My Vote for President

After my prior post on Presidential Politics, Morton’s Fork, it would be easy to assume that I will be voting for “none of the above.”

That’s actually not the case. I find the choice remarkably clear. I’m voting for John McCain.

It comes down to a few key issues.

First Issue: Obama views the U.S. Constitution fundamentally differently than I do. In his own words:

“… the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: (it) says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

Anyone who’s had a U.S. history class knows that one of the fundamental purposes of the Constitution was to limit government. That was the point.

Apparently, these limits on power don’t sit well with Mr. Obama. He seems to view this limit as a flaw to be overcome. They are an unnecessary encumbrance on the Executive Branch’s ability to act.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the last President to view the U.S. constitution as an encumbrance was Woodrow Wilson and the progressive movement. Like the progressives, Mr. Obama seems to wholeheatedly espouse the views of John Dewey, the pragmatist who gave us “organized social control” and a “socialized economy.”

Just how far does he want to jump into Mr. Dewey’s “socialized economy” pond? Fortunately for us, Mr. Obama continued:

“… one of the, I think, tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalititions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Hmmm. Mr. Obama states that we suffer because the Civil Rights movement wasn’t able to bring about “redistributive change.”

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Mr. Obama is a socialist, in the best British Labor-Party tradition. He doesn’t want to be President of the United States so much as the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of America.

And his tax proposals reflect that. He has promised to reduce taxes for “95 percent of Americans,” through the creation of 7 new tax credits:

• A $500 tax credit, ($1,000 for couples), to “make work pay”
• A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition
• A 10 percent mortgage deduction tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest tax deduction)
• A “savings” tax credit of 50 percent up to $1,000
• Expansion of the earned-income tax credit
• A child-care tax credit of 50 percent, up to $6,000 of expenses a year
• A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles

All is not as it seems, though: these are not tax reductions, but tax credits. The difference is critical. All but the “clean car” tax credit would be payable to taxpayers up to certain income levels whether they pay income taxes or not. According to the Tax Foundation, under Obama’s tax plan not only would 44 percent of Americans not owe anytaxes at all, almost all of these non-taxpayers would be eligible to receive checks from the IRS.

When I was younger, we called that “welfare.” Mr. Obama’s own policies propose taking money from those who work to give to those who don’t. And I don’t support that.

Second Issue: I disagree with Mr. Obama’s stand on moral issues.

I believe in right and wrong. I believe they are fixed, definable, and defensible. I have no problem with a politician who opposes me on issues of policy; we agree to disagree and work out compromises. I do have a problem with a politician who opposes me on moral grounds.

Mr. Obama has consistently voted for abortion. He has an unbroken track record of voting against the rights of the unborn — even on such controversial issues as partial-birth abortion.

I’m sorry if you disagree, but abortion is killing. And partial-birth abortion, in which the fetus is inconveniently viable and is then killed by the physician, is murder, plain and simple. Consistently support abortion, and you have earned my opposition because you oppose me on moral grounds.

That’s not the only moral stand I disagree with. Only the most egregious.

Third Issue: Many of Mr. Obama’s policies are unworkable.

Consider, for one example, his energy policy.

Mr. Obama is against drilling. Fine. That means we need alternatives that work now. And ethanol still uses more fuel to produce than it generates, so its a medium- to long-term solution at best.

How will we keep America moving and the lights on until we have a long-term solution. Import more oil?

Obama has claimed to be in favor of “clean coal,” but pressed on the issue, flatly stated that the regulations he is proposing would bankrupt anyone attempting to build a coal-fired power plant. He claims to be in favor of windmill farms, but has voted to severely restrict where they can be built. Same problem with solar energy: encourage their development, then severely limit where they can be installed — at least in the quantities necessary to generate city- and region-satisfying capacity.

Doesn’t work.

His tax proposals suffer the same fate. According to the Tax Foundation, his tax proposal would severely reduce tax revenues beginning the second year. And they get worse each year thereafter.

Doesn’t work.

There is more, but I have to go vote.
For McCain.

Orson Scott Card on the Presidential Election

Orson Scott Card is at it again. The celebrated author of Ender’s Game and a whole host of other great books has posted another column that’s breathtakingly honest, remarkably insightful, and shows a depth of understanding that’s rare in today’s sound-bite-driven media.

You owe it to yourself to click here and read it.

Morton’s Fork: The Politics of Fear vs. the Politics of Deception

John Morton was Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VII. He asserted that if one of the King’s subjects lived in luxury, he obviously had money to spare for the king. He also asserted that if of the King’s subjects showed no sign of being wealthy, he must have substantial savings and could therefore afford to give it to the king.

And so, rich or poor, all had to surrender their money to the King. There was no better alternative.

This forced dilemma has come down to us as “Morton’s Fork” — a forced choice between equally unpleasant alternatives. It is more commonly expressed in colloquialisms like “between a rock and a hard place.”

And that is where we find ourselves: Forced to choose between equally unpleasant alternatives.

On the one hand, we have the Republican candidate for President, John McCain — a war hero and nearly life-long civil servant. On the other, the Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama — an every man who has pulled himself from humble circumstances to the corridors of power. On one hand, the politics of fear and on the other, the politics of deception.

John McCain was proven, literally, on the field of battle. He has served two terms as a U.S. Congressman, and, since 1984, has served as the U.S. Senator from Arizona. He ran for President in 2004, but was defeated in the Primaries.

Having been defeated by a fear- and smear-based campaign in 2004, McCain now appears to have immersed himself in running one. The race has gotten ugly, with innuendo after innuendo unleashed in an effort to see which will sway the voters.

To quote Time magazine, as they compared the candidates, “(Obama) seems a grown-up, in a nation that badly needs some adult supervision”

The Democratic candidate, Barrack Obama, seems to have come out of nowhere to explode onto the national stage. The first most of America heard of him was his speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago. Now he appears to be leading the contest to become our next president.

Time and time again, Mr. Obama has shown a willingness to change his positions on key issues. This, of itself, does not render him unfit for office. Any thinking, reasoning person can change his or her mind as greater experience or new data come to light.

It would show great ignorance not to.

Mr. Obama, though, explains any apparent inconsistencies away as though they never existed. He has raised political spin to a new art form that renders it difficult to discern the truth.

An example: Mr. Obama openly opposed the “surge” that seems to have brought America to the brink of success in Iraq. Mr. Bush implemented the policy anyway, and it seems to be working well.

Yet when questioned about the surge, Mr. Obama said, in effect, “Bush is finally doing what I called for a year ago.”

What?!!

It doesn’t take much to figure out why Mr. Obama can’t admit he opposed the troop surge: it worked. And, unfortunately for Mr. Obama, it was championed on Capital Hill by John McCain.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. Mr. Obama seems unable to say “I changed my mind,” unless there is political capital to be made for doing so. And from time to time Mr. Obama’s attempts at spin cross the line into deception.

And so, with Election Day fast approaching, we find ourselves at Morton’s Fork. On one hand, the politics of fear and on the other, the politics of deception.