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!
Tags: economics, energy, gay marriage, health care, McCain, net neutrality, strict constructionist
You must be logged in to post a comment.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://genebchase.com/wordpress/wp-trackback.php?p=74
October 28, 2008 at 5:34 pm
fullstrum
I really enjoyed reading this article. I really hadn’t heard anything in regards to net-neutrality concerning the election (of course, no one has heard anything but economic issues as of late). I’m still trying to determine where I stand on Universal Health Care. In some ways, I hate a system that allows users to be “bailed out” after making bad health decisions (particularly if I have to pay for it through my tax dollars), yet I still believe that something MUST be done, and quickly. I just wish there was a better way of looking into the subject without having to swim through all the partisan mumbo-jumbo. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out over the next few years, especially after this economic downturn. Thanks for posting these thoughts! -Chad Blank
October 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
Gene & Paul
[This is from my dear friend Paul T. We met with my other good friends Curt, David V, and Chris S last night to discuss politics over Thai food after hearing an Obama supporter at Messiah College. I will post info re that presentation as a main entry shortly. My comments are in blue. --Gene]
Gene,
Thanks for posting your ideas on the choice between McCain and Obama. I wanted to say why I’m voting for Obama instead of McCain.
Energy:
McCain’s and the Republicans chant Drill Baby Drill shows me that they have no understanding of the real energy emergency that we face. First, drilling now wouldn’t add a single drop of gasoline to the fuel supply for at least another ten years. We need to take this occasion to face up to the fact that we need to get away from oil as quickly as possible for economic, security, and health reasons and to use this current situation as a turning point and start encouraging the switch to alternative fuels. The Drill Baby Drill
Both candidates are in favor of alternative fuels.
chanting also indicates to me that the chanters believe that oil, and other
natural resources, are theirs to do with whatever they please. I can’t help
This is reasoning from the converse. I agree that those who think that natural resources are theirs to do with whatever they please are in favor of ANWR drilling. But there are those who favor ANWR drilling who think that all resources are ours to steward, including all thinking Christians and most thinking people. In fact Christians know the Gardener, so they want to tend the garden responsibly. I am a big believer in environmental stewardship, which I practice with a simple lifestyle and a fierce anti-consumerism. However, there is another flaw in your statement. Don’t we all when we go to the gas pump think that the gas that we buy is ours to do with as we please? How would you feel if you had to fill out Federal form FED-THINKAGAIN-006 every time you filled up to explain how you were going to steward the gas you purchased?
but think that this type of thinking is closely related to the thinking that
the oil in the middle east is also ours and that somehow we have a divine
mandate to it because of our clearly superiority. Obama has clearly stated
I think by “ours” you mean the US of A. I have not even a particle of thought that the US has been given any divine mandate. I do agree that there are people who want to drill who do think the US has a divine mandate. But that’s not at all “closely related” thinking to drilling in our own backyard to avoid the oil in the middle east!
that we need to end this addiction to oil and that by investing our
resources and brain power to the energy problem we can not only free
ourselves from the oppression of oil addiction we can lead the world in new technologies that will rebuild our economy and start to heal the
The fact that gasoline usage went down when its price went up suggests that the free market economy is working. The fact that new technologies are created in greater numbers by people who use oil may even suggest that oil usage is a bootstrap to other technologies. (Although I was shocked to learn from the links you sent how much fossil fuel energy agribusiness takes to produce a small amount of food energy. Even our little garden in the back benefits from the pesticides that use fossil fuels.)
environmental damage we continue inflict. We need to switch our subsidies of the petroleum based economy to cleaner and more sustainable energy. They
In order to put muscle into that statement you have to say which cleaner and sustainable? I am in favor of expanding nuclear energy production. No, I don’t have the final answer about how to dispose of the waste. I am in favor of mass transportation in areas where population density warrants. I notice in the news that rail transport is experiencing an upsurge that tracks gas prices. I am in favor of “clean” coal, natural gas, solar and wind. I am in favor of making more central cities walk/bike areas, as Ithaca, NY, did to great benefit.
also seem to relish the idea that we are going to drill for this oil in some
of the most sensitive places like the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
This is rape. Rape isn’t prolife. The violent taking of something precious
I see a metaphor. Will removing oil from ANWR be violent? Will removing oil take something precious? Will removing oil give a moment of selfish pleasure?
for a moments selfish pleasure. Why limit a pro life stance to the unborn
babies? How is a war for oil that kills hundreds of thousands and poisons
the land pro life? I really don’t see how people can call themselves
Hmm. Were we talking about raping the environment or war for oil? I think you mean “war kills” and “oil poisons.” But I’m not sure. I haven’t been convinced yet that wars in oil-rich places are motivated by oil. Russia exports oil, yet fights in the middle east. The US does not fight with Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Israel, all of which have oil, and at least in the first 2 countries, oil enough to export. (I’m ignorant of Israel vis a vis exports.)
A Dillsburg aside about raping the land. I always wondered why there was an “Ore Bank Road” in Dillsburg. Now in the news this past week was the 2.0 earthquakes in Dillsburg. The newspaper suggests that removing “ore” from the “banks” in Dillsburg resulted in weak caves that can shift and collapse.
prolife when really they are only probirth. It seems that after someone is
born it is okay to kill them in the name of our oil or to sacrifice them for
some God Bless America patriotic fervor. Is it prolife to poison the air,
water, ground, food supply that will kill future generations for the sake of
our (this generations) economy?
Every prolife person I know is against euthanasia, in favor of adult stem-cell research, and opposed to poisoning air, water, ground, food. If we’re going to talk about the principle of unintended consequences, then we should probably get personal rather than theoretical, since theory never has any unintended consequences (by definition of theory and of unintended). What do I do that has unintended consequences? For example, I recently made the connection between picking at sores and infections at sites distance from the sore. Does your buying a van for your work put you in the gas guzzler consumer category, not your intention at all?
Economic health:
Gene you are a real trend setter here. I haven’t heard anyone think that
the Republicans and John McCain in particular have a better handle on the
economy than the Democrats and Obama in particular.
I didn’t say that. I said clearly that as the economy gets worse, both parties look more and more like Democrats. I also said clearly that I think that economy tanked for — among other reasons — too much subprime lending. I didn’t say clearly enough that this was a Democratic program to provide low-income housing.
Foreign Affairs:
John McCain and Sarah Palin have that same cowboy swagger that George Bush has. Obama says Let’s talk. The Republicans have this mistaken idea that God is on their side and that they are entitled to whatever they desire. We don’t need any more mavericks on the world stage. Putin’s a maverick. Ahmadinehjad is a maverick. Castro was a maverick. We need someone who will say Come let us reason together. We need someone representing our country that doesn’t just piss every other country off (except Israel). Of course the US has legitimate interests in this world but we have been such a global bully and so selfish about resources. Maybe a president that didn’t project that most ugly American Maverickism could ease some of the tensions
Indeed you may be right. I did vote “tie” on foreign affairs. The other side of the “let’s talk” coin, which YouTube clips have highlighted, is that “let’s talk” can be an invitation to test the President to see how much of a pushover he is. I need only to think about how powerless the UN is to find an example of where “let’s talk” is ineffectual./font>
and fears that other countries feel. Maybe a president that wants to
reclaim our national image as a strong leader interested in the health and
welfare of everyone on the planet could start us on a path of international
healing and peace. Maybe a president and Vice president that stand up for the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that confer dignity to all human beings would be better than a president and vice president that trample these ideals for the sake of “national security” and the “homeland”. We need a president that will protect and uphold the constitution rather than national security. In large part the terrorists
I said elsewhere in my post that I’m a strict constructionist, so I agree that it’s important to find dignity in all humans. I plead ignorance on either candidate’s position on expansion of Federal powers to combat terrorism. I agree that Bush went too far.
have already won the war. They got us to transform our free land into a
police state with soldiers policing the airports with machine guns, we have
to undress to go into government buildings or get on airplanes. They got us to spend billions and billions of dollars on security and isolation which
has drained financial resources from where it really needed to go:
education, infrastructure, sustainable energy technologies. So now we have two Vietnam wars going on concurrently. The fake war has drained most of the resources from the real one. We have no resources to do anything else anywhere else. We don’t have the resources now to back up any leadership we could have taken on Darfur or other international crises. We are stretched to the breaking point on all fronts and John McCain and Sarah Palin want to push for Victory in Iraq. Petraeus himself said there is no such thing as
The fake one is clearly Iraq. I’m not sure which “real one” you have in mind. Terrorism? Afghan-Pakistan border?
Victory in Iraq. Our country seems at the verge of meltdown. Mission
Accomplished?
“Meltdown”? Do you mean moral? economic? Are you really saying that George Bush had/has a mission to destroy the US?
Abortion:
Last week a man came over to the Harrisburg BIC church and started to
talking to a group of junior high students. He asked them who they
supported in the election to which they all replied “Obama, Obama, Obama”. He then stunned the group by telling them that Obama was a baby killer. That he wanted to be president so that he could kill more babies. He then showed these youngsters pictures of abortions and said that Obama was in favor of killing babies. Obama doesn’t want to kill babies. He agrees that abortion is a terrible problem. He would rather approach the problem by addressing the overarching situations that pressure women to make this
It’s true that most abortions are among those who are economically disadvantaged. What, however, is the “overarching situation”? If money to those women were adequate, then we wouldn’t have the so-called “welfare babies” situation where a woman who receives money on a per-child basis has more children knowing she’ll get more money. I think that the “overarching situation” is a moral one, and I don’t see either candidate addressing that, because it’s so polarizing. Moral-sub-i, where what’s moral is indexed by the world-view of the proposer, leads to deadlock. I suppose if Democrats get the White House and the “60″ votes needed to get a supermajority so as to suppress fillibuster, we’ll find out what comes of Moral-sub-Democrat.
choice. He wants to create a culture that is pro life rather than a heavy
handed pro birth police state. Again I don’t understand the prolife
Repeal of Roe v Wade would still leave decisions to the states. That’s not “heavy-handed,” and certainly not “police state.”
prodeathsentence abort the planet through war, pollution, and economic
violence. After the baby is born where are the prolifers protesting all
these other kinds of abortions?
Of course there are pro-life pacifists, although I’m not a pacifist. There are pro-life folks fighting pollution; I’m one. I am not sure what you mean by “economic violence.” Or rather I think I know, but I find your expression of what I think you mean to be inaccurate.
Gay marriage:
Is it that much worse than straight marriage? It’s okay when the Roman
“Worse”? I’d prefer reasons in support instead of “straight marriage is in bad shape.”
Catholics oppress someone but when the shoe is on the other foot…?
A Catholic person or organization deciding not to place adoptions with gay couples is not oppressive and you know it. I’m glad for your response. I worked really hard at tone in my essay. I’m glad to get your heated response. I hope we’ll be able to go at this after Miller’s talk at Hostetter Chapel. Tonight will be our last meeting before D-Day. (I think Obama is going to win, so D-Day is Nov. 4 this year, where D stands for Democrats.) –Gene
–Paul
October 30, 2008 at 11:20 am
Anthony
[Really from my son-in-law Anthony, but I can't format posts sent by others, and it was all run together, so I merely inserted a few carriage returns.]
Sugar-Glazed Donkey Tongue or Cinnamon-Fried Elephant Snout
[scene: Two friends chatting at a cafe]
Bob: Well I went down to the Lube Center for an oil change this morning and the funniest thing happened.
Ted: Oh yeah, what was that?
Bob: The man behind the counter said that, due to the national shortage of oil in America, the Lube center is replacing the engine oil in people’s cars with either water or V8 juice.
Ted: What??? Water or V8 juice?
Bob: Yep, you heard me.
Ted: That’s ludicrous!!!
Bob: Yeah, that’s what I thought, but before I had time to answer, the woman behind me swore that water was the least damaging option and that I should choose the water.
Ted: Why did she think water would be less damaging?
Bob: She read about it in a email message that was forwarded to her by a friend. Turns out that when the engine gets real hot, the water just evaporates from the engine, letting the pistons and cylinders do their job without getting in the way.
Ted: But, the whole purpose of engine oil is to lubricate the pistons and cylinders. If left to themselves, the pistons and cylinders will destroy the engine!
Bob: True, but she didn’t see it that way. She said the V8 juice was much more problematic because of the residual pulp. The pulp gets everywhere and gunks everything up.
Ted: Well, that might be true, but water is no better for the engine!
Bob: Then before the woman behind me was done explaining why the water would be better, the man behind her said she was wrong; the V8 juice would be better.
Ted: Why on earth did he think that?
Bob: He read it on an independent website (www.WaterOrJuice.org) that suggested using V8 juice in the engine would be healthier for the metal and would create more jobs for people working in the V8 processing business.
Ted: I don’t know about V8 juice being healthier for the engine, but I guess it would create more jobs. But the point is still that it would destroy the mechanics of the engine!!!
Bob: Well he didn’t mention anything about the long term effects of using V8 juice in place of engine oil, but he did combat the woman’s claim that the pulp gets everywhere and makes a mess.
Ted: Oh?
Bob: He said the V8 actually burns up from the heat almost immediately, so there is not much residual gunk around.
Ted: So what did you decide? Water or V8 juice?
Bob: Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that both will destroy the car engine relatively quickly.
Ted: So…
Bob: I sold my car for the parts and used the money to buy a bicycle!
[ enter waitress with a sweet Georgia accent ]
Waitress: Can I get you gentlemen some dessert before you go?
Bob: Why yes, some dessert would be nice. What are you serving today?
Waitress: Well today we have a special treat indeed! You can choose between the Sugar-Glazed Donkey Tongue or the Cinnamon-Fried Elephant Snout.
November 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm
sirrobin
I love that you have taken the issues one by one, weighed each one, and come to a conclusion. I also did the same. There are (of course) many many more issues (such as Gov Palin, which you mentioned) that could be discussed. But discussing each issue would take a looong time.
I personally feel differently about some issues you mentioned, and when I coupled those with a few more issues, I voted for Obama. I think I may be in the minority here at Messiah on that front.
But, as I said, I love that you weighed the issues. My brother did as well. We had long conversations. In the end, he, like you, voted for McCain. And while I disagree with the vote, I think 1) I am happy that you at least voted (as many people do not vote), and 2) I am happy that you voted thoughtfully.
So, while I could go on for a long time, I will just mention a few small things that led me in a different direction than you:
For us nerds, tech things are huge. You mentioned net neutrality. Yay! But I wouldn’t call it not regulating. I think people want a law that says the companies can’t segregate internet connections.
And, for us nerds, Obama said he would appoint a cabinet-level CIO or CTO. I think that has been necessary for a long time. If we have someone for energy and transportation, we need somebody for tech. So that was a big thing for me.
For the touchier subjects, I will just debate your first point. Energy. I see Americans as being unwilling to make our country better. They buy Hummers and other large SUVs and don’t care about the cost. Only when gasoline was so expensive did they curb this pursuit. And now that gas has gone down, I think in a bit we will see SUV and large truck sales go up. So while I think people should be free to have whatever vehicle they want, I think Americans don’t care about energy until they have to.
So, that would lead me to believe that the state government or the federal government needs to step in and do something. At this time, there are few state governments that have done anything (California is a GOOD example). Therefore, I think the situation is dire enough to require federal intervention.
I think Democrats regulating energy WILL cause harm in the short run, for MANY people. I would hope they could find some smart people to try and make the harm as small as possible. BUT I personally am willing to put up with a little higher prices in exchange for a new future.
The US has never ever really tried to develop solar or wind or wave power. I think if we took a few years and poured federal money into it, we would have a solution. And while drilling for oil IS a solution for NOW, it just makes us put off the inevitable. I want the US to stand up and say we’re done procrastinating, let’s actually find alternatives full bore.
Well, that was really long. So I’ll stop there.
Jer
November 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Gene
I’m big on energy independence, so I’m glad you mentioned that. My house has solar panels; we drive an old 4-cylinder Honda; we didn’t invest in a garage door opener; we bought a home within a short walk from my work.
I’m optimistic about alternative energy sources, as this article in my alumni magazine, Technology Review, describes. Artificial photosynthesis is not commercialized, but it’s not blue sky either, says this article.
And thanks for spending a good chunk of your lunch break with me this past Thursday. Good to catch up with you at last.