The Economist on McCain and Obama

In August, before McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, The Economist featured this article on McCain:

Bring Back The Real McCain

This article above also highlights weaknesses in Obama.

Conservative writer David Brooks, who I have come to appreciate quite a bit, disagrees with the Economist in this article saying, "when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney."

Today, The Economist, in what I feel is a fair and even-handed article, officially endorsed Obama for President: It's Time

A Record Breaking Experience

There are a number of reasons trusting John McCain with our highest office is difficult for me despite his very honorable record up until he decided to make a serious play at the presidency (roughly 2004-2006). To be fair, I am somewhat concerned that Obama has had only 2 years of government experience on the national level. I think Obama supporters who are honest can admit that experience does matter. We can argue, as many democrats have, that no new president enters the oval office with presidential experience. However, I think in our heart of hearts we all know that experience in the field prior to entering the oval office will certainly have an effect on how a candidate acts as president, in the same way that our professional experiences usually add to our ability to work at higher levels within a field of work. But here’s the catch: the value of a person’s experience depends on what he has learned from that experience and his application of that knowledge in the present. Experience is not in and of itself a good thing, but a neutral thing. It has great potential to reinforce a person’s capacity for being effective in any line of work, but does not automatically equate to that effectiveness. In my field of education, for example, there are many teachers who have decades of experience that add little or no value to the quality of their instruction. In many cases their effectiveness actually diminishes with experience. So how do we judge what a person has learned from his experience? By examining how his experience influences his present judgment. In short, John McCain’s present judgment reveals to me that he is tired of being a true maverick and being punished politically for it by his opponents as well as his own party and has in turn made startling compromises to align himself with his party. As a result, he has become a low-rent parody of himself. Despite his long and noble record in the senate, he has strayed so far from it in this election that many of us are not asking “Who is Barack Obama?” but “Who is John McCain?” In my opinion, we are watching the unraveling of a great patriot, made even more tragic by the fact that he is likely near the end of his career. I want Obama to win, but at the same time, I do not want McCain to lose and have this misguided chapter of his career be the one that Americans remember.

A Republican friend of mine says that McCain will be a better president than his campaign suggests as his record is what should be considered, not his rhetoric (he also says this same standard should be applied to Obama). David Brooks supports this idea in a McCain-supporting article:

“It’s not that [McCain] has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.”

And yet Obama has run for president as a candid, normal person, and he has faired well so far with that approach. The tragedy for McCain is that Americans might have taken well to an uncompromised version of him. His base would not have been as excited, but would they have instead flocked to Barack Obama, an African-American liberal with a funny name? I think not.

Another Republican friend of mine recently said to me that McCain was the best man for the job and if Republicans have to play a little dirty (including tactics of fear and pandering to ignorance and bigotry) to get the best man in office, than so be it. I must assume, to give McCain the benefit of the doubt as a decent man, that this is the rationale behind his recent campaign choices. (If I do not, than I would have to assume much worse things about him which I do not believe to be true.) However, I view this line of thinking as fundamentally opposed to the ideals of democracy. Furthermore, a campaign that elicits the kind of terrifying responses we have seen at McCain/Palin rallies cannot possibly be justified by a win for his campaign. As an idealist living in the real world, I am open to the idea that sometimes the ends justifies the means, but in this case, the cost to the character of our country is simply too high. Even if he wins, America loses too much in the process. For me, no amount of experience can justify the judgment behind having his VP say to supporters that Obama “palled around with terrorists” and run an ad focused on the same theme. McCain is not an ignorant man. He must have understood the dangers of what he was about to do. He must have understood that there are some in his base that fear Obama simply because of his skin color and his name (as seen in this video). And if for some reason he was shocked by people’s reactions, than perhaps he truly is out of touch.

And now I must address his greatest error of judgment which cannot be separated from his record as it could potentially have a greater impact on America than all of his work in the senate combined: picking Sarah Palin as his VP. A Republican friend of mine makes the argument that he would rather have the inexperienced candidate at the bottom of the ticket than at the top. But I say that Obama and Palin cannot honestly be compared as equals in any area of competence. In addition, the problem I have with Sarah Palin is not with her, but with John McCain. As Matthew Dowd, a chief strategist from George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, states in this article: “[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that." This is an error in moral judgment that cannot possibly be swept under the rug as part of a campaign the educated are supposed to ignore in favor of McCain’s experience.

I came into this election season as a left-leaning independent voter, but even staunchly conservative Republicans who are generally regarded as “thinking/intellectual conservatives” have criticized John McCain’s judgment:

• Kathleen Parker writing for the National Review, a conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley Jr., the figurehead of American conservatism: “Palin Problem: She’s Out Of Her League”

• Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley Jr., and now a former writer for the National Review (he was let go after writing this article) on TheDailyBeast: “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama”

• Charles Krauthammer for the Washington Post: Palin’s Problem

• David Frum for the National Post: Palin the irresponsible choice?

• George F. Will for the Washington Post: McCain Loses His Head

• Peggy Noonan from the Washington Post: The Trial

• Wick Allison for D Magazine: A Conservative For Obama

And just today, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama as reported here in the NY Times: Powell Backs Obama and Criticizes McCain's Tactics

"Sometimes the other side has a point."

This quote above is a small, hopefully harmless soundbyte from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."

The Obama campaign has been criticized (since the primaries against Clinton) by some democrats as not being aggressive enough in its attack, feeling that one has to fight fire with fire, and arguably, evil with evil. While Obama certainly has gotten his hands dirty in the campaign process, I think an honest person can say that he has set a new precedent of decency and respect we have not seen from either side in a long time. More significantly than any other presidential candidate that I can remember, he has chosen to fight fire not with more fire, but with water.

More recently, he has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for saying "John McCain was right" several times during a presidential debate. The McCain campaign even ran a TV ad highlighting these occurrences. But in my view, I think reasonable Americans are ready for a leader who understands that the measure of true strength and leadership should not reside in one's ability to villainize dissenters and draw bold, divisive lines between us ("the good") and them ("the bad") as we have seen recently from the McCain campaign. For me, the true measure of strength and leadership lies in one's ability to consider ideas from both sides, think thoroughly about a decision, and come up with a solution that provides for the common good. I think John McCain, as evidenced by his record in the senate, is capable of such leadership. But I would also say that since 2004, and certainly since the general election, he has been willing to sacrifice these ideals of true leadership to pander to his base. Does Obama also pander to his base? Certainly. But the difference is that Obama has upheld a basic decency while doing do. (Admittedly, where the line of "basic decency" can be drawn is very subjective, but in my mind, McCain has crossed it and Obama has not.)

In stark contrast to McCain/Palin ignoring (at least initially) the disrespectful and downright horrific statements made by supporters at their rallies, Obama chose a different approach as reported here in an article by the New York Times regarding his expanded economic plans:

"Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: 'We don’t need that. We just need to vote.'

Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: 'I want to give credit where credit is due.'"

Some say that campaigns should not be taken too seriously, as we should prioritize a candidate's record over his rhetoric. But I believe that campaigns have historically set the tone for each president's term and are the true beginning of a candidate's presidency. In addition, I believe a candidate's choices in governing his campaign provide significant insight into his current capacity for sound judgment. Even more, in a democratic process, campaigns should be taken more seriously. Campaigns are where candidates make their promises to the American people, provide their plans, and set the tone for the direction of our country's next chapter. In my view, misdirection away from the issues, using tactics of fear and polarization, are not only an attack on American decency but on democracy as a larger ideal.

Our next president must work to take the higher road for the common good. I have been disappointed for most of my voting life watching candidates run for the highest office in our country by reaching for the lowest ground in a win-at-all-cost contest. This year, I think we have two candidates who are capable of leading differently. The difference is that one candidate has shown us that leadership in the past while the other is showing us that leadership now.