On the Election

Court’s blog entry deserves a reasoned response. I am a partisan Republican because I believe in the "Traditional Republican Values" cited. I’ll readily admit that elected officials often stray from these values – or maybe never held them in the first place. Lord Acton’s statement about power corrupting was a comment about human nature – not a statement about a particular political party. I’m partisan because I believe that on the big issues, the Republican is more likely to adhere to my values than is the Democrat.

Obama is obviously very bright, personable and a fine orator. But parse many of his statements and you'll find the "Traditional Democratic Values." Here are some excerpts from his acceptance speech:
"...old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." Who gives more to those with the most? Government? They don’t have anything to give. The government’s money started out as our money, and about 90% of it comes from the highest 50% of income earners.

"As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. ...
"I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. ...
"I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. ... (Higher standards and more accountability – the goals of the much-maligned, bipartisan No Child Left Behind )
"And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education. ...
"If you have health care -- if you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves."
These all sound like big government spending and big government domination of the economy – necessitating higher taxes and/or bigger deficits. And most are not within the power of the President in any event. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a Democratic Congress to pass legislation expanding nuclear power. Off-shore drilling is more likely.

"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats don't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe." Interesting comment: Roosevelt – the president credited in large part with the length and depth of the depression – did not hesitate to lead us into WW2 after Pearl Harbor. Some have suggested that our earlier involvement before England had been devastated would have been better, but it wouldn’t have been popular. And I assume he had in mind the Kennedy of PT-109 – not the one who got us into Vietnam, or the one responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Both the liberal ADA and the conservative ACA rate Obama as one of the most liberal Senators – so I assume that his agenda would be a liberal, progressive, big government agenda.

Experience is an interesting issue in this campaign. Obama has almost as little relevant experience as does Palin. To the extent experience is important, the Democratic ticket is upside down. At least Palin has been an executive. If I were a Democratic party operative, I would have wanted Obama to be V.P. – in a great position to move up after 4-8 years. (Not sure who I’d have picked as #1 – it wouldn’t have been Hillary, who also didn’t have much relevant experience.) McCain wasn’t my first choice (although thinking back, he was probably my 2nd choice), and Palin probably wouldn’t have been my pick for VP, since I’d never heard of her. Some of what I’ve seen I like, some could be better. But McCain does have more experience by far than Obama, and they are the ones at the top of the tickets. If you argue that you’d feel better with Biden than Palin, I respond that I’m more comfortable with McCain than Obama. And early indications suggest Palin has the right (read traditional Republican) instincts and attitudes about government. Almost everything Matt Damon said about Palin he could have said about Obama.

But what is the role of the President? I happen to believe that it is to inspire and lead on a few big issues; and that it is important that his vision of the role of government and the citizenry help move us in the right direction. Academic credentials haven’t been good indicators of great presidents. If they were, Carter and Clinton would have been two of the greatest of the 20th century – and Reagan would have been toward the bottom of the list. Carter campaigned for reelection on a theme of tightening our belts and getting used to less, because the best economic times were behind us. At the time, we had about the highest levels of inflation and unemployment in modern history. If he’d been reelected, he’d probably have been right. He didn’t have the vision necessary to lead us out of the economic slump. Reagan, on the other hand, preached optimism – the "can do" spirit. He was elected, and he inspired us to lift ourselves up. He was ridiculed by the left for his "evil empire" speech, but he triggered the collapse of the Soviet empire, leading to the enormous "peace dividend" that carried almost through the Clinton years. Reagan had the vision thing; Carter didn’t.

More recently, we’ve had eight years of a president who had his finger to the wind on most issues (I’d never heard of focus groups until the Clinton presidency) followed by eight of a president who was confident in his direction – at least with respect to foreign policy – and oblivious to attacks on his decisions. Clinton’s legacy? Perhaps NAFTA, which I supported. Otherwise, not much beyond sex education on prime-time television, and many accusations of personal wrongdoing. Bush’s? Iraq, without a doubt, and we won’t know how that will turn out for another 20 years or so. He’ll either be seen as great or as a bust. The mainstream media has written him off completely, but no one can tell for sure at this point. Iraq’s looking better now than an any time since Saddam’s statue was pulled over. No personal scandal, and no focus groups.

The decision to go into Iraq was a judgment call – one supported by a majority of Congress and the American people at the time. I suspect a President Gore, or even a President Obama, might well have made the same decision at the time – they both would have had the same intelligence and advice from career military and civilian advisors. I know; Obama opposed the war – but he wasn’t "the man," he didn’t get the briefings, and he wouldn't be responsible for the decision. (Would Iraq and the world be better of if Hussein were still in power, having successfully thumbed his nose at the US and UN demands from the first Gulf War? Interesting to speculate.) If I were a cynic, I might even suggest that speaking at an anti-war rally would be better for his political career on the south side of Chicago than supporting the president.

What I’m not so sure about is whether, having made the decision, a President Gore or a President Obama would have had the courage to stick it out when the going got tough. I don’t believe we go to war until we lose one or two thousand troops or spend some fixed amount of money. I believe the time to decide is before going in – and if we go, we go to win. Those should have been the lessons of Vietnam.

We cannot know what the major issues of the next 4-8 years will be. (During one of the Nixon/Kennedy debates, we heard a lot about the islands of Quemoy and Matsu – and they never mattered again. No one anticipated 9-11, and I do remember almost the whole country saying for a brief time: "Aren’t we glad Bush is President.") So on balance, I’d prefer a leader who I believe has a core set of values that will inform his decisions and agenda, and I’d like those core values to be most closely aligned with my own. There are differences: winning vs. ending the war in Iraq; allowing markets to work their magic vs. more central planning of the economy (think energy and oil); further expansion of government programs vs. greater reliance on private (including non-profit) efforts; more centralization of government vs. more reliance on local and state government.

I wrote a paper my senior year in high school on a piece by Goldwater. My views haven't changed much since then. Someone said: "If you aren't a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no head." No one ever accused me of having too much heart!