Some Thoughts on the Election

Now, as some of you may be aware, the Presidential election is on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of this November, namely Nov. 4. The progression of the campaigns has made me increasingly worried, but most of all, frustrated. Barack Obama - the messenger of hope, the "one we've been waiting for", fairly new on the political scene, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ returned to earth etc. against John McCain - a scarred war veteran, a Senator for the last quarter century, a "maverick" who is barely right of center yet framed by the media to be some right wing ideologue now that he is no longer that convenient thorn in Bush's side that made him their favorite Republican. These are the two choices and quite frankly I am not too excited about either. The former is an empty suit who is the classic Sophist - all rhetoric, no substance. The latter, while honorable for his independence and his tendency to speak his mind on issues rather than succumb to groupthink, is sometimes uncomfortably populist

First, I want to come clean here - I'm a registered Republican. Now, before you call me a rich-loving, poor-hating, racist, misogynist, gay-bashing, warmongering, imperialist Hitler-loving Nazi Fascist, let me get some things out. I am a Republican because I believe that it is one's responsibility to be responsible for one's self (with certain limitations). I don't believe that the government should have the final say on everything and basically be the overlord of everything that happens in this country. While there is certainly some greed in the private sector, I don't believe that faceless bureaucrats within the federal governments are any less susceptible to that greed. They are not angels. Human nature is greedy. That is how it always has been, and always will be. Legislation that calls for more regulatory oversight won't change that. The regulators could be, and most likely are, just as greedy, because they're human too. I do not believe that just because a person is motivated by profit, that person, ipso facto, is incapable of acting with decency and humanity. I just believe in Adam Smith's philosophy of the invisible hand, and here I will quote perhaps the most famous passage from his 1776 Wealth of Nations:

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

All of that dense 18th century language is only saying that by pursuing one's own self-interest, one usually ends up fulfilling the public interest much better than if one intends to fulfill the public interest.

Also, I believe in a muscular foreign policy. The Bush Administration has gotten a ton of criticism, and rightfully so, for its blunders in Iraq and now, ever more apparently, in post-Taliban Afghanistan. However, I think that the intentions of invading Iraq were correct. I'm not going to get into a big thing here, if anything maybe I will cover it in a later blog, as to why this is so. However, I want to state very clearly that the conflict has been overly simplified, the notion that we "took our eyes off the ball" in Afghanistan is misguided, and that strategically speaking, invading the heart of the Middle East was a pretty good idea.

Believe it or not, I am no fascistic thug. Maybe I have some neoconservative leanings (this term has been misused and abused to the point that its original meaning has been largely obfuscated). I tend to be relatively liberal when it comes to domestic social issues (gay rights, marijuana, etc), but on foreign policy I tend to be a bit more hawkish. That is, more or less, the definition of a neoconservative, although obviously truncated for brevity's sake. It must be emphasized though, that Obama's idea that the war began in Afghanistan and therefore must end there, is stupid. That isn't where the war began. Sure, that is where our troops first invaded, but this war began in the heart of the ARAB Middle East, the home of Wahabbism, Sayyid Qutb and Islamic fundamentalist thought in general. That is where it must end, if it does end. Obama's notion is akin to saying, "The Second World War in Europe began in Poland, therefore it must end in Poland". Ridiculous and historically impossible. Even if Osama bin Laden were killed tomorrow, do you think that suddenly all Islamic fundamentalist thought would cease to exist? He is one man. An influential, dangerous, murderous, asshole-ish man, but still, just one man. The ideas do not die with him. There needed to be a much wider war against Islamists than just in Afghanistan. The root of it is in the Arab world, not Afghanistan. These are very complex issues, but I'm just throwing out the basics. I'm not writing a thesis or a Foreign Affairs essay

Now, on to the candidates. For this post, I will deal with the Democrat, Barack Obama. On the surface there is much to be admired in the man. If elected, he would become the first black President of the United States. This would be a huge leap forward for a country that once held blacks as slaves and segregated entire communities. He is eloquent, and seemingly thoughtful and intelligent on some important issues. He is young, and seems to brim with optimism. Indeed, this makes him, to some, a much more attractive candidate than John McCain, who can appear cantankerous and stiff in comparison. But, come on people, let's get beyond the superficial and let's dig here. Beyond the rhetoric, who is this guy? This is a man who, beyond degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law, does not have much to say for himself. Sure, he was in the State Senate of Illinois and the U.S. Senate. Sure, he speaks about bringing Republicans and Democrats together to sing Kumbaya from Capitol Hill, and he does so in an often beautiful way. But, to simply take him for his word and believe in him because of an admittedly brilliant speech he made at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and subsequent speeches, is stupid. Listen, he will never bring Republicans and Democrats together on every major issue. No one ever will. Why? Because they are sentient human beings with the ability to process information and, ultimately, decipher, understand, and act upon that information in different ways. They will not always agree to compromise on every issue, because sometimes there is a fundamental reason as to why they differ. And this is healthy for democracy. If there was always the ability for everyone to just agree and get along, then democracy is for naught. The whole purpose of democracy is to discuss issues and argue over them, often vigorously and angrily. If everyone always agreed, the point of a legislature would be slim to none and a fascist state would more or less exist.

I have gone off on a tangent, but this is my blog, so deal with it. I have a lot to say here, and because this is not a school assignment, I might be all over the place. I can't possible cover everything wrong with Barack Obama because I am not Edward Gibbon, I don't have time to write a six volume tome, and I don't care enough. People are going to vote for him regardless. There are several reasons, but I will list five:

1) Everyone, save a small minority, despises George W. Bush and, by extension, the Republican Party. Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial crisis, etc. have people angry and just tired of this administration. Some of it is justified, some not.
2) Barack Obama is black.
3) People don't inform themselves on the issues and say, "Hey, here's a handsome, relatively young man who speaks eloquently about the evils of Republicans and the plights of the little guy. I'm for him!"
4) Many Democrats (and Republicans too) will pull the lever for damn near anyone provided that there is a D (or an R) in front of his or her name without really thinking about it.
5) John McCain is running the most inept and retarded campaign ever.

I'm not going to get into the wars or the financial crisis right now. They are too big of concepts to effectively dissect in a blog, although I will go against this very grain of thought in future posts. Suffice to say, no one is more culpable in the financial crisis than the Democratic Party and, specifically, Barney Frank and Connecticut's own Christopher Dodd. They are obfuscating the truth by trying to lay the blame on the typical bad guys: Wall Street executives and their slithery, oily, evil, cunning, warmongering, Slytherin House-inhabiting Republicans. This is not to say that Wall Street execs are not to blame. Quite the contrary. Richard Fuld seems like a dick. So do these AIG people going out and getting manis and pedis. They have much to do with it. But for Frank and Dodd to deny all culpability and just point the fingers is nauseating. Yet, people will eat up this word vomit. With delight.

As you may or may not know, and you may not, Barack Obama is (half) black. Because of our country's history for slave owning and Jim Crow laws (which is a fault that must be acknowledged), the fact that Obama is black and on the cusp of becoming President is a huge deal. But, to some people, it's the only factor in their vote. Blacks are going to vote for him because he's black. The hip hop community will vote for him because he is black. Teen suburbanites will vote for him because they think they're black. Older Americans who want to prove to themselves that they are not prejudiced will vote for him because he is black. And...that's wrong and stupid on so many levels that no Earth language can truly do it justice. Also, any time anyone ever criticizes anything that Obama ever does, they are racists. This is an awesome card that he can play. And he does. He constantly brings up that Republicans will tell everyone how "different" he is, and how he looks nothing like the people on our currency. No Republican that I know of has said this. HE IS THE ONLY ONE SAYING THIS, and to make us feel sorry for him. And if he loses, blacks across the country are going to riot, blame racism, etc. I am not a racist. I am, in fact, part black. Race, to me, is a non-issue. I am a person who reads and ultimately comes up with his own decisions. Sometimes they differ from other people's. Because I am a human being, not a pre-programmed robot. I hate college student liberals more than anything - they profess to be so free-minded, man, and so liberal and thoughtful, dude, but if anyone thinks differently than they do, they try their damndest to shut him or her the fuck up, and immediately. This is called hypocrisy. I could write a Gibbon-esque tome on this. It is widespread, metastasizing, and actually sort of dangerous. But whatever. On to the next point.

People don't go about trying to learn stuff on their own. They see what the celebrities like Brad Pitt and Barbara Streisand have to say, what Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Tom Brokaw et al. have to say, etc. Many do not do their own research. If people were to do a fair to heavy amount of research on the candidates, compare and contrast them, and ultimately decide to vote for Obama, then fine. This is a free country and I don't begrudge them their opinon. But many don't. "Hey guys, that Obama can speak. Not like that retarded ape Bush. Obama's got my vote". Believe me, people, I know many an Obama supporter whose thought processes run along these general lines. Maybe he is eloquent, maybe the Europeans want to deify him while hypocritically treating their own black minorities like shit. BUT THIS DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR HIS LACK OF SUBSTANCE. His speeches are vague nonsense, meaningless, drivel. Give me one solid, factually-grounded reason that this guy should be President other than that we need "change" (whatever that means). Or that he is not an evil Republican. Or that he is black, or any other such nonsense. If you can, then okay. If not, then you're an idiot who is voting based on nothing. Unfortunately, I know too many people, mostly my age, who are in the latter camp. If more people knew about his connections with not only Jeremiah Wright, but with Bill Ayers, ACORN, Tony Rezko, Michael Pfleger (sp?), the Saul Alinsky-influenced leftist community organizers, his apparent membership in a socialist party in Chicago, his disturbing connections with Raila Odinga (look him up) etc., he would not be as popular. But many don't know. Many don't care to know. Many do know, but shrug it off. "He is not George Bush. He is not a Republican. He is black. So fuck McCain and those old white jerks."

This sort of applies to the fourth point I made as well. I am sometimes convinced that if Benito Mussolini were resurrected, and had in some hypothetical universe been born in the Midwest instead of Predappio, Italy, and ran as a Democrat, he would get votes over John McCain. "Because, goshdarn it, McCain is a Republican. He's not like you or me. He was awesome when he was against Bush but now that he seems to have some conservative principles (gasp) and is the Republican candidate, he is evil. Mussolini will make the trains run on time! Not like they did under Bush. They were always late! Always!...I'm voting for the Muss." This is hyperbole, obviously, but truly, for people who claim to be free thinkers, not like those narrow-minded gay-bashing Republicans, Democrats are often frighteningly narrow-minded. I guess the same can be said for Republicans. But I live in an area where everyone and their mother is a Democrat, so I can't really speak for that from personal experience. But it's a mind-boggling groupthink mentality. If you are friends with liberals, and you are outed as a conservative, you might be looked at as though you crucify puppies for recreation on the weekends. This is stupid, from either side. People have the right to think differently. This isn't Stalin-era Russia.

And, as for the fifth point: Is John McCain trying to lose this campaign? Look, I don't love the guy. But, because Obama is downright frightening to me, he has my support. And...WTF is he doing? He doesn't bring up Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc. He has a bouillabaisse of things to choose from to harm Obama's popularity and he just doesn't. This isn't character defamation. Obama had a more-than-casual relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and with some other sketch-ass dudes. This requires some investigation if this man is running for the most powerful position on earth. If McCain had had connections with Eric Rudolph or another like-minded individual, no matter how coincidental, the media would be all up in it. But they're not. And this speaks volumes. McCain is hardly helping because he refuses to bring it up. If I were him, I would bring it up in every single response in the debate, no matter how off topic, irrelevant, or dick it would be.

Moderator: So, Senator McCain, how will this financial crisis affect your governance if you become the next President?
McCain: Well, my friend, it will have a profound effect. People feel as though they are being taken advantage of, and they are correct. My administration will take the proper steps to rectify this horrible situation. My opponent, who is friends with an unrepentant Weatherman terrorist, will raise taxes. Any economist will tell you that you don't raise taxes in a crisis. According to a Wall Street Journal survey among top economists...

Stop being a lame ass and do it. You will be called unfair and rude and evil and racist no matter what you do because the media is in the tank for Obama anyway, so what's to lose? I fear that at this point, it's too late anyway, and if he brings up Obama's shady past associations he will look desperate and mean-spirited. I don't, however, think there is an alternative.

I can go on and on, but I have the GREs two weeks from today and I have to study some geometry. That stuff owns me. I have the verbal down (although the analogies are absurdly difficult), the algebra, trigonometry. But if you asked me about the area of a triangle inside a circle inscribed in a square that has sides measuring 3 units, I would not even know where to begin. It kicked my ass in high school too. So I have to get on that. Have a good day, y'all. More posts to come!