Would you like a free pass? Part 2 - The Vote

If you read nothing else, please consider reading the links at the end.

I think a lot of people are taking a free pass in politics and a lot of other things these days. Applying careful analysis is really difficult. It requires thinking about the state the country is in and whose policies and demeanor would be more useful at this point in time. Unfortunately, screaming "McCain's a war monger!" or "Obama's a socialist!" does not analysis make. More unfortunate still is the fact that this is the approach most Americans appear to be taking: Slapping on a label that says "Democrat" or "Republican", having some canned phrases ready ("Government is bad", "Society is inequitable") and substitute that for thought. I'm not saying that having a general political philosophy is bad, but please note that it provides only a starting point. One's philosophy is not a proper argument in an of itself. Philosophies need have no basis in fact, but arguments must.

It is hard for me to imagine that conservatives or liberals are right all the time. Can it be that the same policies in economic prosperity are equally effective in economic crisis? In times of peace as effective as in times of war? On one issue as appropriate as on all others? This seems extremely unlikely.

For the last 50 years, liberals have been the party of bigger government and conservatives the party of bigger private enterprise. The government has had its share of huge policy successes (the personal computer, satellites, the interstate system, the FDIC, the U.S. Army, the internet) and preposterous failures (welfare, medicaid, social security). Private enterprise, too, has had its share of successes (the equities markets, the rise of China and India, modern medicine, cellular phones, the increasingly lower poverty rate) and has also been grossly irresponsible with its investors' money in many cases (the global banking system, many insurance companies, U.S. automakers). Neither the government nor the private sector have a monopoly on either idiocy or intelligence.

Is it possible that government is the right solution some of the time and private enterprise is the solution some (probably most) of the time? This is the central question in the Greenspan book: To what extent can policy be used to support a free market society? To limit poverty without hampering business? To maximize freedom movement for labor and capital? To promote equality while rewarding industry? This is a tricky question, which is why he characterizes the book as a "detective story".

I understand why most people find this to be unpleasantly vague territory. It is much easier to simply pick a party you agree with. However, as liberals and conservatives roughly balance out in this country, it is the people who are willing to take on this question that end up deciding elections.

And this is the central reason why Obama is winning, and winning big. The Republican party has abandoned the center, the people who take on the question. And this is why I'm voting for him. Not just voting for him. I have a sign on my lawn and gave him $100. I'm not comfortable being this invested in an election, and I hope I'll never be again, but I'd be irresponsible not to get involved with this one.

The arguments:

Repudating the Republican Party

The first reason I'm voting Obama is not because of Obama. It's because, by every possible measurable criteria, the Bush presidency has been a disaster. The U.S. is less popular than it has ever been globally. We've wasted a trillion dollars on a war we didn't have to fight. An easy-money federal reserve has led us into the worst economic crisis since the great depression. We started out this presidency with a budget surplus and have finished with the largest deficit in history. Our energy policy is to have no energy policy. Social security has not been fixed. Health care has not been fixed. There is no peace between Palestine and Israel. Everything this administration could screw up, it has. It has even screwed up some things it couldn't screw up.

I remember when I was very comfortable with the Republican party. Fiscal responsibility, constitutional constructionism, minimal government interference both domestically and internationally. What has happened to those ideals? As far as I can tell they have been replaced by opposing gay marriage, supporting gun rights, and taking over countries you don't agree with at huge national expense. Two of those things are laughably irrelevant in the face of current events and one is incredibly dangerous. I want the intelligent Republicans back. Where is Buckley when you need him?

McCain keeps saying he's different from Bush. I don't see it. He's itching to fight a war with Iran. He's drilling for oil. He is for regulation of the derivatives markets, but only as it has become blindingly obvious. Where is the difference? If he is so different, why are republicans voting for him?

The Issues

Energy policy is the defining issue of my generation and Obama wins for sure. Obama's foreign policy is a significant departure from what's going on now, which is again what is required. Obama, I'm pretty sure, won't start another war. McCain very well might. This, I think, outweighs the fact that McCain is more of a spendthrift. These are all gone over in more detail in my last post.

Arguments Supporting McCain Have Little Merit

The arguments for supporting McCain that I've heard fall into three categories:

1. Obama's a tax and spend Liberal
2. Obama doesn't have enough experience/is an unknown quantity
3. Terrorists are afraid of McCain and Obama is soft

I do not find these compelling. The first is a tired arguement. We already know capitalism is better than socialism. That question was settled fifteen years ago. The relevant question now is "On what is he going to spend the money and is it worth it?". McCain needs to make a case that Obama's expenditures would be worth less to the economy than the negative impact from taxation, which he has not done. The second is a legitimate concern, but to make it stick you have to point to a case where his lack of experience is causing him to make a major error in judgment. As for the third, it seems imprudent to base one's on the opinions of terrorists. The charge that Obama is soft is based on, I must imagine, his opposition to the Iraq war, which was addressed in my last post.

Temperment

A huge factor in my decision. Even conservative columnists will admit that Obama has had the steadier hand throughout the campaign. For better or for worse, he's been completely calm in the face of criticism, whether behind or ahead. He's run on the issues. We've never seen him angry or crying or screaming. Every position is carefully reasoned and well-explained. I've read this in editorial after editorial on both sides of the political spectrum, and seen it personally. He's the ice man, and there's little doubt that this will be an asset in turbulent times.

McCain has been erratic at best, scrambling when he has lost ground and trying all manner of stunts to get himself back in the game. His "try anything"/"maverick" mentality is, I think, an asset for a legislator, when his crazier impulses are tempered by 99 other senators. For the president, though, I'd prefer someone more even.

Vice President

This alone is enough to make me vote for Obama. According to the actuarial tables, there's a 1-in-3 chance that McCain dies in office. If he does, we get Palin. We're talking about someone who is grossly unqualified and not intelligent in any sense of the word. We're talking about this person very possibly becoming president. Let me get this straight: I don't think a McCain presidency will be nearly the disaster that the Bush presidency has been (a level of uselessness I like to call "absolute Bush"). In fact, I think McCain was the best nominee that the Republicans could have put up. I don't think anyone is arguing that either he or Obama are totally incompetent. But are you honestly talking about giving Palin a 1-in-3 chance to rule the country? I would be horrified to have this woman teaching my children in school, or as Ken Adelman puts it, "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office - I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency".

No Free Pass

Finally, if you're voting for McCain, you have to answer Obama's supporters: If his economic plan is really so bad, how do you refute the arguments of economists Noriel Roubini and nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman, who say he's more likely to get us out of this mess? If Obama's policies are so protectionist, why does free-trade cheerleader Thomas Friedman, the man Greenspan credits with helping him understand globalization, support him so openly? If Obama will hurt business so much, why are Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros, arguably three of the best capitalists in the world, voting for him? If his foreign policy stance is so dangerous, why have Colin Powell and Madeline Albright come out so publicly for him?

Are all these people just masochists? Or is it possible that they have studied both candidates and their considerable expertise in their respective fields have led them to this conclusion?

Some resources that were helpful for me:

A WSJ editorial in favor of McCain
Roger Cohen on why the center is voting Obama.
David Brooks on that same phenomenon.
A list of Republicans who have switched sides.
A list of editorials in favor of McCain
A list of editorials in favor of Obama
Friedman, making a case for no one in particular

Finally, a beautifully written piece by a true thinking person's conservative, about Obama's appeal and the turning of the wheel in politics. Peggy Noonan was part of the Reagan administration, the author of a biography on John Paul II, and someone who gives me hope that the wheel will turn once again.