In late May, I started a discussion with my kids and a few others about politics. By July 23, the scales tipped for me in favor of McCain. I waited until today to say whom I would vote for to see if anything would happen to change my mind. Each section is headed with the party which in summary I support on that section. I do not regard the sections as equally important, but to weigh them is another hard discussion.
- Energy: Republican
The Republican consensus seems to be to move slowly on clamping down on energy use, relying on free-market forces to bring some sense to the energy crisis. The Democratic consensus seems to be to clamp down hard and soon, as for example by increasing the Federal gasoline tax. McCain even spoke of temporarily lifting the Federal gasoline tax to provide some relief for low-income taxpayers. That goes too far. The US economy is like an incompressible fluid. One can push it down here only to have it shoot up there. Since the consequences of a much higher Federal gasoline tax (to be spent on infrastructure improvements, of course!) can’t be known, I prefer slower clamping down on usage, agreeing with Republicans.
As you can see, I have made a common Republican mistake in this analysis. I have treated the US in isolation. In fact, it is the global demand for energy, including and especially countries emerging from the Third World like China and India, which are pushing that incompressible fluid of a global market. They should be a part of my model. I don’t think global demand is a part of either the Republican or Democratic model, though. (To be fair, Obama did say something about discussing the global economy with China.) Typically the Republican view is nationalistic and the Democratic view is internationalistic (or as the radio preachers rant, “one world government”).
Energy demand is inelastic: I have to drive to work; I have to heat my house. So clamping down on usage as Democrats recommend might destabilize the economy more than allowing free-market forces to work.
(I wrote this section before it was clear to everyone that misuse of credit is the prime destabilizer of today’s world-wide economy. This misuse was pushed by a largely Democratic view that everyone should be in a home of their own and by a Republican view that the market will be self-correcting without Federal regulation. We see clearly now that both views are wrong. See Economics below.)
I like our US Federal system, in which states become laboratories for experimentation. We should investigate the effects of Democratic and Republican policies respectively at the state level. Car emission controls, for example, were first tried in California with success, and now we have them nationwide. I’m suspicious of Federal-level solutions first about energy. That makes me a states-rights Republican on energy issues, as on many other issues.
- Universal health care: Democratic
I have changed my mind in the past few years on universal health care, from Republican (opposed to it), to Democratic, in favor of it. (Think about Hillary Clinton’s proposal when
she was Presidenther husband was President.) Using Pennsylvania as a laboratory, I see that universal health care for children aged 18 and under has gone well, both in terms of percentage enrolled and in terms of manageable economic impact. It’s possible to paint too rosy a picture of universal health care, as Michael Moore does in his film Sicko. But Moore says that Obama changed his mind from being in favor of “single payer universal health care” to being non-committal about it. All candidates change their minds as they move toward the center to capture uncommitted voters. In the current campaign, the Democratic-leaning New York Times editorializes about Obama doing that, as does the London Times. (h/t Micah Tillman for these references)I think that the US is ready to extend the Pennsylvania model of health care up to age 18 to the whole country as a first step in universal health care. The Democratic position seems more ready to tackle this, despite some waffling. The dissension that I hear about this is that it continues to allow private insurers to skim the healthiest segment of the population (ages 19-64) while the Federal government pays for the least healthy newborns and old folks. So a single payer universal health care for all ages would be cheaper per capita in the long run. I would be suspicious of the single payer being the Federal government were it not for the fact that the Medicare infrastructure is already in place. That makes me Democratic on this issue. I assure you that this has nothing to do with the fact that my Medicare coverage begins 3 days before the November 4 election! I changed my mind after hearing my philosophy professor colleague Tim Schoettle speak convincingly on the subject several years ago.
- Economic health: Republican
Beyond energy and health care economic issues are other issues. I include here also whether we should bail out mortgage lenders who took foolish risks, how we can shore up the US dollar against foreign currencies, and whether tax cuts will help the economy. Since Obama has been changing his mind about these things too to become more like a Republican, I am giving this to McCain.
(I wrote that paragraph before the recent economic collapse. Now three months later both candidates are looking more and more alike. McCain and George Bush are both behaving more like Democrats, which I think is a good move. However, I still oppose Obama’s plan for income redistribution. Listen to his own words about that in this audio clip (with a little video clip at its end).
- Net neutrality: Democratic
Only geeks like me may care now, but if we lose net neutrality, everyone will care. The Democratic position is to favor net neutrality. This is ironic for Democrats, because it’s the laissez-faire viewpoint, viz. “Don’t regulate the internet!” McCain hasn’t really said much about it. I’m a Democrat here. There wouldn’t be an internet if it weren’t for the Federal government’s sponsoring the original DARPA as a national defense matter. In the same way, there wouldn’t be an interstate highway system or the US highway system if it weren’t for Federal funding for these projects in the interest of national defense. Some things require Federal participation. Which leads me to …
- Foreign affairs: Tie
Obama is less experienced than McCain on foreign policy. But leadership depends heavily on those whom one listens to as advisors, and both candidates wisely do not say much about whom they will listen to as advisors. Leadership also depends heavily on stage presence, and Obama has more of that than McCain. Obama won a “global confidence” poll among several nations. This is either comforting or scary depending on whether you regard those governments as the kind you’d want to have supporting your views. Take this CNN video clip for example. McCain makes decisions rapidly. This is either comforting or scary depending on whether you praise his resolve or condemn his lack of deliberation. McCain’s Iraq policy, with its slower withdrawl timetable than Obama’s is a contrary example to rapid decision-making. Regarding foreign affairs, then, so far it’s a tie for me.
- Abortion: Republican
McCain is pro-life; Obama is pro-choice. I’m pro-life.
- Supreme Court Judicial Appointments: Republican
Since Republicans tend to be strict constructionist as I am, and Democrats tend to reinterpret the Constitution, even though the candidates haven’t been as clear as I’d like about Constitutional issues, I’m betting on the Republican party’s long-standing position.
- Gay Marriage: Republican
As a consistent Federalist, I should say, “Let’s try gay marriage in a state, say Massachusetts, and see what happens.” Hey, we did! It has been oppressive in terms of respect for conservative Christians. For one example, a Roman Catholic adoption agency was not legally able to place children only in the families heterosexually married couples, according to their sincerely held religious beliefs. So they closed their doors after 100+ years.
For a second example, parents cannot receive notification of when their kindergarten children will be taught about homosexuality in Lexington, MA, schools. This dated link does not address the very recent US Supreme Court’s refusal to grant a writ of certiorari to hear the case arising out of that, citing as its basis that Massachusetts law stands.
For a third example, there is now pressure (Skip to the section headed “Restrooms.”) to assign people to public restrooms based on their self-perceived gender, since gay rights advocates include transgender rights as a next goal. Those are some of the not-so-good things that have happened.
My son-in-law suggests (link broken) that we might “give others the grace to make the right decision for themselves, even when their choices are wrong and destructive.” By that logic, then Pennsylvania is right in having legalized slot machines, with some of the winnings being set aside for the “destructive” effects of same, just as the Federal government legalizes smoking, and then gives tobacco profits to states to spend on programs to reverse the destructive effects of smoking.
I believe that there are good secular arguments against consensual homosexual sex relating to public health, just as there are good secular arguments against gambling, smoking, and obesity (just to throw in a much more pervasive health issue). So my vote related to gay marriage is Republican, although I would object if government told me that I eat too many cashews! (See my blog entry citing the liberal theme, “keep your hands off my body.”)
- Other issues
I’ve avoided mentioning things about which I have not yet formed an opinion, such as embryonic stem cell research, global warming, resuming space travel, or fixing the nation’s aging infrastructure. I’ve avoided explaining why I think that Palin was a bad choice for McCain’s running mate. This post is already too long. But I wanted to get something up before November 4. Even if you disagree with me, vote!
Recent Comments