I have noticed in myself a tendency to interpret political events in the light that is most favorable to the realization of my most cherished and hopeful political outcomes. I suspect I am not alone. Reading many of the posts it is sometimes obvious which side of the political fence the author prefers. I am a fiscal conservative that prefers smaller government intrusion into our private lives less regulation and more promotion of self dependence. Accordingly, people should be able to keep more of their self accumulated wealth whether retained by hard work and/or innovation.
I do believe that, ultimately, we are “on our own”. It is nice to believe that government should provide (in some, temporary, circumstances) “safety nets” for us but over time these slip progressively into entitlements and from there to addictive social programs, always. Additionally, when politicians or bureaucrats try to “protect” us I am afraid
The federal government has legitimate responsibilities but its powers are limited because they are enumerated-- by the constitution itself.
As for what is currently referred to as Post-Partisanship, this is merely a “Hopeful Utopia” that may be likened to a political seven year entomological event whose rarity reflects either the desperation or banality of the political moment (Does anybody think the Social Security/Medicare problem will be solved without compromise? Alternatively, who would vote for Chinese made toys sprayed with lead paint?) Its existence will be a short lived aberration and justly so. Madison saw the wrangling and back biting of politics as a given. His genius was in using it to average opinions and quell passions in order to moderate, via checks and balances, government actions and legislation.
In American two party politics there are those of one side who long for a Scandinavian model of government"cradle to grave type safety nets for all. Then there are those who call themselves pragmatists who prefer to take care of themselves and their families and who recognize that hard work and ingenuity must be financially rewarded if they are expected to continue. The former see the latter as uncaring and mean but, as a member of the meanies, I wonder if we are being excoriated merely because we keep pointing out stubborn worldly economic truths. As a meanie I see the former as pie-in-the-sky utopian idealists who refuse to come to grips with reality, but maybe they have something. Maybe I’m missing something. So perhaps we can compromise, but whatever the compromise I still wonder: Who will pay for it?
Not surprisingly I will vote for Johnny Maverick and Sarah Barracuda. But will they get elected despite Obamamania? The columns in both Berlin and Denver were impressive. It seems a lot of Europeans are for an Obama U.S. Presidency but we all know the problems involved when candidates for U.S. office depend upon the fickle European vote for success.
Palin’s entrance, we are told, has energized the GOP base. Well maybe, but McCain has taken a big chance with her hasn’t he? Maybe, but do you think Lieberman as his VP pick would have helped him get elected? Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee had their own problems with past flirtations with liberal programs in their respective governorships. I thought McCain was down and out during the GOP primaries. Then I thought there was no way McCain would be able to defeat the crowd mentality-- this flocking, this gathering of lemming proportions that is Obama’s biggest asset, his second being G.W. Bush’s tenure. After all the polls gave the Dems, overall, a 10 " 20 percent lead. But, Obama’s lead in the polls over McCain is much less. Why? It seems some voters may want more specific information other than promises of “change” and “Hope”.
McCain was never going to appeal to the conservative GOP simply because, unlike G.W. Bush in 2000, he was not perceived as another R. Reagan. But the GOP is slowly realizing that neither is anyone else. The times, they are a chang’n. Palin (the only candidate of the selected four with executive experience), like McCain, seems not to govern with policy in mind so much as with reactionary fervor to insults to their moral standards. This sounds good at first but it does make it difficult to predict what either would do given specific unknown events in the future. McCain does have a history of trying to prevent immoralist behavior like when he and Senator Feingold passed campaign finance “reform”. This is a disaster and probably is unconstitutional in the strictest sense. It also has allowed governments and incumbencies even more advantage than before by further restricting opponents free speech simply by restricting political contributions at various times and to various political entities. It would have been simpler to allow any and all contributions given total transparency as the only requirement. McCain’s governing philosophy is more moralistic than political. His call for sensible and humanitarian immigration reform and his efforts to work with the Dems on this issue illustrates this moralistic bent. His views and knowledge about the economy and market systems and their relevance to and from monetary and (even) fiscal policy are, at best, only in their formative stage, although he seems to understand generally how disastrous those policies of Obama and his fellow party members would be for the country long term. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans are more likely to use both methods to balance governmental budgets and are more likely to limit spending before raising revenue given McCain’s election success. McCain has promised to veto a lot of spending bills"earmarks, pork, etc. and given the likely prospect of a concurrent democratically controlled congress McCain will be the only check against a repeat of Democratic spending excesses like the Great Society.
McCain has his faults but at least we know, pretty much what they are. Obama keeps having his versions of Clinton’s “Bimbo Eruptions”. Every so often things like his friendship with an old non repentant terrorist, 20 years of exposing his family to men of the cloth who “God Damn America”, and real estate deals with now convicted felons pop up. What else isn’t he telling us? Has he explained that part of his “tax cut” includes increasing the income redistribution program known as Earned Income Credit? This program pays those who do not pay taxes a “refund”. Ask yourself this: if these people do not pay taxes where does the money for the “refund” come from, Scandinavia? “Change” and “Hope” are rather nebulous concepts for the strongest nation on earth to elect their leader. Are we to “Hope” that the “Change” Obama promises will be to our liking?