all analysis of the war, McCain was advocating more ground troops long before the Bush Administration came around to that view. If McCain supports war more than most political figures do, at least we know that McCain will run a war better than the Bush Administration. Obama, on the other hand, showed a strong reluctance to adjust his anti-Iraq War dogma to reflect new realities. This is worrisome. Sure, it's a political campaign, but facts and events should drive narratives.
In another year, I might be swayed by the "symbolic" power, enough even to vote for him (it would have required a sizable Republican Congressional majority). But with so much at stake, and with a liberal Congress chomping at the bit to pass its agenda, we need divided government now. With that, this conservative is meekly endorsing John McCain for president. If you, however, believe in the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election strongly enough, at least vote Republican in your Senate race of choice. (For me, that's Dick Zimmer over Frank Lautenberg. Zimmer is a pro-choice, moderate Republican, and Lautenberg is 135 years old and one of the more liberal Dems in the Senate.) To preserve any semblance of America's rugged individualism, we need to preserve that filibuster.
--------------------------------
Five years ago, if you had told me that a liberal State Senator with the middle name "Hussein" was going to be on the cusp of the presidency, I would have said that you were insane. Barack Obama's five-year rise from obscurity to the verge of the highest office in the land is a wonderfully American story, and it is one that should be repeated. It is among the most implausible--indeed, Abraham Lincoln's response to Stephen Douglas at Peoria had brought him some publicity as early as 1854, and Lincoln got in at the ground floor of a brand new party. Obama ascended to the top of an entrenched party with unbelievable speed.
Barack Obama, of course, represents an historic opportunity for America. Obama's election would be irrefutible proof that the US is far less racist than its reputation. As Andrew Sullivan has written, there is an inevitable surge in American "soft power" by electing a dark-skinned man named "Barack Obama" in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where America is viewed as evil. His election could empower millions of disillusioned African-Americans who see that they too could be successful in a country where the odds often appeared dramatically stacked against them. If Barack Obama can be elected president, America is really a land of hopes and dreams.
All of these things would be negated by a McCain victory. Commentators would write with feigned apoplexy about American racism preventing Obama from his ascension to the highest office. Abroad, Americans would be perceived as irreparably racist in refusing to elect a black man who represents a significant change during what are clearly tough times. Disillusioned African-Americans, perhaps having invested a lot of stock in an Obama election, will wake up even more disillusioned about the promise of America.
Together, this is what I would call the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election. On its own, it represents a compelling reason to vote for Mr Obama--in this respect, the world is a better place on November 5 if Obama wins, and a far worse place if he loses.
Any vote I could cast for Barack Obama would be based on this narrative. It's as if circumstances are pointing a gun at my head: even though you disagree with the man, you should vote for him anyway, because the end result is better for the country.
I can't in good conscience cast a vote for that reason, though I won't fault anyone if they do. At the end of the day, no matter how hard the media tries to paint him as a centrist, Barack Obama is a hard-left liberal. He is hostile to trade and wealth, and he believes that government is the solution to just about any problem you can concoct. I disagree with those positions.
Barack Obama is torn, of course, between what he must know to be true--that international trade is critical to economic growth--and the xenophobic pro-labor elements in his party that fear international trade and find scapegoats for job loss.
Obama is not an anti-trader like John Edwards (the worst kind of scum in the Democratic Party). He is, however, an opponent of free trade. A unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA at this time seems pretty silly to me.
Why does trade matter? Well, for me, as someone who finds the Republican social conservative agenda to be a bit abhorrent at times, it's refreshing to find a Democrat who ardently defends trade. Bill Richardson impressed me for this reason (but sadly for few other reasons). As a conservative free-trader, if the Democrat doesn't support free trade, it's awfully hard for me to pull the lever for him/her. And Barack Obama is simply more opposed to free trade than I would have hoped.
Obama is also hostile to wealth in general. McCain was not the most qualified candidate to bring this to light--because he is equally hostile to wealth (compare their post-financial meltdown speeches and McCain's likening of Wall Street to a "casino"). It took the musings of the great philosopher-craftsman Joe the Plumber to bring in a philosophical defense of lower taxes:
You know, me or -- you know, Bill Gates, I don't care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it's not right for someone to decide you made too much -- that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back.
This is the first moral defense of a flat tax I have seen on the national political stage since Steve Forbes. Joe the Plumber, of course, is a conservative. He probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. But by bringing this into the discourse, Mr. Wurzelbacher has done a service to the campaign.
These economic issues may seem petty, particularly in comparison to the sheer volume of "symbolic power" that an Obama election would represent. But there's much more at stake this time. Odds are strongly in favor of the Democrats picking up seats in House races, perhaps driving the majority to a 90-100 seat difference. There is a mathematical chance that the Democrats also get 60 votes in the Senate--essentially, a filibuster-proof majority. As much as Obama claims to want to work across the aisle, can he really stop the rush of programs that would inevitably come from an anti-market, anti-wealth, pro-labor party? Would Obama veto any excessive spending in that environment? A reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine?" The oxymoronically-named "Employee Free Choice Act?" Hostile new restrictions to trade? It's inconceivable.
But most frightening is the sheer amount of power that the Bush Administration has assumed in this financial crisis. The best president to have at this time would be Calvin Coolidge--one who believed that the powers of the presidency were limited. Neither McCain nor Obama is anything like Coolidge. McCain's beau ideal of a statesman is TR, who presided over a massive expansion of the powers of the presidency. Obama's appears to be FDR. But Obama would be working with a liberal Congress. McCain would at least be working against it.
McCain's hostility to wealth aside, there's plenty to recommend him. He has a legitimate record of working across party lines, making him neatly qualified to manage divided government. He is not an aggressive social conservative, and he seems to be a federalist on most social issues. He has pushed for lower taxes in this campaign, and he prefers to reform government rather than to expand it--I like his "hatchet" approach of a necessary spending freeze. He also strongly opposes torture, as a victim of it, a welcome change from recent Republican talking points.
McCain's health care policy also makes intrinsic sense--people should not be forced (economically) into an employer-provided health care system. The details would be hashed out in the Congress, I'm sure, but the basic principle of liberating health insurance from a World War II-era regime of employer-based coverage is a sound one. It will certainly help to lower costs, which is the fundamental problem with the current system.
On foreign policy, Obama would bring a welcome realism to the fold, while McCain is still an idealistic Wilsonian. But on Iraq, McCain was right--the surge worked. And while silent evidence problems abound in just about all analysis of the war, McCain was advocating more ground troops long before the Bush Administration came around to that view. If McCain supports war more than most political figures do, at least we know that McCain will run a war better than the Bush Administration. Obama, on the other hand, showed a strong reluctance to adjust his anti-Iraq War dogma to reflect new realities. This is worrisome. Sure, it's a political campaign, but facts and events should drive narratives.
In another year, I might be swayed by the "symbolic" power, enough even to vote for him (it would have required a sizable Republican Congressional majority). But with so much at stake, and with a liberal Congress chomping at the bit to pass its agenda, we need divided government now. With that, this conservative is meekly endorsing John McCain for president. If you, however, believe in the "symbolic significance" of an Obama election strongly enough, at least vote Republican in your Senate race of choice. (For me, that's Dick Zimmer over Frank Lautenberg. Zimmer is a pro-choice, moderate Republican, and Lautenberg is 135 years old and one of the more liberal Dems in the Senate.) To preserve any semblance of America's rugged individualism, we need to preserve that filibuster.
No comments:
Post a Comment