I was reading The Campaign Spot when I realised something. You see, Ive been back and forth on McCain. He wasn't my first choice, and like many republicans I have many disagreements with McCain. But when I saw the following phrase, it made me think.
Now, look. I realize Obama has the greatest turnout machine of all time, and the Republican base, at one point very jazzed about a McCain-Palin ticket, is disheartened by Obama's lead and frustrated with McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear.
While I disagree with the authors summation of why McCain voters are disheartened, it did help me crystallise why I am so disheartened with McCain. It's not that I'm disappointed by McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear. It's the fact that on so many issues, they are less opponents than rivals.
Those few hardy fools who actually read the mental ejaculations contained within this ethereal and digital outhouse may have noticed that I "live blogged" two of the three last debates, but not the most recent. There is a reason for that. I wanted too, but after the response to the first question, I turned it off in disgust.
It wasn't that McCain and Obama largely agreed on policy, or that both candidate's solutions were primarily socialistic in nature, and it wasn't the cordiality with with McCain spoke of Obama. It was the fact that they both accepted the same basic and IMO erroneous premise for why we are in the economic crisis we are in. It was all "wall street greed and Washington laxity"
Really? So the CRA, the ECOA, Lawsuits such as the one Obama himself worked on (largely as a gopher it would seem) against Citi, the extension of the concept of "disparate impact" towards lending in the early 90's and other such attempts by congress to rewrite the laws of economics for political gain had no effect at all? Washington's crime, was not in actively causing this, but in passively allowing it to happen? Really?
Because, and understand I'm just a poor Mad Man here, I cant imagine lenders taking the risks they did if not
A) They were required to
B) They were assured they and their companies would be shielded from the economic consequences of their practises
C) The financial cost of not doing so were so great that it offset or was less than the cost of their practises.
D) all of the above.
E) None of the above
Again I could be wrong, but Bankers, and by which I mean regular Bankers as opposed to investment bankers, are inherently risk adverse in my experience. You pretty much have to be considering the margins at retail or even commercial banks who borrow at 4 to lend at 6. While many blame the repeal of Glass-Stegal for the current crisis, I cant see the fact that Bankers and Investment Bankers could now work under the same roof changing the essential character of each profession.
We know, that at least to some extent, "B" was in fact taking place, as that was precisely what Freddie Mac and Frannie May were created for. We also know that many organisations, ACORN among them though certainly not alone, were trying to ensure "C" was a risk at the very least. And to a great extent "A" was true as well.
So to me at least, "D" would seem to be the correct answer, at least in part.
Unfortunately both Barack Obama and John McCain chose "E) none of the above".
While "E" may sound great, and may make crowds cheer. Is it true? Is "wall street greed and congressional apathy" really to blame? Because, I don't think so. In fact I find the idea rather, conspiracy theoristy.
Wall Street forced people to purchase homes way beyond their budget, at all ends of the economic spectrum? Wall Street told people that they "deserved" to own their own home no matter what? Wall Street told people that "flipping houses" was not only profitable, but fun and cool? Really? How did I miss that?
And its not just economics, take global warming for instance. Both McCain and Obama support a "cap and trade" system of carbon credit trading, despite the facts that
A) Its the least economically efficient way of limiting carbon emissions and has the highest bureaucracy cost.
B) C&T has already proven that it is not only economically damaging, but environmentally inefficient if the number of carbon credits is even slightly off.
C) Carbon reduction is the most costly (both in terms of monetary and human costs), and least efficient way of attempting to reverse or mitigate global warming, as the results of the Kyoto Protocols (especially when the rate of carbon emission's between America and Europe is compared) have shown.
And again, its not so much that they don't disagree on the possible, preferable, or most effective solutions; its that I cant seem to find a difference in their underlying view of the subject overall.
I remember when McCain first ran the "I agree with John" ad, and while I initially thought it would be effective, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that the reason Obama agreed with McCain so much, was that John had already ceded the argument, at its core, if not in the exact details.
Yes there are areas where there are genuine ideological differences, but they are few and far between. I just don't think those differences are enough to make me vote either for McCain or against Obama.
I mean when both Candidates are populist quasi-socialists, who don't believe in political free speech, only pay lip service to free trade and free markets, and who both seem to assume that wealth and success are the evidence of evil done, if not still doing, then why even bother to vote?
I just cant see a President McCain standing up to a possibly larger democratic congress any more than I can see Obama wanting too, at least not on the major issues. And if, as I have believed for some time now, the republicans actually manage to gain seats in both houses, I cant see McCain wanting to work with a republican congress much more than Obama would be willing too.
So if its six of one, and a half a dozen of the other, why bother?
Iraq is the only reason I am still considering voting for McCain. I honestly believe that McCain would handle Iraq and Afghanistan more successfully, and more victoriously than Obama. And its important that we get it done right. But its not enough to generate any excitement. I will most likely vote for McCain simply because I cant justify not doing so, in the face of the momentous sacrifices so many American soldiers have made to get us to this point in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wont be doing it with a smile or a spring in my step though. I'll mainly be voting because I'll feel guilty if I don't.
I don't know if I represent any particular block of voter, or if I'm all alone in what I'm feeling here, nor do I pretend this observation has any divinitory value whatsoever. Its just what I thought when read that campaign spot post.
No comments:
Post a Comment