The Informationist

An Independent’s Endorsement: Vote for McCain

So…following a fairly long hiatus in which I declined (or perhaps merely failed) to blog about some pretty interesting happenings, a chorus of friends have requested that I say something before the election—particularly given that, unlike most of them, I am supporting John McCain. While I don’t know that this entry means that I’m “coming out of retirement,” so to speak, it will at least record my thinking as the nation heads into a rather consequential election.

In approaching the subject—and in particular in thinking through how to present it—it’s probably best to begin with a bit of introspection. For me, this election cycle has been unique for a very simple reason: I entered it as an Independent (and despite a brief stint as a registered Republican for the sole purpose of voting in what I incorrectly thought would be the more contentious primary, I have remained an Independent throughout). While I assumed that status initially because of the Democratic Party’s shift on foreign policy, I discovered—somewhat to my surprise—that affiliation is more than a mere label. By entering this election season believing that the Democrats had worked hard to lose my affinity while the Republicans had done nothing to earn it, I suddenly found myself seeing politics afresh.

I began to appreciate just how badly our national political duopoly has skewed conventional wisdom, backed by the strength of the MSM. While I had certainly noticed this confusion before—most notably in the abysmal coverage of the 2000 post-election—I had never before appreciated just how insidious it was. Rather than detail all of its shortcomings though, I will restrict myself to a single ubiquitous example.

Like most Americans, I have spent the better part of the past three decades believing that I was in the midst of a culture war. Democrats vs. Republicans; liberals vs. conservatives; Red States vs. Blue States; coasts vs. interior; evangelicals vs. gays; enlightened vs. Luddites; intellectuals vs. good ol’ boys; we were all at each others throats. We all looked across the divide to see people attempting to shove their lifestyles down our throats—and in the process, complicate our simple desires to live as we choose to live. I believed it. I rallied for it. I argued about it. I saw all the differences between “our” tolerance-promoting legislation and “their” intolerant authoritarianism. I believed it passionately. I voted on it. I really, really believed it. Until, having found myself thrust into the uncomfortable role of the political Independent wandering in the wilderness without a tribe, I discovered that it wasn’t true. There is no culture war in America.

How did I learn this well kept secret? Easy. I paid attention. Over the past three decades, this country has witnessed a remarkable cultural convergence. There is no lifestyle that has become harder to adopt anywhere in the country. From religious traditionalism to kinky polyamory, it is simply easier to live the lifestyle you choose, be open and honest about it, and find like-minded communities than it used to be. It is also easier to avoid social opprobrium, discrimination, and violence than it used to be. My personal experience—observing only the people closest to me—attests to the growing ease of being an observant Jew, part of an interracial couple, or gay in America today. It has been years since anyone I know reported a fear of physical violence associated with visiting any part of the country (though the same can’t be said for selected neighborhoods or even particular clubs or bars).

The bottom line is that while our opinion leaders in politics and the media have been playing up a nonexistent war, Americans have been learning to become more comfortable with themselves and with their neighbors. The eight-year Clinton Administration did nothing to make it harder to be an Evangelical Christian in America. The eight-year Bush Administration did nothing to make it harder to be gay. While there are certainly differences of opinion at the margins—and marginal differences always appear greater than they truly are—we have converged to become a free, tolerant society.

So why does the mythical culture war persist? Easy. It serves someone’s interests. In particular, it serves the interests of our political elite. “I am fighting to defend you in the culture wars” translates into “If I can convince you that the other guy will interfere with your lifestyle, your partner, or your family, you will vote for me no matter how corrupt and incompetent I might be.” The media loves it because it’s a great (and never ending) story. It creates tension and conflict where there need not be any, heightens the stakes of even minor disputes, and sells copy. (For those beginning to wonder, this phenomenon is called a “convergence of interests,” and is quite common in oligopolistic industries. It is not, in any sense, a coordinated conspiracy. So don’t use my stuff as a launching pad to go there).

And wouldn’t you know it? It works. Millions of Americans—myself included until quite recently—fall for this garbage. We choose a party affiliation based largely on cultural issues, then look the other way at the damage that “our side” is imposing on the country (ourselves included).

I got lucky. I broke out of this mold not because I saw through the veil, but rather because I put a primacy on foreign policy. When the Democrats cohered behind a position that I cannot support while the Republicans continued to debate, I recognized that the Democrats were no longer “my guys.” I began to question their take on issues that I had not much studied over the years, and began to view them with an independent eye. At times, I concluded that they were right (e.g., on immigration). At others, I concluded that the Republicans were right (e.g., on free trade). On a fair number of issues though, I concluded that neither party represented either my interests—or even a reasonable interpretation of the facts. The culture war is just a particularly prominent case in point.

The end result of this observation-driven inquiry is simple: YOU CAN’T TRUST EITHER PARTY TO WORK FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

That conclusion laid the groundwork for my first foray into presidential politics as a political Independent. It also, however, coincided with a near-universal consensus that the next Congress would feature solid Democratic majorities in both houses, almost certainly under the guidance of the current leadership. That, in turn, means that the relevant question is not “whom would you prefer to see running the country?” but rather “whom would you prefer to see working with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to run the country?” Once again, it is astounding how few of our political or media leaders have been willing to frame the question honestly until quite recently—and quite late in the game.

And so…shorn of the need to see this race as pitching “my guys” against “the other guys,” I found myself able to evaluate candidates, issues, and positions individually. I also found myself able to take a clear look at what has and has not worked in the past, in terms of both government structure and personnel. That new vantage point allowed me to reach several conclusions about what’s really important in thinking through an election season (along with largely anecdotal and impressionistic evidence from the post-WWII period):

1. Competence matters, regardless of ideology. Incompetent leaders, and incompetent personnel picks, make everything they touch look bad. As a result, incompetent leadership truly complicates analysis; after all, mere failure under an incompetent provides no useful information about the quality of the underlying idea or policy. As a nation, we have been relatively fortunate. Most of our post-WWII administrations have been stocked with relatively competent people; only Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush managed to fail this simplest of threshold tests. Competence is thus a prerequisite for a successful presidency. It is not, alas, a guarantee. The Johnson and GHW Bush administrations were staffed with extraordinarily competent people. Both administrations rank as failures in both economics and foreign policy.

2. Our chief executive must believe that the U.S. is the strongest force for good that the world has ever seen, and that the freedom and prosperity of the world’s people is contingent on an engaged America. This engagement must be total, comprising a forward, strong military presence, a push for globalized free trade, and diplomacy that both elevates national interest above the preferences of international organizations and makes other nations appreciate the benefits of following our lead. The strongest post-WWII proponents of this view were Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton were all strong and successful proponents of this view. LBJ and GWB (post-9/11 only) had mixed records and failed performance. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and GHWB all adhered to different worldviews—and all presided over reductions in America’s global influence. Moreover, during the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, freedom moved backwards as dictatorships expanded their reach in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. During the GHWB administration freedom did grow where the iron curtain came down—but insufficient attention to matters in places like Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan created the muddles through which we are currently suffering. A belief in America as a force for good, rather than as a blustering, aggressive, imposing power, is not a prerequisite for a successful foreign policy—but it is a prerequisite for one.

3. The economy and other domestic concerns are only safe when the government is split. We no longer have checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches; our only checks these days are between Democrats and Republicans. Rhetoric notwithstanding, both parties favor policies that rape the common weal in order to shower favors on undeserving friendly interest groups. Split government ensures that good ideas happen eventually, usually implemented with the compromises necessary to make them broadly acceptable, while bad ideas die on the vine. Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all had to deal with at least one house under opposition control throughout (at least) most of their presidencies; Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Tip O’Neill, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott probably deserve far more credit than they receive for making these presidencies successful. Of course, split government doesn’t guarantee success—Nixon, Ford, and GHWB managed to squander it. Still, I would take the economic and domestic performance of this group over that of the presidents “blessed” with Congresses of their own party for at least the bulk of their presidencies (i.e., Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and GWB). (And for the record, LBJ’s greatest successes, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, wouldn’t have passed without solid Republican support; the Southern Democrats all opposed them).

Given these observations, of course, the choice in this election is easy: it’s John McCain.

In more detail, here’s why:

When it comes to competence, I’m prepared to accept that the parties have equally deep talent on which to draw, and McCain’s asserted willingness to reach across party lines makes me even more optimistic for competence should he win. Still, his first critical choice—that of Sarah Palin to be his running mate—is a matter of some concern. From everything that I’ve seen, Palin seems to be a lovely woman. Most of the vitriol hurled her way has been nonsensical and insulting to the intelligence of the American voter. It is self evident that her selection marks an important step forward towards full equality for women, and the so-called feminists who scream otherwise are merely demonstrating that they are self-serving harpies rather than women expressing concern for other women. Nevertheless, the core critique remains: Palin is simply not qualified to assume the Presidency. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was a marvelous choice. I’ve always liked Biden, and I think that he would make an excellent president. As a practical matter, of course, neither Palin nor Biden is running for the presidency; McCain and Obama are. People who would vote for the inexperienced and unqualified Obama as a hedge against the equally inexperienced and unqualified Palin don’t seem to understand how the election works. In a Biden-Palin race, I would vote for Biden in a heartbeat—the importance of divided government notwithstanding. But the bottom line on this one is that Obama made a better choice—and that the Democrats inverted their ticket. These choices make me more comfortable thinking about competence in an Obama administration—and lead me to give Obama the nod on this important prerequisite.

On worldview, I have little to add over what I’ve written before. Obama is an excellent representative of today’s Democratic Party. He shares his party’s belief that America’s global footprint is too big: our military presence is aggressive and provocative; free trade imposes materialistic capitalism, interferes with local cultural concerns, and eliminates American jobs; and the most important objective of American diplomacy is to prove that we are good global citizens. While there are plenty of Republicans who share this worldview (i.e., the entire isolationist and realist wings), McCain is not among them. He actually meets the perquisite belief for a successful foreign policy. So when it comes to overall worldview, McCain is exactly right and Obama is exactly wrong.

Finally, when it comes to splitting the government, there isn’t much to say. Because no one believes the Republicans will control either house, the only way to avoid single-party rule is to elect McCain president.

So…is that enough? What about taxes? Health care? Education/R&D? Energy? The environment? Abortion rights? Gay marriage? Judges? Aren’t these things important? My answer is “Yes. But they should not be determinative.” Tax debates—as I’ve said before—will remain another part of the scare-tactic show (along with the culture war) until we address the calculation of the base. Suffice it to say that because neither candidate seems to have a problem with a complex, distorted tax code, it’s hard to take either one of them seriously. On health care, and education/R&D I have some mild preferences (McCain on health care, Obama on education/R&D), but the ultimate question on both—as well as on energy and the environment—is not what policies they prefer but rather what programs they would craft. That’s where divided government comes in. Programs that require bipartisan support are much more likely to work than those designed by a single party. Major single-party legislation invariably combines a reasonable core policy idea with corrupt favoritism. Our best bet for decent energy and environmental legislation would probably let a President Obama work with a Republican Congress—a scenario that, as noted, has zero chance of emerging from this election.

As to the rest, I’ve already touched upon the culture war issues, which leaves only judges. This issue is too complex to get into in any real depth, but my take is that good judges clarify and explain the law. I consider most of the judges on the current Roberts court (and the recent Rehnquist court) to be pretty good at their jobs. The only truly bad justices I’ve seen in recent years are O’Connor and Kennedy. I defy anyone to read their opinions and to tell me what the law is. But that’s an argument best reserved for legal circles. My guess is that left to their own devices, Obama would probably appoint judges whose policy preferences more closely mirrored my own, while McCain would probably appoint judges whose approach to constitutional interpretation more closely mirrored the one that I consider both correct and coherent. Once again though, the best way to avoid extreme picks along any dimension is to ensure that the selecting president and the confirming senate come from different parties.

I would, of course, be pleased to discuss any of these issues in greater depth, either on this blog, via e-mail, or (preferably) over a bottle of wine.

In closing, I enter this election with a sense of déjà vu. Eight years ago, a far-right faction of the Republican Party rallied behind a seemingly gregarious, unqualified, inexperienced candidate whose views they saw as consonant with their own. They helped him dress them up in acceptable garb, and then, unencumbered by a voting record, foisted them first upon the rest of their party and then on the nation. There, with zero control over the experienced legislative leaders of his own party, he presided over a dangerous, contentious debacle that alienated people unnecessarily and rewarded corruption and cronyism. Entering this election, I have the same feelings about the candidate from nowhere elevated by the far left. As any good systems scientist could tell you, structure and incentives are the best determinants of performance. We are on the verge of recreating the structure that has served America poorly for the past eight years—single-party rule with an inexperienced hand at the helm. It’s not clear to me how much more of this we can take.

The choices in this election are thus rather clear. If you believe that America’s global footprint is too big, and that pandering to left wing special interests is good economic policy, vote for Obama. Otherwise, vote for McCain. I know I am.

…and should Obama win, I am prepared to watch his inauguration with the same utterance that I voiced in January 2001: “I hope to God I was wrong.” I want to see this country succeed no matter who leads it. I hope that everyone reading this post feels exactly the same way.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 10/20 at 07:38 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies