If You Are Just Starting To Think About This Election . . .
John Mark Reynolds
Politics
06.30.2008
Sad News: There is an Election Coming
Normal people, those with actual lives, do not follow every poll on Real Clear Politics. If you have a good life, then it is likely that you are only vaguely aware that soon you will have to TIVO past even more political ads. You know there is an election this year, but like a trip to the dentist, you have put off the unpleasant task of deciding on a candidate. Fortunately for you, there are now only two candidates left with any chance of actually being the president.
Many (if not most) American voters only know three things about the two guys running for President:
1. Neither of them is named Clinton or Bush.
(A pause to thank God for His mercies.)
2. One is young and cool.
3. The other is old and a war hero.
Blessed is the man who does not check Rasmussen Report three times a day. If you are this person, congratulations on living a peaceful life. The genius of the republic is that it allows a man to be a patriot without being a politico.
The bad news for the non-political patriot is that it is your duty as a citizen to catch up with the election and get ready to vote. For traditional Christians, the news is mixed. The good news is that both major candidates are smart, full of interesting ideas, and don’t appear to represent a grave threat to the American way of life. The bad news for traditional Christians is that neither candidate is really “one of us” in terms of culture of life issues.
One candidate will listen to our point of view, summarize it compassionately, and then oppose it more radically than any person yet elected.
The other candidate will say he agrees with our point of view, summarize it inarticulately, and then support it only when he has to do so.
That does not mean the election is not important or that there is not a better choice between the two men. Two recent 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court, with its aging justices (is there ever a court without aging justices?) gives more than enough reason for the traditional Christian to vote. Two more Scalia types on the court and abortion is back to the states. Utah will not be forced to have the same abortion laws as California.
That would be good news. One candidate is certain not to give us Scalia types. One candidate promises to do so and probably has to do so as a matter of political calculation.
If you are a traditional Christian who cares about culture of life issues, then you are going to end up voting for John McCain. You don’t have to like it, but you will have to do it.
Framing the Issues: A Letter From a Friend
Let me frame the reasons why as a response to the following email from a thoughtful and normal friend (used with permission). (It is edited to remove identifying information.)
He says:
The reason I’m emailing: I’ve been reading your blog for the past couple
of months. I have to confess that my wife and I are not very
familiar with the candidates or the pertinent issues of this election. I
was wondering if you could point us toward a website that would summarize
the important info for us. Perhaps a ‘big picture political overview’
post on your blog may be in order, in case there are other readers like me
who have been more out-of-the-loop than they comfortable admitting and
need to catch up.
Thanks for the request! You (I know factually) have been busy doing more important things. Probably the leading pro-Obama site on the web is the Daily Kos. My favorite pro-McCain site is Townhall.Com. I read both every day.
So far the big issues of the campaign have been health care, the War, the economy, and energy. All these issues point to important philosophical differences between the two candidates.
Senator Obama is a man of the left. His friends and associates come from left-of-center academic think tanks and community activists. You can anticipate that an Obama administration would be somewhat to the left of the Clinton administration.
Think a second Jimmy Carter term with better suits.
Sadly, (from my perspective) Senator McCain is not a man of the ideological right. His friends and associates tend to be from right-of-center business and political communities. McCain is a pragmatic man with conservative impulses (partly a result of his age), while Obama has a more consistent ideological edge. You can expect that a McCain administration would be somewhat to the left (though not wildly so) of the George W. Bush administration.
He is likely to govern more in the manner of George H.W. Bush only crabbier.
Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are very ambitious men. In terms of temperament, McCain has a well known “short fuse.” Senator Obama is “cooler” and so is better on this font, but lacks any leadership experiences to really test that calm. McCain has a lifetime of public service, whereas (as even his admirers admit) Senator Obama has always been looking for his next job as he has rapidly moved up the ranks.
We know McCain can be personally heroic in public service.
Philosophically, both are from the mainstream of American politics. McCain is from the center-right, while Senator Obama is more a man of the left. Senator McCain, for good and bad, has a long record of working with Democrats, while Senator Obama has little or no record of actually working with Republicans. Senator McCain is more likely to pleasantly surprise his critics and upset his fans, while Senator Obama has been (to date) rhetorically daring, but has compiled a cautiously safe Democrat voting record.
Senator Obama has a great ability to inspire which is an important part of the job.
McCain has almost no ability to inspire anything other than pity for the ears of his listeners.
Many people love Senator Obama . . .almost to the point of public adoration. Senator McCain inspires deep loyalty in those who work for him, but he shows no sign of doing so in the broader public. The election of Senator Obama would be of great symbolic importance in healing some of the scars of the original American sin of slavery.
People admire Senator McCain for his actions, but adore Senator Obama ontologically.
There is no doubt that Senator Obama would make a better “head of state.” As a traditionalist and a conservative, I think McCain would make a better “head of government.” Sadly for us the President of the United States must do both jobs and so we must choose!
On the Issues
While Senator McCain is no libertarian, he tends toward minimalist state solutions to pressing problems. Senator McCain will increase the role of government only when the public demands it. On the other hand, while Senator Obama is no socialist, he tends toward more expansive government solutions. For example, McCain will tend to reduce taxes on the productive classes, while Senator Obama promises to raise them. Both favor lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes.
Health care is a perfect example of their different approaches. Both candidates admit that our “mixed” system (partially state supported, partially free market) needs repair. McCain tends toward solutions that maximize first doing no harm to the health care of the vast majority of citizens . . . who have good health care. Senator Obama tends toward more universal solutions that will do more to fix the problems of the minority of Americans without health care, but will vastly expand the role of government and the tax burden.
Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have “green” records. Senator McCain tends to see the job of government in “conservationist” terms like his hero Teddy Roosevelt. The government, on his view, acts mostly to preserve green space in its vast holdings and to prevent others from doing harm. Senator Obama is (again) more interventionist. He wants the government to “do good” by mandating more behaviors than Senator McCain.
While both know that oil is not the future, Senator Obama is (of the two) more content to let rising oil prices force that transition to occur quickly. Senator McCain favors power sources (such as nuclear) out of favor on the left, but also wants to ease the pain of the transition from an oil based economy of consumers by allowing more drilling by private companies, though not as much as many conservatives and libertarians would like.
Bluntly, the governments role in the economy is vastly overrated. Both men will tinker at the edges. The expansive health care proposals of Senator Obama probably have the largest long term implications.
The one area both men will have in their control is the composition of the courts. Both will likely get one or two appointments to the court in their first term. McCain would appoint justices more to the right. He says he admires the hero of traditionalists Justice Scalia. See the close 5-4 gun control decision if you don’t think this matters! Senator Obama would not. He would appoint justices more like the four who dissented in the gun control decision. Senator Obama does not like Justice Scalia and admires justices on the left of the Court.
This is one area where we know both candidates will have the power to do what they say they will do.
We may be one justice away from sending abortion back to the states where it belongs. We know this: there will be a Democrat Congress. With no Republican president to veto their legislation, you can expect a raft of anti-traditionalist legislation that Senator Obama will sign.
You say:
Also, I was wondering about “what really happened” in Iraq. Obviously, in
the wake of 911, Americans were ready to roll in and clean house. And
Saddam clearly needed to be handled. But did the US actually sidestep the
UN? And if so, why and to what extent? What has Bush done that’s been so
scandalous? I have a number of very liberal relatives, to whose email
rants I’m never quite sure how to respond. Can you lay out for me a brief
history of the politics of the war and what you think would be the best
course of action at this point? Again, maybe you could just point me to
some of your older blog posts or to a news site you endorse.
My basic take on the Bush foreign policy is summarized here.
The United States is in Iraq under UN mandate. Sadaam essentially ignored the mandates, giving the US the right to invade if we wished. Whatever their public posturing, most of the world’s free states were glad to see us get rid of Sadaam for them.
Sadaam had WMD and had used them on his own people. Under pressure from the UN, he appears to have destroyed his WMD, but he was intent on getting them (again) as soon as possible. While not working (much) with the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11, he had a long history of working with terrorists. If he had survived the period of UN mandates (as seemed possible), he would have surely restarted his WMD programs (something we know from his records). He had a long record of working with anyone who hated the US and her allies.
Despite fears on the left, we easily removed Sadaam from power and brought him to justice. We won the hot war.
The reconstruction of Iraq was bungled. We grossly underestimated the cost and difficulty of rebuilding Iraq. Bush has paid the political price for this error.
However, we were not alone in this mistake. Our foes decided to make Iraq the center of the War, but they also miscalculated. While Iraq was not as easy for us as we hoped, it has proven no haven for Islamic extremism. At the moment, Iraq seems headed toward becoming a unified, somewhat friendly, stable state that does not support terrorism.
If this happens (and the jury is still out), then the cost of this phase of the War (in historic terms) will have been low. A semi-free Iraq will put great pressure on the Iranian theocracy, pressure that this unstable state may not be able to handle. If this pressure prevents an open war between Israel and Iran or an expansion of Iran into the Middle East, then Bush will have fundamentally gotten it right.
We also have kept the US free from major terrorist attacks for eight years and the terrorist groups that attacked us are severely damaged. Their prestige in the Islamic world is at an all time low.
McCain recognized the problems in the conduct of Iraq reconstruction early. He pressed for the “surge” strategy first. This strategy is bringing us victory.
On the other hand, Senator Obama opposed the War in Iraq (more or less) from the start. He also opposed the “surge” strategy.
Whatever the merits of invading Iraq, we are there. The fundamental question is whether the War can still be won or is a hopeless quagmire. If it is still possible to get (many) of the benefits of a stable Iraq that cooperates with the US, then McCain is the best choice.
Senator Obama would get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. What would the results be? My own belief is that this would plunge Iraq back into chaos and relieve pressure on Iran. Iran would surely become the dominant power in the region. Some on the left want the US out of the Middle East altogether, but we are the only power with the ability to protect Israel and other friendly states in the region from the “bad guys.” Since we would come to the aid of Israel in the end (even in an Obama administration), it seems foolish to pull our troops out of Iraq . . . with the certainty that we might have to send them back to defend Jerusalem.
If you view the War as good and still winnable (despite the mistakes made in any conflict), vote for McCain.
If you view the War as a bad idea at the start, but still winnable (with some benefits), vote for McCain.
If you view the War as a bad idea and not winnable, vote for Obama.
Whatever the emotional impact of five dollar gas, this is the one area other (with the courts) where we know the next president will decide what happens.
The War.
The Courts.
We know what both men will do.
For these two reasons, John McCain is getting my vote.
scriptoriumdaily.com |
