I work with two guys (actually I work with more than two but I'm only going to be talking about two in this post.) They are both in their 40's but are very different from each other. Mike has lived in a lot of different localities and has spent most of his life living in large urban-type settings. He's been involved on the fringes of the music business and even though he lives in a fairly small city he is on the board of a local performing arts center. He married in his late 30's and has no children and no plans to have any. He doesn't have any kind of religious affiliation. Politically he definitely leans to the left which is fitting because he is pretty much a dead ringer for Al Franken.
As you can imagine, he is planning on casting his vote on November 4th for Barak Obama. That only makes sense.
Jim on the other hand has lived his entire life within 30 miles of where he was born. He has never lived in a town with more than 2000 residents. He is huntin', fishin', and four-wheelin' kind of guy. He got married pretty much right out of high school, has kids in their 20's and is a grandfather. I wouldn't say that Jim is exactly devout when it comes to matters of faith but he has always been a regular church goer and would certainly claim to be a man of Christian values. He has always voted Republican. If you asked him he would refer to himself as conservative in his views. He too is planning on voting for Barak Obama. This makes no sense to me at all.
But, Jim is not alone. Due to disappointment with where the country is and where it appears to be headed, a significant number of people who would normally consider themselves to be at least basically conservative are giving strong consideration to breaking with their normal instincts and voting for Senator Obama. The idea that Obama will provide "change" seems compelling. That combined with his articulate manner and charming personality have had what I find to be a disturbing effect on much of the electorate. The fact that the mainstream press has a simultaneous orgasm every time he walks onto a stage probably hasn't hurt his appeal either.
When this campaign season started (over two years ago if memory serves) I was pretty cynical and apathetic about the whole thing. Politics is a dirty business and in all honesty, as I looked at those who were expressing an interest in seeking our nations highest office, I was none too excited about any of them. I basically saw them all as variations on a common theme. But as our choices have been narrowed to the final two candidates, I have come to the conclusion that there is a distinct difference in both the policies which would be pursued and in the character of the two candidates. I strongly believe that many people who vote for Obama looking for change will be very surprised and disappointed with the change they will experience when he takes power with a Democratic congress on hand to help him do his bidding. Here is why I believe that...
Voting Record: In his relatively brief stint he has managed to secure a rather impressive title of having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. More liberal than the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Hilary Clinton. This does not inspire confidence in me that he is going to be an agent of unification and reaching out to all different points of view.
The Economy: He has been harping on the the failed policies of deregulation and greed of the "last eight years" which have brought about the housing market collapse which has in turn led to the failing of the credit market and crash on Wall Street. What he fails to mention is that it isn't deregulation which led to the mortgage crisis. In fact, it has more to do with government intervention in pressuring lending institutions to make loans to low income, high risk clients in order to increase home ownership. While I do believe the Bush administration bears a lot of responsibility for this, it has been the congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters who for the previous two years have been the biggest cheerleaders for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines has been a key economic adviser to Mr. Obama doesn't leave me feeling any easier.
Taxes: Barak Obama promises to raise taxes only on those making $250,000 a year or more and to cut taxes for everyone else. His plan includes imposing Social Security taxes above the current income limits as well as raising windfall profit and capitol gains taxes. So let's see, if we punish achievement, discourage businesses from paying people more than $100,000, discourage investment, and reward lack of ambition this will be a good thing for the country?
I think Barak's recent response to the now famous (or infamous) Joe the plumber was very telling, "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Now if your politically liberal you should be saying, "Amen, Preach it brother!" If you are conservative, that should be very troubling to you. Also, when it comes to his tax cuts for the middle class, I simply don't believe him. There is nothing in his record as a State or U.S. Senator that indicates any interest in easing anybody's tax burden. The record shows that the last Democratic president to reduce income taxes was John Kennedy. If I have to choose between believing in history and an individual's record vs. his campaign posturing, well I have to lean towards the former.
Health: Let me start by saying that I am not particularly impressed with what John McCain has said on this issue, but I do see that what Barak proposes is moving us towards a government run medical bureaucracy which in my opinion would be a disaster of monumental proportions. I happen to work in the evil insurance industry. When Obama talks about forcing insurers to cover pre-existing conditions while at the same time cutting costs it makes me wonder just what sort of magic dust he is planning on sprinkling on us to make that remotely possible. During their second debate the candidates were asked whether health care was a right or responsibility. Senator McCain relied that it was a responsibility. Senator Obama said that it was a right. If you lean to the left you should be clapping your hands. If you don't why would you vote for that point of view?
Foreign Policy: There is a huge range of opinions on whether or not we as a nation should have gone onto Iraq and those opinions are not based solely on whether one is conservative or liberal. I think too,just about everyone can agree that following the initial success of our forces in defeating Hussein's regime, there were significant errors made in how the war was conducted from that point. The issue now is not whether or not we should have gone there or what happened before but rather it is what do we do now that we are there. Do we allow our troops to continue the job that they have been given to do and follow the recent success of the surge to lead to ultimate victory? I fear that Obama's position of setting a hard line date for the removal of troops will only give comfort to and ultimately lead to a resurgence of our enemies in that part of the world. The fact that some may have grown weary of what has been a long and difficult struggle should not cause us to turn the role of Commander-in-Chief over to a man with little or no experience and a record that is bereft of significant support for those who serve so bravely on our behalf.
Social Issues: If you are pro-choice (even to the point of partial birth abortions), pro-expansion of gay rights, pro-expansion of the welfare state, or pro-expansion of benefits to illegal aliens then Barak is your man and you should enthusiastically vote for him. If these are areas of concern for you then you should carefully consider what effect an Obama presidency would have on these issues. How comfortable do you feel having a man with his record and a Democratic Senate appointing federal judges for possibly the next eight years. Vice presidential candidate Biden very clearly stated in his debate with Governor Palin that he does not believe in appointing judges based on their record of interpreting the law but rather on the basis of their beliefs and has been vigilant in his role on the Senate Judiciary Committee to impose a partisan fight on judicial appointments. I found his pride in blocking the appointment of Judge Bork as both telling and disturbing. If you think that these things won't happen or aren't that important, then you are fooling yourself. Ask the liberal activists if they think they are important.
Character: Does it matter who a man's pastor for twenty years is? Is it important whether or not a man associates with someone who is unrepentant about being involved in the bombing of public buildings? Should it concern us that a candidate once was a lawyer for and that his campaign has given money to an organization which appears to be involved in widespread voter fraud? I believe it is. For example, what do you think would be the response of the press if John McCain attended a church that was pastored by a ranking member of the KKK? Even if he hadn't been aware of the affiliation, do you think it would be possible to sit in the pew week after week and never have an inkling of those views? Or what if Sarah Palin had served on a board that included someone who had been involved in bombing abortion clinics, even if he had done so when she was eight years old? I think we know the answer to that. Why doesn't this seem to bother more people?
My friend Mike will vote on November 4th and will do so knowing exactly who and what it is he is voting for. He will be voting his conscience and more power to him. My friend Jim will also be voting but I'm afraid that instead of voting his conscience he will be voting his frustration. While I can understand this it bothers me and when I think of so many others like him it actually scares me.
