The Observer, February 22, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 18
Unpopular Reason: No matter who wins, we all lose
With the Republican nomination virtually uncontested at this point, public attention has shifted towards the competition between Clinton and Obama. Indeed, the prospect of having a woman or a black man as our next president has set liberal hearts aflutter. After all, why entrust power with yet another old, well-off, white guy? Or so goes the logic of the affirmative action crowd. But the truth is, no matter who wins, we all lose. This can best be understood by reviewing candidates' platforms within the frame of their implications for individual rights and basic civil liberties.
McCain, the liberal Republican candidate who will almost certainly be the party's 2008 choice, has isolated most of the Republican base he'll be relying on. And there is good reason for this internal discord. He has consistently trampled upon the rights of gun owners, trying to enact legislation that heavily restricts gun show activity. Moreover, he is unwilling to sign a pledge promising to not introduce new taxes or raise those currently being rendered. Naturally, this raises questions about his willingness to restore fiscal discipline and shrink the size of government. And Goldwater Republicans, the few willing to stick with the party, are legitimately dismayed by his support for a Constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, and his hostility to the legitimate business practices of telecommunication companies.
Clinton, the current leading Democrat, and the candidate with the greatest appeal among party superdelegates, is another terrible choice. While claiming to be a defender of minority rights, she still backs absurdly homophobic policies like "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. When not quashing the rights she illegitimately claims to defend, Hillary loves to impose her will on businesses, undermining their ability to deliver greater returns to shareholders. She harasses Wal-Mart for not artificially imposing gender quotes in management, argues for the usurpation of control from telecom companies to enact net neutrality, and tries to punish oil companies for successfully selling a product we all rely on. But perhaps most outrageous of all is her effort to implement a universal health care system. She does so without a basic grasp of economics, or any concern for the taxpayers who will inherit the burden of her behemoth of a project.
Obama, the Afrocentrist candidate with a walk-in closet full of skeletons, has a similarly alarming platform, something few of his supporters are even remotely familiar with. Like Clinton, he wants to trample on individual liberty by creating a massive, government-dominated health care system that cannot possibly work. In his laughably short excuse for a political career, he has consistently voted to raise taxes on those already carrying the heaviest burden, and opposed economically responsible spending cuts. And, seemingly of the belief that the economy can never be quite damaged enough, he has proposed a "college tuition for community service" program that will help close the income gap required for the market to function properly. His platform, more so even than Clinton's, is about transitioning from a mixed market economy to a socialist republic.
Is there a best candidate? From the three with real shots, that distinction goes to McCain. But that isn't saying very much at all. The fact is, his record and platform are such that voting may well be pointless when he is the least offensive option. No matter who wins, the outcome will be negative. We have lost our way, and the candidates have platforms reflecting this sad reality.
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution realizing that government needed certain core powers not enshrined in the Articles of Confederation. But they did so with a realization that governmental power was a threat to civil liberties, and would have to be limited. Thus, the Constitution is careful to define the narrow parameters within which government may legitimately operate, while clearly establishing a set of individual rights, via the first 10 amendments, that ensures the most basic of liberties even in a state of governmental tyranny. But alas, the majority grew disinterested with this and demanded more from government, not caring at what cost it came. And so politicians began to run on populist platforms even prior to the start of the 19th century. In the years since this shameful practice began, only two presidents have ever defied this tradition, running on platforms of reverence for the Constitution and restraint of government. They were Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge. Neither is well remembered, much less respected by the average American these days. This is because Americans continue to be greedy and irresponsible, wanting to rely on government for everything. And so, we get candidates who run on exactly such a platform.
