The last man nearly ruined this place he didn't know what to do with it.
If you think this country's bad off now, just wait till I get through with it!
The country's taxes must be fixed, and I know what to do with it.
If you think you're paying too much now, just wait till I get through with it! '
"Just Wait 'Til I Get Through With It," from Duck Soup
We Freedonians will elect our next Fearless Leader tomorrow, so in keeping with the usual regime of service to the young and the restless on this blog, the Daily Affirmations with Chris Reeder endorsement goes to:
McCain/Palin.
Peace, out.
Seriously, I know most everyone’s already voted, and this is like throwing a pebble at the storm surge, but on balance McCain is the better choice. I will basically ignore the VP candidates. However much of a novice whack job you might think Palin is, Tail Gunner Joe Biden is just flat crazy, and a plagiarist, so at worst it’s a wash.
Upon reviewing the text that follows, its possible I may have gotten a little...carried away. I promise not to revisit politics for at least a year (beginning after January 20, 2009) as punishment for the following.
Obviously your choice for President turns on how you see government and its proper role. Unless you’re one of those idiots who vote for the guy they like better, and there are more of those than there should be. Most of you probably could guess that I subscribe to Ronald Reagan’s view that government isn’t the answer to the problem, government is the problem. Like Adam Smith or John Locke, I believe in the power of markets to distribute wealth in the most efficient and equitable manner. So anything that impairs the natural and perfect functioning of markets should be avoided. That includes not only government redistribution of wealth, but also other acts that attack the fundamental principles of markets-dissemination of information, easy entry and exit, no market power or dominance, and rewards through profit (and penalties through losses). The government exists, as I see it, to defend the nation’s interests against external threat, provide security to its citizens, provide peaceful means to resolve civil disputes, protect the basics that must exist for markets to flourish, build and maintain necessary infrastructure, ensure universal education, protect civil rights (the ones that are actually described in the Constitution, not the ones that five out of nine rich old lawyers sitting in some court in Washington might happen to want and rationalize the Constitution somehow provides), and ensure some minimal “safety net” to prevent those lacking legitimate opportunity or means to care for themselves from suffering physical or mental deprivation. In short, the government should provide for civil order, protect against threats, and ensure a level playing field. It should not level the players on the field.
With this kind of view, I’m normally going to vote against Democrats. The D’s are widely renowned for holding the opposite of my views. No, the D’s are renowned for taking your money and giving it to people who have become the new patron clients of the government state. More and more people pay no taxes whatsoever, and thereby have absolutely no financial stake in governmental programs. Like the crack dealer, D’s want these people to think they cannot succeed without government taking money away from those who risk their personal resources to build business and create useful things for society, and giving it away to those who have little or no interest in doing so. The 20th and 21st Century American Redistributive State has poisoned the wellspring of drive and initiative that created the American economy. It is choking our ability to compete, and to provide for our overall welfare, as government takes an ever-increasing share of our personal resources to keep more and more people dependent on government largess. It will eventually render us an ephemeral shadow of the monolith that became the greatest country in human history. We will become Great Britain-wistfully remembering the days when we could provide for ourselves.
Uh, ok. Back to reality.
Let me first say, its no good that no matter how this turns out, we’re going to elect a legislator as President. Legislators generally make terrible Presidents. They are masters of compromise, of shades of gray, of working out deals. With extremely rare exceptions, they lack the administrative experience needed to run what is without question the largest enterprise in the world, the federal government, while leading the most powerful military force in human history, leading the “free world,” and playing the role of “Head of State.” The greatest Presidents have not been legislators-Washington, Jefferson, Madison, both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Reagan. Lincoln had been a Senator, but only for two years, and by that point was more the head of the new Republican party than a career legislator, and his service in the Illinois State Legislature was at a time when state legislatures met for limited periods. By contrast, some of the worst presidents have been legislators-both Johnsons, Harding, Harrison, and Pierce. These are not times that can brook equivocation and compromise that are the hallmarks of the legislative mind.
My endorsement goes to McCain for four principal reasons.
1. National security. John F. Kennedy once said “It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle.” 50 years on, no one remembers much about the New Frontier, but people remember the Cuban Missiles Crisis, the Berlin Crisis, and the beginning of the Vietnam War. Congress makes the law, but the President makes foreign policy. Here, unquestionably, McCain has the edge. McCain has been resolute in the fight against terrorism. While Democrats, including Obama, have bleated about protecting terrorists’ illusory civil rights and kowtowing to criminal-leaning regimes in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and to terrorists hiding under the rubric of the so-called “Palestinian Authority,” McCain has urged that we take the fight to these enemies of America. Democrats led by Bill Clinton were content to stand by and tolerate repeated terrorist attacks against our country, which they viewed as isolated criminal offenses that should be prosecuted in federal court in cases where the “suspects” were given the full panoply of of a Constitutional system they seek to destroy (USS Cole bombing, first WTC bombing, Iraqi assassination plot against former President Bush, NYC landmarks plot, Tanzanian and Kenyan embassy bombings). Clinton’s response-shoot a handful of cruise missiles at Baghdad and abandoned al-Queda training camps in Afghanistan. He declined to target al-Queda training camps in Afghanistan on a wider basis, failed to authorize FBI and CIA cooperation to identify terror suspects in the country, oversaw a ridiculously weak and abandoned intervention in Somalia, and stood by idly in the face of Balkan genocide as Western Europe proved utterly incapable of dealing with the situation. Put simply, terrorism is real, terrorists hate the West, no amount of “peace and understanding” will talk them into laying down their arms, and the only way to deal with this threat is to smash it. Say what you will about the Iraq war, but anyone who believes Saddam would have been content to sit in Baghdad pursuing peace the rest of his days is dreaming. Just like Iran and North Korea have used the time spent “negotiating” to develop nuclear weapons, so would Saddam. American intervention in Iraq, and response in Afghanistan, coupled with a robust development of domestic security capability, has chastened Libya, strengthened Israel’s hand in dealing with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, muted Syrian support for al-Queda, and reinforced Pakistani resolve against Muslim extremism. The so-called “surge” in Iraq, which Obama and most Democrat leaders opposed vigorously, unquestionably has worked, and has created a more stable environment that has emboldened Iraqis to reject al-Queda and foreign provocateurs. Most importantly, al-Queda has not attacked this country in seven years. If you can blame Republicans for bad results, you have to give them credit for good results. McCain would continue the fight; the Obama/Pelosi/Reid junta would stop the fight and seek to cut deals with this country's sworn enemies.
2. Foreign affairs. The mantra of the left is that George W. Bush has ruined the nation’s standing in the “eyes of the world.” Let’s not forget that the “world” these folks usually have in mind, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Russia (and the UN in general) were up to their eyeballs in selling illegal technology and arms to and receiving illegal oil imports from Iraq in blatant violation of UN sanctions. I will write separately about the Iraq war at some point, but why should we worry about what corrupt and weak European regimes who trade with the enemy think of us. Lets never forget, had these nations stood up against Saddam in the days before the war, Saddam has said he would have allowed international inspections at all suspected weapons development sites. It was these other countries’ failures, not ours, that led to that war. Lets also not forget that Great Britain also went to war. Has Great Britain tarnished its standing in the world? No. The “tarnished image" is largely a figment of the Left’s desires. Has no one noticed that Germany turned out its left-leaning government in favor of Angela Merkel’s pro-American Social Democrats? Or that France turned out the slithery Chirac government in favor of pro-American Nicolas Sarkhozy? A solid bloc of newly democratic states in Eastern Europe, to which the economic dynamism of Western Europe has shifted, are solidly behind American policies and clamoring to gain admission to NATO. The UK will likely elect a Conservative Government within the next two years. The so-called “tarnished” Republican foreign policy has kept together an international coalition that continues to fight in Afghanistan, and promoted international development aid and trade with Iraq. With Russia having blatantly invaded a sovereign state (and with apparent impunity), with oil-rich Venezuela threatening American interests in South America, with China and India on the rise economically (and China militarily), the United States needs a President with experience in foreign affairs, who will have good relations with the new center-right European governments and with experience throughout the world. That’s McCain. McCain has seen the world. He has the political and military experience in dealing with international leaders that Obama lacks. Further, McCain will not bow to thug regimes or tacitly approve Iranian or North Korean proliferation. Finally, I am convinced Obama will sell out Israel. Despite significant Jewish voting strength, I have always believed the Democrats would not support Israel if it were truly confronted with a nuclear threat, or other similar grave crisis. Simply put, the Democrats are the new isolationists-eager to curry favor with governments throughout the world, with no desire to engage against those who threaten American interests.
3. Domestic policies. This is already way too long, but while Republicans have been far too enthusiastic about taxing and spending, Democrats will be worse in light of the pent-up liberal demand for spending. Another “stimulus” package of tax hikes will surely follow an Obama victory. Democrats also lack any real vision on energy independence, and will actively work to worsen the crisis by trying to “bankrupt” the coal industry in a fleeting effort to stop global warming (assuming its true, no hope whatsoever exists of stopping it unless China and India agree to similar emissions cuts as the US has enacted). Alternative forms of energy will in no way replace coal or nuclear energy, if for no other reason than that the transmission lines necessary to transmit such energy on such a large scale simply do not exist. I believe McCain will also be a greater friend to policing and domestic security than an Obama-led Democrat Party. The Dems, eager to allow convicted felons to vote throughout the country, are the party that disarms the police and citizenry, turns a blind eye to law enforcement, and is quicker to condemn police and prosecutors than criminals. It is by no means a coincidence that crime has flourished most in cities run by Democrat mayors and city councils. When Republican Rudy Giuliani was elected in historically crime-ridden New York, vigorous law enforcement turned things around. Additionally, though Republicans are by no means innocent on this score, Democrat giveaways to prop up inefficient businesses (like Michigan auto companies, or ethanol manufacturers and Iowa corn farmers, or unionized education and airlines), and strangle our dwindling manufacturing sector and cripple the emerging services sector with unionization will ultimately contribute to economic decline. Finally, the Democrats will assault free speech rights. Across the board, they will enact laws to muzzle talk radio, ownership of radio and TV stations, donations to candidates of our choice (of course, McCain is guilty on this point as well), and harass the nascent conservative media. Democrats talk the language of free speech, but typically act to deprive conservatives of the right.
4. The men. One cannot discount the importance of the personal qualities each man brings to the job. While “he’s the guy I want to have a beer with” is a ridiculous criterion for being elected President, the candidate’s character is highly important. Here I believe Obama is most deficient. McCain’s character is beyond any serious question. He graduated from the Naval Academy, endured five years of Communist torture with honor, declined a chance for early repatriation when offered, and while he clearly has a temper, he has proven capable of achievement and demonstrated leadership in the Senate. What has Obama ever done, really? He was a law professor who never published anything of substance. He was briefly a community organizer, who never seemed to organize anything, and a legislator who never enacted any legislation. He has positioned himself as the candidate of “change,” but what exactly is the change? As Clinton continued to rack up late spring primary victories, a shrill Obama wound up lashing out at voters who opposed him, and fighting to prevent Clinton from continuing her campaign altogether. His wife, who admittedly is not the candidate, seems downright proud to say she was never proud of her country until last year. He joined a prominent black Chicago church with the indisputable motive of furthering his political career, then after first attempting to use charges against its minister as a platform to address "racial healing," Obama dropped him like a hot plate when it became politically expedient. Finally, anyone that the New York Times and the Old Media are so in love with, right there has been disqualified as far as I’m concerned.
So there it is, why Daily Affirmations will vote (actually already has voted) for the McCain/Palin ticket. I know the Keep Austin Weird villagers with torches may hit my door once this goes out, so if you never hear from me again, you know what happened.
Next-a return to frivolity.
No comments:
Post a Comment