Fairness in Candidate Evaluations - a Rebuttal About Frank Rich Opinion
In all fairness, since liberals like fairness, there are racist “White” preachers. In an Op/Ed written by Frank Rich, May 4th 2008 – The All-White Elephant in the Room, and in recognition of comments made in a recent article …
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive. What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust. Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race. …
Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. …
Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally had made many outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.” … He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.
Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. … It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee church.
… In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.” I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. … Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man. …Sept 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) … Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of tolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.
None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates – and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them – we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick. …
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P positions of power than blacks.[i]
A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.” …
Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nations perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.
Frank Rich makes an excellent point in a certain aspect. However, whoever the candidate is, whatever political party they affiliate with, whoever they seek to endorse them reflects upon them as a person. Rightly so.
Senator McCain is on my “not qualified for president” list, in fact, all three present spotlighted candidates are on my “not qualified for president” list. Am I alone on this? If not, this means we have no viable qualified presidential candidate as of yet. What we have is the political “Three Stooges”. And while we can read political humor all day long, the running of our country, dealing with foreign policy and national leadership, performing the mission of a declared war against a common world-wide enemy, and other important issues – I fail to see any humor in this.
First, while the Founding Fathers were generally religious Christians (not all, and several had differentiating point of views on the subject) – our nation decided to separate the Church from the State, a wise decision looking at the caliphate, Sharia law leadership in the nations of Islam.
I believe that candidates should keep their religious affiliation out of politics of a campaign. Also, a candidate, to be fair, doesn’t always seek an endorser or donation contributor – they seek him. An honest candidate would, however, denounce the likes of Wright and Hagee instantly, and if any donations were received by these people and their associates – quickly refunded with a letter of regret.
In the statement of the last paragraph, this is not true of the two candidates in discussion here. Therefore, this is another bad mark against their character, and should make the voter wonder how much more they weren’t told or what was hidden from public view.
When someone runs for office, they must accept their life to be under scrutiny, and accept the fact that there will be those who will make “a mountain out of a mole hill” - my investigation and conclusion is not of this type of rhetoric.
Commentators here and elsewhere will discuss about the GOP being “all-white” - that is a false statement. Importantly, the GOP uses the system of qualification, not affirmative action and racial quotes, like the Democrats do. Thus, one of the chief advisers of GW Bush is Condi Rice. Thus Clarence Thomas was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice. Thus Caucasian conservatives wholeheartedly supported Alan Keyes when he campaigned for President of the United States. He didn’t have radical affiliations and associations like Senator Obama does. Maybe his biggest downfall is that he mentioned the word “God” too much.
At least in my evaluation, Senator Obama is on my no vote list because of his affiliations. He is for change alright, but not for ALL Americans. The only change I see is higher taxes. Senator Obama presents himself as a calm person, and that is good because a president must be calm, assertive and reflective when dealing with foreign affairs.
Frank Rich has made an excellent point – but to accuse the GOP of being a “White” elephant is ridiculous. I hope Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Larry Elder and others set this guy straight. Rich also thinks that political correctness doesn’t exist, just because conservatives point it out.
[i] This is a generic statement not based upon statistics, but instead personal conjecture.
Keith Lehman
Kritter Girl
quillsnkiko
Witchy Woman
May 6, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I think Rich’s point was that Republican elected leadership is practically non-existent. Beyond that, he makes the point that something so remarkable in the enlightened year of 2008 does not happen by accident. Certainly there are black Republicans, although a fairly miniscule number as a percentage of the total party membership. His point was that the party’s elected leadership is totally white, raising questions about why Republicans will not elect a black person to high office.
In addition to the complete lack of black members of the U.S. House and Senate, Rich neglects to note that there are no black GOP governors either. In fact, the only black Republican governor in U.S. history was P.B.S. Pinchback, who served as governor of Louisiana for 35 days in the early 1870s (nearly 140 years ago). Pinchback briefly ascended to the office upon the impeachment of the state’s governor. Since then, it’s been a long dry spell for the GOP.
In my historical recollection, the last time Republicans seriously challenged Democrats for minority votes was in 1916, another pretty long dry spell. It occurred when President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, formally adopted Jim Crow laws of racial segregation as official policy throughout the federal government. Republican Charles Evans Hughes (backed by old Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt), opposed these policies and gathered the majority of black votes in those states who allowed blacks to vote at the time. Hughes also backed women’s suffrage, a policy Wilson finally had to adopt late in the campaign, then abandoned after his re-election.
It is true that Republicans, to their credit, joined with Democrats to pass the landmark civil rights laws of the 1960s. These struggles are perhaps best chronicled in one of the best-researched and best-written political biographies I have ever read, The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro. In his third volume of the projected four-volume tome, Caro focuses on enactment of the civil rights legislation as emblematic of Johnson’s political skills as Senate majority leader. He shows how Northern Democrats made common cause with Western and farm belt Republicans to overturn the rule of Southern Dixiecrats. He also shows that the Republicans had little to lose from their support, since they had few minorities in their states, and usually demanded steep concessions on other legislation more crucial to their own regions in exchange for supporting civil rights bills.
After enactment of his civil rights agenda, Johnson famously observed that Democratic support for these bills would probably cost the party the South for the next generation. His observation proved wrong only by being overly optimistic; it has been nearly two generations now since the South has heavily supported Republicans.
The trend has been exacerbated by Republican use of racial campaign themes and overt appeals to racial fear and hatred. It began shortly after passage of the civil rights laws and, many would argue, has continued in one form or another to this day. The first manifestation was Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” that made overt use of racial themes, law-and-order issues concerning black crime and even ongoing voter disenfranchisement and intimidation in parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.
Lee Atwater, who became a key political advisor to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and mentor to Karl Rove as well as chairman of the Republican National Committee, was uncharacteristically honest about the strategy in a 1981 interview.
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Although he underwent something of a deathbed conversion prior to his death from a brain tumor in 1991, among Atwater’s “credits” are Reagan’s campaign-opening speech at Philadelphia, MS, the same city where three young civil rights activists were shot to death by racists in 1964. We can debate whether Reagan himself was a racist but he still had a message for racist Southerners in that speech (ala Atwater): “I believe in state’s rights,” he said to huge cheers from a crowd that obviously knew what he was talking about.
Atwater is also credited with the race-baiting Willie Horton ad during Bush Sr.’s campaign.
The use of racial strategies by the GOP has continued to this day, in more or less subtle form. Numerous critical studies have been done on the shameful “voter identification,” overt intimidation and “voter caging” campaigns run by national and state GOP campaigns in minority precincts, most recently tracing such efforts in Ohio in 2004 back to a White House aide to Rove. Republican Senate leaders just last year blocked congressional passage of legislation to provide the District of Columbia with its first voting representative, probably a minority due to the district’s racial composition. At about the same time, every GOP candidate for president suddenly found himself with scheduling conflicts late last year when invited by black radio and TV commentator Tavis Smiley to debate issues of particular importance to minorities. All the Democratic candidates showed up for the Democratic version of Smiley’s debate.
With these lontime racial tactics and overt insults to minorities, the lack of significant black representation in the Republican Party should surprise no one. And after some of the excesses of the anti-immigrant debate over the past two years, few should be surprised that Hispanic voters, who were leaning Republican in Bush’s first campaign in 2000, are voting overwhelmingly Democratic so far in 2008.
Democrats, to be sure, have their own race problems. As I noted in an earlier comment, up to 20% of Democratic voters in a couple of states have told pollsters they are less likely to vote for Sen. Obama solely because of his race. Bill Clinton sought to marginalize Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary when he noted that Jessee Jackson had won there twice. Although I am convinced he just used clumsy language, some even considered Sen. Joe Biden’s description of Obama early in the race as “clean” and “articulate” to be a backhanded insult to other black Democrats.
What we can see is that race in America is still a sore issue and an ongoing problem, much more so for Republicans than Democrats, although neither party’s hands are totally clean. As Rich states, the GOP is predominantly a “white elephant” with a few token black appointees thrown in so it won’t look quite so bad. Democrats don’t use quotas or affirmative action programs to elect black governors, senators or congressmen. Perhaps the GOP should consider instituting them if they find it so imposslble to find black Republicans who are qualified.
May 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Ken:
You have made my point made several times concerning ratios, affirmative action and the “White Guilt” …
Rich makes an excellent point in a couple of sentences; however here in the “real” world, someone mentions they are voting for Obama. I ask why. Most of the answers are (this is real, no making up): (1) He’s a brother; (2) he’s intelligent; (3) he’s going to make the economy and America better; (4) and most recently – “he’s going to “Change” America! With no specifics when asked what change?
I wish I was joking and this was just another “myth” from Myth Blaster. But sadly, it is true. Because people don’t take the time and stop and think, like we would when we are purchasing an automobile or a home (I would hope); but instead we just interrupt whatever “important” thing we have in our lives, you know, like WWW, Monday Night Football, or the latest video game – quickly scan the latest media presentation – either on TV (which most do, because people are reading less and less now, except for folks who use the Internet in cyberspace) – and there is nothing wrong with sitting down and enjoying a respite from daily life; however, they wonder why nothing ever “Changes” after election because they vote for the same type of people, from the same political elite, without real knowledge of their voting record.
I ask the people above if they knew what Senator Obama’s voting record was, what he voted for during his short time in the Senate, and what he voted against (which is sometimes more important than what one votes for). They look at me with a blank stare and more likely will walk away or change the subject.
Not voting for Senator Obama because of his heritage or skin pigmentation is wrong, just as if the reason would be the candidate came from a wealthy, middle class, or poor background. What is important is character, voting record, what he says/versus what he does (thus the voting record), and, especially if the candidate has a short stint in politics or is or was in elected office that has no real voting record – what is his/her real ideology? I am not talking about the rhetoric during the campaign, but how he/she performed actions, their affiliations, their support of, et cetera (background) BEFORE the election campaign. Let’s face, all of them during the campaign across both main political aisles.
Ken, your ideology has come out when you first started righting that you were a centrist, maybe so, when discussing certain topics – but you ARE a Democrat Party supporter – a populist voter. I would say the same thing if you constantly defended the GOP and just attacked (verbally) the DNC. Political parties have become only useful as an avenue of raising the enormous amounts of money, especially when running for the highest office of the land – and that is where the usefulness ends. Both are corrupted by the “good old boys/girls” policy.
Instead, you insist there are not enough “Black” Republicans (African Americans, Caribbean Americans, et cetera), if we would be more color blind and get used to just saying – “Senator Obama”, “Senator Clinton”, Senator McCain” – maybe we could get over the social sensitivity of identifying people by the skin pigmentation we could focus more on the important aspect of a person – their character.
It is important to look at this in this way because, for example, the minute you point out that Senator Obama has been hiding certain things, point out his associations, his affiliations and his mentor – immediately the term “race” comes into the picture. Up to this point, racism was pretty much left out of it, except when mentioned in the media as far as statistics of voters who are supporting Obama – and Obama had an impressive mix, and many disillusioned Republicans (either members or who normally vote specifically in a party). But then along came “big mouth” Rev. Wright, who couldn’t resist the sudden limelight and began to speak publicly like he does from his pulpit. In reality, this really originally had nothing to do with Senator Obama. Rev. Wright visited the White House frequently, I read a while back during the Bill Clinton administration, so he is not unknown in the Democratic political circles because obviously he is strictly a Democratic supporter. Fine. His choice.
However, what was important, and what seems to be backpedaled into the background (a common ploy by the media, Democrats, and recently – YOU) is what Senator Obama said in response, then what he retracted, then what he stated in response to Rev. Wright’s continued ravings, specifically at the last public speaking engagement.
Suddenly, voters who had admired this guy – he IS a good speaker, mediator, orator or whatever (so was Clinton, Saddam and Hitler/Stalin, sorry not used as matching characters, just as their abilities, or stating that Clinton is or was a fascist because he is not – sadly I have to point this out because immediately I will receive a flurry of emails and comments saying I called Clinton a fascist). I am writing about character here and that is all, concerning this point. Now with that part out of the way, despite the constant referral to GW Bush as a fascist by the Left (common ploy used during the pre-1940s in the Soviet Union rhetoric) …
Which is incorrect, President GW Bush is a dysfunctional president, to say the least.
But do we want another administration who makes promises, doesn’t keep them and supports policies that are not beneficial to America – its national security, its domestic situation, and the general welfare of the American people? We have suffered long enough with Clinton and Bush.
Senator Obama does not represent change in the way people think – in fact, specifically what “change” does Senator Obama have in mind.
He mentions the rising of his chosen brotherhood of American based upon skin pigmentation and social culture, with examples of Americans from that culture who have been parasites upon the African American and have showed not much progress (within their groups) because they want “their people” to remain stagnated – otherwise they wouldn’t have any real substantial purpose or means of creating their economic status and maintaining it.
Senator Obama should be voted for his record as a statesman (or attempts to be one), his personal associations and affiliations, his basic character (did he stand up against Rev. Wright for what he presented in racist and anti-American remarks?), of which he demonstrated that he is no “change” candidate because he did what so many before him have done – only stood up against his 20-year mentor when he saw his approval polls dropping. Then, he made a watered-down speech about how Rev. Wright went too far. When did he (Wright) go too far? The many years that he has been preaching this White Guilt, one-sided racial view, hateful remarks about other races, et cetera in the many sermons he gave at Trinity and other places?
Ken, you have fallen into the trap of White Guilt. You are voting for Senator Obama for what his racial background is – not personal character, and this is even against what Rev. Martin Luther King wrote and spoke about. He “dreamed” of his children growing up and being judged by their character, not the color of their skin”.
And if this is to be so – the pendulum must swing both ways.
McCain is already out of my picture for any support – so it would be moot to mention that he has allowed support from a racist at the other side of the fence – actually a complete religious crackpot, as mentioned in a recent series of articles and commentary editorials.
And your response? Talking about the tragic history of the African American – a fellow American who was treated less than how one would treat their pet dog. White Guilt.
I suppose you believe that we (my generation and others who followed) owe every descendant of slaves (of which Senator Obama does not apply) a mule and forty acres. Reparation it is called and has been called. In fact, I can’t believe such nonsense is still being discussed. My rebuttal against that is: (1) then we should reimburse the American Indians (now called Native Americans); (2) we should give Florida and California (and Mexico) back to Spain; (3) we should reimburse the mistreatment received by Irish immigrants who came to America because they were starving during the “Potato Famine”; (4) reimburse Italian-Americans who were stereotyped as a people as gangsters and Mafiosi. The list is endless as we travel back into history.
Ken, you are off course on this one and my ears and eyes have now been tuning out the White Guilt trip (read recent article) and focusing on PEOPLE and AMERICAN CITIZENS who are running for office.
One day we will have the first African American candidate as President, and I hope he or she will be a good and honest one. Someone who represents ALL Americans, which is what a President should do; an American candidate who doesn’t have conflict about his parentage; a candidate who cares more about the issues instead of political party mantra and misguided platforms; and a candidate who is going to be strong against our adversaries, yet wise in how he represents America in the stance against tyranny without using tactics that are not acceptable according to the laws of engagement (and punishes those who go against that policy whatever political affiliation); and so on …
You are bringing up a part of history that reveals that the wrong doers were more likely to be Democrats – but then again you have to look at the difference between Democrats then and now. I am not going to get into this because it is off subject.
The bottom line is – and I drop a direct question to you: Why do you support Senator Obama?
I don’t expect a clear answer based upon your ignoring my last request, except for the statement to the effect that you didn’t have to provide any “source” or “research” for such a preposterous claim of George Soros interaction, involvement and development through his wealth and established 527s and other underground organizations to shape America the way he thinks it should be shaped, much like he does in the business world of which he is so successful. And the Shadow Party is real – Horowitz is not demented, nor is Poe and the other writers who have studied this phenomenon that didn’t occur overnight. Socialists, one attribute they have, is long-term patience, although their support of civil unrest certainly does not reflect this.
But I am not going to rehash this – I just wanted to remind you that you have written a rebuttal – called what I wrote about in so many words as “bunk” and not worth “sourcing”.
And, yes, you implied that I and others that view things not in your way you have used the word “uneducated”. You have a great knack of using the Dem-Soc manifesto of the Democratic Party rule book where there is enjoyment with “mincing” or play in words. I prefer to write directly and try to attain my point without doing so. It is different than analysis, by the way.
Maybe I don’t have as much experience as you do in the world of politics, in fact, I know I don’t; however, I haven’t been brainwashed by any particular political party claptrap. I mean it when I say that I have viewed every candidate by themselves as individuals and not what party they belonged to. Both sides of the political aisle need to clean house, especially the Democrats who complain about the same things of the GOP that they themselves enact, and in some cases more so.
In this discussion, the issue is Senator Obama – not Goldwater, JFK, GW Bush, Bill Clinton – and unless we are comparing ideologies, I would rather keep it that way. Senator Obama is not going to run the presidency (if he is elected) upon the political history of the DNC and GOP – he is going to be running it based upon his character and ideology. That is what we should be discussing. The racial nonsense that has spouted only brought out what I had suspected all along, and like opponents of conservatism, I have been patient in waiting for it to come out into view – sooner than I thought it would happen. I realize that some of the rhetoric is based upon party line and, as you put it “uneducated” – but actually ignorant of the fact, views – and we should filter these out when making our assessments. We all know that as the time gets closer to the final election we are going to hear more and see more ads revealing some made up or misconstrued thing about one candidate or another. If we start ignoring this, maybe we can have some sort of civilized campaign – but only if we defang he American media and reform the two main political parties within their own entity and leadership. Also, in this way, maybe we can change the practice where delegates and the media choose what candidates stay for the final countdown in an election (especially presidential) – and it actually be the people who choose who comes and goes in the primary elections.
I know, a dream, but MLK had one, and it was a good dream.
PS: Let’s discuss racial history another time – I want to focus on Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and Senator McCain – thus far the only choices we have thanks to the media and the delegates. Maybe we can help get this out of the way and write about issues – issues that will affect America’s future.
Thanks for your opinionated comment, anyway.
PS – Sometimes political history does have relevant and useful information, but let’s separate that for now. I think Americans are or should be more concerned with not what led up to this situation until after the next President is elected – we need to focus on the important factor: Who qualifies. Not any of these “Three Stooges”, which is a stain upon the good name of classic comediennes.
May 7, 2008 at 10:26 pm
One of the Three Stooges, as you call them, is going to be the next POTUS. It will not be Alan Keyes, Mike Gravel, Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Chris Dodd, Ron Paul or any of the rest. It is becoming increasingly plain to all at this point that it also will not be Hillary Clinton. For better or worse, it will be either John McCain or Barack Obama.
You may remember that I have defended both these men in these columns when I thought they had been attacked unfairly. When I wrote about McCain, I was a McCain backer. Now that I have defended Obama, I’m in his tank. The fact is, neither of them is perfect but one will be POTUS. Both are men who put their pants on the same way we do. They are fallible. Whichever is elected will make mistakes. And they will be the only president we will have for the next 4 - 8 years and we should wish them every success because their success will be America’s success. Yet we should not hesitate, as free citizens in a free nation, to voice our disagreements with them, to debate their policies and to hold them to a high standard.
My choice is based on ideology on at least two levels. First, as I have noted, I am a conservative Democrat, one of the few left outside captivity. I could be a liberal Republican but the last of them became extinct around the time of Nelson Rockefeller. I find the extremists on both sides to be silly, more reflexive sloganeers than people who carefully study the issues to reach reasoned, thoughtful conclusions. Their partisanship leads them to excesses that end up only deepening the political divisions that are preventing America from achieving success.
I am more of a classical liberal than a modern Liberal on issues of government and freedom. I am an economic and fiscal conservative who has studied these issues quite extensively and see that our current course is leading to fiscal disaster. In foreign policy, another discipline where I read extensively, I am what they call a “realist” who is outraged that our foreign policy has been taken over by radicals to an extent most Americans do not understand.
The other way my choice is based on ideology is much more complicated. In its simplist form, my belief is that both the predominant Liberal and Conservative ideologies have failed. They have failed not because each side does not have good ideas occasionally but because neither side will recognize the good ideas from the other side. They have failed because they have become so polarized, so focused on achieving political power no matter what the consequences, so unable to work together that our political system has become broken.
I hope it is not irreparable because we are facing a time of the most complex, systemic and novel challenges we have ever faced. Globalization, an increasingly competitive, multi-polar world, climate change, food and resource shortages, a rising mountain of debt and a variety of other issues demand our best efforts working together as Americans. Instead, we see partisan sniping, ideological rigidity and appeals to the worst of our natures from both parties. Unless we find ways to reach common ground in our polarized political system to meet these challenges, America will fail like so many great nations before.
To begin reaching consensus on these issues willl require reaching across party and ideological lines. It will mean risking alienating political bases and telling the truth to Americans instead of telling them what they want to hear. It will demand that Americans be told they do not get something for nothing, either by getting entitlements they do not deserve or by getting tax cuts we cannot afford. And it will also require inspiring Americans to reach for the best we can achieve, to sacrifice for the common good and to move beyond selfishness to find again what made America great.
McCain, and to a somewhat lesser extent Obama because of his relative inexperience, have shown they are not hidebound by ideology. They have show the willingness and ability to reach across party lines to seek bipartisan solutions. Do they always make the right choices? No, they are human and fallible. Do they have the guts to risk making mistakes in the effort to find workable solutions. I hope so.
You say McCain is a RINO. Like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. To the extent that Republicans have been captured by the extreme Religious Right base on social issues, by radical neoconservatives on foreign policy and by greed, influence-peddling, deficit financing, irresponsible tax policies and corporate giveaways on fiscal issues, I think the farther McCain moves away from the Republican Party, the better off he is. Many current Republican positions are about as conservative as Jesse Jackson. In fact, I think if any candidate would take George Bush’s policies and do exactly the opposite, he’d have a batting average that would easily get him into Cooperstown.
In a perfect world, Obama would demonstrate the guts to break from the Liberal base and defend market-based economic and trade policies where I think Democrats are weakest. I think he has the right instincts to move in an intelligent way on foreign policy and toward a more responsible tax policy, where we actually try to live within our means.
Three months ago, I thought I would vote for McCain. Since then, he’s been pulled inexorably back to many conservative positions for political reasons due to his need to consolidate his conservative base. Since I believe many of these “conservative” positions are wrong and not even conservative, I think that’s the wrong place for him to go. Moreover, since an overwhelming majority of Americans (over 80% in some recent polls) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction and McCain has been put in the position of endorsing the policies they don’t like, it’s bad politics for him. He increasingly looks like he’s running for George Bush’s third term and that will be a hard sell for him in the general election.
Today I’m probably leaning toward Obama, not because he’s perfect but because he’s the best realistic choice available. I think he does have the ability to inspire Americans to see something greater and more important than themselves, to sacrifice for the common good and to seek bipartisan solutions. I think he’s smart, he studies the issues and has been a good enough manager and strategist to defeat Clinton, whom no one thought could be beaten six months ago.
But I will wait to see what happens in the general election campaign. Both candidates will have plenty of time to dig themselves new holes or have their positions challenged by events. They will also have the opportunity to keep their campaigns on the high road or to stoop, either themselves or through their surrogates, to the kind of political fear, smear and hate campaigns that have been too prevalent in our politics. From my reading of the mood of the country, I think that kind of campaign could be a deal-breaker for many people. It will also deepen the political polarization in our country and make it less likely they can govern across party lines. And to me, that is the worst thing that can come from this campaign, a nation even further divided that is unable to come together to solve its problems and meet the challenges it faces.