I Couldn't Help Myself...

Clinton/Edwards '08?

Anybody else get the feeling that John Edwards was debating to be Hillary's VP last night? I thought the tag-team action against Obama was fairly conspicuous (and onerous).

McCain-o-Mania

Well SC Repubicans, you surprised me. The conventional wisdom, that the evangelical vote would carry the day in SC, was wrong. You did not put your support firmly behind a guy who wants to amend the Constitution to bring it up to God's standards. And you were not charmed by the former imaginary D.A. from Law and Order. Good for you.

McCain's victory got me thinking: what if it came down to Hillary and McCain? Who would I support? Despite any inferences you may make from the title of this blog, I am not a partisan hack. There was a time when I felt very strongly on the side of John McCain (circa 2000). But now, after 8 years of the guy who beat him, well, I'm a bit wary of electing another Republican. Still, though, Hillary...really? I think if it came down to these two, I might well go with McCain.

Here's my thinking: McCain will not torture prisoners, which is a big issue for me. However, McCain will stay in Iraq, an equally big issue for me. But, on the Iraq issue, McCain's experience in Vietnam at least lends his thoughts on Iraq some credibility, whether or not you agree with his proposed policy.

On the other hand, Hillary probably won't torture prisoners either. And she will probably stay in Iraq. So they seem to be evenly matched on my two biggest issues. I guess I'll have to look deeper into their policy proposals.

Let's see, healthcare: McCain proposes what is essentially some sort of "market-based" solution to the healthcare woes of our country. One thing I like, McCain talks about low-cost health clinics, something I think is essential in providing healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, any "market-based" solution for healthcare is a dubious proposition because there is an inelastic demand for healthcare (that is, healthcare demand is not the same as consumption demand, you don't go to the doctor's office to get that stylish new drug you've been shopping around for). Clinton wants to have some sort of optional socialized healthcare system- that is, if you have healthcare and you like it, you can keep it, or you can opt-in to a government healthcare system. One thing I like, it would provide healthcare to more people. One thing I don't like, most people receive healthcare as an employer-provided benefit, if they have a choice to opt-into a government healthcare plan, what incentive is there for the employer to continue providing the benefit?

Ok, on to energy issues. McCain's take on US oil-dependence is well-reasoned and he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to global warming. My problem with his proposal is that he buys into the "pollution shares trading" idea, and I simply do not see how that will reduce overall pollution. Clinton says essentially the same thing as McCain on this issue.

Alright, how about the economy? McCain will balance the budget, cut taxes on businesses and cut spending (surprise, surprise). Trickle-down economics remains a force of nature in politics...why, I am not sure. Clinton wants a "progressive commitment to shared prosperity." Sounds like socialism, but let's see where she's going with this...she wants to raise the minimum wage, fix the healthcare system, and promote education. Blah, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Sure, healthcare and education affect our economy, but she will have to work harder to prove to me the causal connections between her healtchare and education policies and economic success. I can see it, but I don't want to infer.

And finally, just for fun, gun control. McCain is all for gun rights and supports instant criminal background checks for gun owners. He doesn't believe that gun ownership is tied to higher crime rates. Clinton wants instant background checks and to extend the ban on assault rifles. I'm all for that. However, her position statement (that can be found here) indicates that she hasn't given much thought to the issue. That could be a good thing.

So, where are we? Well, I am exactly where I started. I don't really like either of them much. I think if I had to vote today, though, Hillary's healthcare proposal, which I'm sure she will pursue vigilantly, eliminates her from consideration. I just don't think socialized healthcare will work without either drastically reducing the quality of healthcare or drastically increasing government spending and taxes. I guess I would go with McCain. Consequently, McCain's issue statements can be found here.

I sure hope Obama wins the nomination.

Ron Paul is Why I Like Obama

In Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan Ron Paul has garnered 10%, 8%, and 6% of the GOP primary votes respectively. He's polling right around 5% in SC and 7% in Nevada. Its probably a safe bet that Ron Paul is not going to be the next president of the US. But, what is interesting about Ron Paul's results is that he seems to have garnered the support of anywhere from 5-8% of the voting public in most states.

So what is it about Ron Paul, an obvious fringe candidate, that strikes such a chord with such a significant chunk of voters? I think it is his emphasis on individual liberties. The past 7 years have been characterized by diminishing civil liberties. I need not go down the entire list, but a few examples would be warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus rights for some US citizens, etc. We all know the overt source of this trend, Rudy Giuliani has even built a presidential campaign around it. But 9/11's impact on US domestic policy is epiphenomenal. The root of the problem is fear, or more particularly, fear-mongering by members of our federal government used to justify further encroachment on our basic civil liberties.

So what does any of this have to do with Obama? Well, I'll tell you.

Most of what Obama has to say about policy is in line with what you would expect someone just slightly left of center to say. But that is not why people like Obama. The common, and I think faulty, consensus on Obama's appeal is charisma and great speeches. It is true that Obama delivers very rousing speeches that pull at the heartstrings of many people. But there is a subtle difference between Obama's message and that of the other Democrats that I think is the real reason people support him. See, Obama's message is not about what he can do as President, it is about what the American people can do to change the course of the country. Obama's message is not one of entitlement, but of empowerment, and that is the most democratic message that I have heard from any candidate.

I think he's on to something. I think that there is a large segment of the American public that is tired of seeing what the government can do and wants the power back in their own hands. Just as Ron Paul appeals to the libertarian right, Obama appeals to the libertarian left. The difference between the two in terms of election results is that there are simply more Americans who find themselves leaning left this time around.