One of the questions raised by the discussion of the previous post has been whether the amount we spend on providing the US Military with modern, sophisticated, expensive weapons systems is justifiable. The discussion centers on the perceived notion that John McCain supports continued spending on such systems while Barack Obama supports cutting or eliminating a large amount of such spending.
This discussion represents a debate that has existed, I believe, since at least the beginning of recorded history and that has never had a concise answer. Before Americans can achieve their own answer to that debate, they must first answer some very important other questions.
First, what is the scope of the US’s defensive interests? Should the US Military only be capable of defending US territory, or should we define defense more broadly? Central to this question is the definition of US interests and their value to US national security. The broader this definition becomes, the more expensive the resulting military force becomes. Is the defense of national interests a justification of an expensive military?
Second, what should the trigger for the use of the US Military for national security purposes be? When we invaded Afghanistan, few people questioned the validity of that use of the military because the trigger was the violation of national sovereignty. Far more people questioned the invasion of Iraq because the triggers were far more esoteric. The reasons for the use of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo were even less clear. A military force prepared for employment for less defined reasons is more expensive. Is national interest enough reason to justify the use of military force?
Third, what should the employment cost of such defense be? When we use the US Military, we cannot just measure the cost in dollars but also in lives and time. There is a clear relationship between the sophistication of military equipment--sophistication is usually more expensive--and the cost in time and lives of any military operation. Certainly, our military is capable of winning with less sophisticated weapons, but is that a cost we are willing to pay?
The differences between McCain and Obama on these questions are clear. McCain believes in a broad scope of US defensive interests while Obama believes that much of that scope is better resolved through diplomacy and through the actions of other nations. McCain believes in a far lower threshold for the use of military force than Obama. McCain believes that the employment cost should be as low as possible--recall he has a lower threshold for use--while Obama seems to support a higher cost of employment because he envisions far less military use.
From my perspective, our government provided the answers to these questions for me in the 70s and 90s.
In the 70s, we allowed the government to decimate military spending because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. The result was that, in 1979, we did not have the capacity to deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis, and by 1980, there was a very real sense that we would lose if the Soviets invaded Western Europe. We spent most of the 80s correcting that mistake, only to make the same one again in the 90s.
In the 90s, the end of the Cold War and the success of Operation Desert Storm convinced many people that the need for a large, expensive standing military was no longer necessary. The 90s evisceration of the US Military made the 70s look loving by comparison. Unfortunately, the handwriting was already on the wall in the 90s. Various adversaries threatened and attacked US interests around the world with virtual impunity. Tribal warriors equipped with khat, AKs, and RPGs forced the US Military to withdraw from Somalia. Al Qaeda attacked the US Military directly and we were not able to respond.
On 9-11, al Qaeda drove this reality home. We have spent the past seven years rebuilding the force we should have had in 1993 when al Qaeda unmistakably attacked us for the first time.
I grant that military spending often seems like a waste. Standing militaries are unwieldy and inefficient entities that only achieve their peak when employed and even then are wasteful. Nevertheless, the value of maintaining such a force is clear.
I believe Obama’s position on this question represents a dangerous return to an idea already proven false and made even more dangerous by the current world situation. McCain’s position on this question is virtually indistinguishable from my own, hence my unwavering support for him.
Posts
24 comments:
Denny,
What is it about this plan that you oppose?
And now that you mention it, how is Obama's plan any different from this plan?
The difference between the two candidates' plans lie in the fundamentals of how the approach the questions of defense. A sufficient explanation of those fundamentals is a doctoral thesis, so my comments here will be necessarily brief and perhaps more vague than a satisfactory explanation might warrant.
Basically stated, Barack Obama sees the military as a last line of defense after every other kind of effort to prevent war has failed. Fundamentally, that is a laudable view, but one that also ignores the ongoing reality--as you pointed out in a previous post comment--that the world is always in crisis. However, because Obama sees the military as being of secondary value, he has stated that he will fund the military as a secondary priority--his words, not mine.
Obama also seems to misunderstand the ideas of modernization and superiority. Certainly, we could modernize our military by taking much of the money applied to developing the next generation of weapons and investing it into current weapons, but the result will inevitably be that we will eventually have a modernized but not superior military because the rest of the world will not stop developing and equipping their forces with the next generation of weapons.
Obama confuses the idea of the size of a military with that military's capacity to fight. That is a freshman mistake to be expected of someone who obviously knows very little about how the military works. Certainly, some of the current US Military is too small given the tasks it has been given; however, the solution is not just to increase the size, but also to increase the capacity. Capacity ties directly into modernization and the development of next generation weapons systems. Sure, we can add tens of thousands of troops, but if they are using outdated weapons, what is the point?
Further, Obama has clearly fallen for the rhetoric that the military is "stretched thin" and "not ready". As a military member who spends quite a lot of time around military members, I can promise the American people that the US Military is neither stretched thin nor unprepared because more than 2/3rds of the entire force is not involved in current military operations. Some kinds of units are over-tasked, hence the reason for adding more forces, but the overall force is sound and ready. This talk of weakness in our fighting forces is propaganda of the first order. If it were not, then how could it be involved in two very different fights right now and not collapse?
Finally, Obama's claim that he would deploy the military with everything it needs is just plain dumb. Donald Rumsfeld committed a big political gaff when he stated the well known military axiom "you go to war with the military you have", but the gaff made the axiom no less true. No military will ever be prepared for the war it actually ends up fighting. Anyone who doubts that fact simply needs to look at the history of all of the major wars of the 20th century. In every case, even the sides who started the fight found itself scrambling to develop and equip its forces with things they never imagined their military would need.
Now, I do agree with Obama on some things. The military does need to be reorganized. We've known that for almost twenty years and no president to date has managed to make that reorganization happen. We do need to concentrate on modernization in places where modernization has been lacking, but that means, in many cases, developing the weapons needed because we do not have new ones with which to modernize.
The difference between Obama and McCain's plans--they certainly appear similar on the surface--is how they would actually approach the process of making their plans happen. I believe Obama would force the military into a situation very similar to the one that existed during the Carter and Clinton administrations where funding was cut back so far that even worthwhile systems (the current wildly successful V-22 and Predator were two programs that suffered major setbacks during the Clinton presidency) suffered as a result. I believe that McCain would fight to ensure that the military would have enough money to continue to modernize now and to have the resources to stay modern in the future.
Arrg. I had a whole reply that I lost. I'll try to recreate it.
You seem to have some inconsistencies in your comment. I'm sure they're unintentional, so maybe you can help me work it out.
First,
"Certainly, we could modernize our military by taking much of the money applied to developing the next generation of weapons and investing it into current weapons, but the result will inevitably be that we will eventually have a modernized but not superior military"
This seems to be precisely what you're arguing against elsewhere. How can we modernize if we divert money for new systems to current systems?
You also write, "Capacity ties directly into modernization and the development of next generation weapons systems. Sure, we can add tens of thousands of troops, but if they are using outdated weapons, what is the point?" which seems to contradict your previous assertion, though it is consistent with other comments you have made elsewhere.
On a different, but related note, you write:
"Finally, Obama's claim that he would deploy the military with everything it needs is just plain dumb. . . . No military will ever be prepared for the war it actually ends up fighting. . . even the sides who started the fight found itself scrambling to develop and equip its forces with things they never imagined their military would need."
Doesn't this actually tend to support Obama's view? If we never have all of the equipment we need, doesn't that mean, by definition, that some of the programs we have turn out to be irrelevant? I suppose not, since they might all be relevant but still only partially sufficient to the new dynamic. Even so, doesn't this argue for better intelligence so we might more accurately assess our future needs?
At any rate, Obama seems only to be arguing that we make sure that our programs are both necessary and work. What's wrong with that? It seems a perfectly reasonable position to take as well as an effective one. If we waste our resources on technology that doesn't work or isn't applicable, where will we come up with the resources to build what we really need when we need it?
What I was ineffectively trying to say is that the development of next generation weapons is always part of the future modernization process. Because of the sheer sophistication of next generation weaponry, the typical next generation weapon takes something like 10 to 30 years to develop. The programs Obama and the Democrats in general threaten to cut are programs that are not needed today, but will be needed decades from now. Cutting those programs ensures we will not have to capacity to modernize when that time comes.
"...doesn't that mean, by definition, that some of the programs we have turn out to be irrelevant?
Yes.
This entire concept speaks to something I wrote earlier: standing armies are inherently inefficient. It seems like a great idea to keep producing the existing F-16 instead of developing the F-35, but in twenty years, the F-16 will look like a biplane beside the then current generation of Russian and Chinese fighters. On the surface, scrapping the F-35 seems to make sense. We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an that aircraft will duplicate many things the F-16 already does well. On the other hand, it does all kinds of things the F-16 will never be able to do and will be able to do them long after there are no more F-16s flying.
On the other hand, there are programs we can identify now as being wasteful. As an example, the Army wanted to build a self-propelled howitzer that was so big it could not physically fit into any cargo plane we ever planned to build. That kind of program obviously needs to be cut.
At the same time, though, they also cut the program for the Army's next generation scout helicopter. Unfortunately, now the Army's current, modern scout helicopters are getting to the point where they need to be replaced and there are no plans for a replacement. We could simply build more, but those helicopters were based on technologies conceived in the 70s and 80s that are simply outclassed on the modern battlefield.
The bottom line is that it has been the Democratic line since WWII to believe that we have enough military and that military spending represents tragic waste. Democratic presidents have tried to micro-manage the procurement process to dimes and nickels, and all they have managed to achieve is making our military less prepared. Some military contracting people believe that the reason next generation development takes so long (especially since the 70s) and is so expensive is because of regulatory requirements put into place during several Democratic presidencies that basically require the military to prove they are going to fight with a certain weapon before they can buy it. What kind of standard is that?
If Obama wanted to do something radical that might actually change my mind about his views on military funding, he could propose that we scrap the current obese military contracting system that rewards military contractors for being military contractors and replace it with a contracting system that rewards companies that develop innovative and inexpensive ways to accomplish what has always been done the same way. That system can work, and amazing weapons like Predator/Reaper and the MRAP are proof of it (one of the MRAP vehicles currently in use--I can't remember which one specifically--began development in 2003 and went into service in 2006).
Unfortunately, for Obama to do that, he has to change his whole view on the military at all. As long as he continues to tout a party line that includes such dogma that we are still losing in Iraq (even the NYT and WP don't believe that anymore), that the only people who join the military have no other options in life (repeatedly proved false by military demographics), and that the military is a drain on the public coffers (military spending represents the smallest percentage of the budget it ever has), then I will be hard pressed that he believes anything like what I believe about the military.
As an aside, a couple more comments like this one, and I will have my thesis.
Denny,
I don't have an argument with anything you said. Where can I find the numbers you refer to, but don't cite, on military demographics and military spending.
Also, just on a side note. While there might be other instances of Obama saying we're losing in Iraq, I noted an interesting moment of obstinance from McCain during an otherwise lucid debate from both candidates. Obama stood on stage and defended himself against the charge of insisting the surge didn't work. He admitted that it had reduced violence. There was no "but" at the end of his sentence, though he did go on to criticize our starting the war in the first place. Not five minutes later, McCain fired back that Obama insists on saying the surge didn't work! What made it even more funny (or sad) was that later in the debate, McCain made a big point of talking about not holding to rigid views (not his exact words, but the sense of what he was saying). Strong words from a man who couldn't even change his talking points five minutes after getting direct evidence that one of them was not true.
One other observation from the debates: I thought both candidates came across as very presidential on Friday night. I like that it felt like a real debate rather than a string of platitudes (those were there too, though, just not as pervasive as usual), and both candidates seemed in charge of their facts for the most part.
Here are two military demographics write-ups from the Heritage Foundation that distill the 2005 numbers reported by the services. Unfortunately, the numbers are reported to Congress by each individual service instead of a single report from the DoD, so finding an aggregate of the raw data can be difficult. Here are the Air Force demographics current as of 30 June 2008.
As for the debate, I think McCain managed to lose the election by failing to produce a strong showing. It's not that he did anything to make his position weaker; rather, he didn't do anything to make it stronger. Unless some world event occurs in the next few weeks that changes the national focus back to international events, Obama is probably the 44th President of the United States. God help us all...
Here is a good outline of recent military spending.
One of the Heritage Foundation articles somehow did not come through.
Denny,
Thank you for the information. The following comments are independent of any "argument" in the media, here, or elsewhere. They are independent observations.
1) The enlistment numbers do seem to favor the theory that the military is disproportionately made up of people from the lower economic scale. The numbers in the study you provided had pretty tight bands up to $52,000 and about 80% of enlistments take place here. I saw where poverty is defined as around $17,000 and the median was around $42,000. This, though, is Household income. Separate from any military argument, these definitions are ludicrous. If it takes two incomes (and I assume that is often the case) to pull in $40,000 per year, that's pretty tight; I would argue that poverty occurs well before falling to $17K.
Again, this isn't the argument that others are trying to make about soldiers being from poverty, which this study clearly refutes. But I think the SENSE that the initial premise is true is due to the reality of how tough it is to live the middle class "dream" of owning one's own home and being relatively free of debt, sending kids to college, etc. on $40K per year.
2) I think more detail is necessary to make sense of the military spending numbers. Percentages are tough to work with when the overall GDP has grown and the government budget has likewise grown. Up until 1980, it looks like Democrats were the military spenders. It's also hard to assess who really has control. Sometimes a Republican President (the first Bush) presides over a shrinking military budget. Of course, he had a Democratic Congress. However, my quick read doesn't show a consistent pattern between party or Presidential versus Congressional sway over the budget. More time and more detail might reveal otherwise, but it seems like the idea that Democrats are somehow "anti-military" when it comes to spending is somewhat of a myth.
That is to say nothing of the current discussion about what Obama might try to do. I will say that your "God help us" comment is a bit dramatic. I don't think Obama or McCain can be worse than Bush, though if McCain were to die, then truly God bless us because Palin is NOT ready to be President. She's proven that over the past two weeks.
That said, neither candidate is likely to endanger us or save us all by his lonesome.
I agree "God help us" is dramatic, but from my perspective, it is also appropriate. Barack Obama is so far from my positions on anything that it is hard to take away from his potential for election anything other than that my way of life is under assault.
I also agree that very few presidents have the power to single handedly do anything (which makes me wonder what happened with GWB considering that he is so widely reviled), but I do think that presidents have some capacity to make things better or worse. I believed very much the same way during the Clinton years, and I think history is alreay proving how many things that happened during his tenure left scars that reach even until now.
I agree that there is a problem with "upper class" people being significantly under represented in the military, but I think that is one of the risks of an all volunteer military force. I also do not think the way to fix that problem is something drastic like a draft, but rather an approach that rewards service more effectively.
I also agree that the military spending numbers are not as clear as anyone would like them to be. I'm doing somemore digging because I hope someone has broken those numbers down more effectively.
By the way, how is Palin any less prepared than Carter or Clinton or GW Bush were? They were all former governors with almost no foreign policy experience, and franly, it showed. Palin's in good company, considering history and who is running this time around.
A couple of things...
1. This drives me nuts... the Military Stretched Thin "Propaganda" didn't come from the Democratic Campaign Committee. It came from the Military brass. General Casey said it to Congress in September of last year. Richard Myers has said it. Colin Powell said in April of this year.
(links below)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-16-myers-military-strength_x.htm
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_colin_powell_042808/
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,128782,00.html
That last article from Military.com was especially interesting inasmuch as it tallies the costs of replacement and repair of equippage should we withdraw today... or rather in March of last year when the article was written.
Among my many objections to the Iraq war is what it has done to our ability to react militarily to new threats. I believe that this fact has emboldened the Russians, the North Koreans and the Iranians. It's inexcusable and it was avoidable.
2.) Palin. Oh... where to begin? I live in the Northwest. We told Palin jokes before the rest of the country knew who she was. She's a wingnut. She was governor of a state with a smaller population than Dallas and mayor of a town smaller than my high school. (Well, almost). The volume of 'He's not qualified' that we've all had to endure with regards to Obama surely now sounds ironic even to your ears. My initial thought when I heard was "Oh my God, they found someone worse than Dan Quayle..."
She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. I want someone to ask her if she knows what the Monroe Doctrine is.
There are plenty of smart, conservative women who could have done great honor to the ticket, had a chance to sway my vote and not scared all of us that the old man she's backing up won't make it and it will be her answering that legendary 3am phone call.
(shudder)
There's a lot of talk in the campaign about pork-barrel spending. Obama's done some, McCain has made a career of railing against it.
Pursuant to that, here is a list released by the Obama campaign detailing monies he requested for his state: http://tinyurl.com/yrjmuk
Look under the heading 'Defense'. Contrary to the claims that have been bandied about here quite a bit lately, it's not a bunch of proven systems (though there's a roof and some HVAC work in there for an arsenal) or money for catapults or other proven technologies. There is in fact a significant amount of money going into advanced defense r&d. Unproven systems that show promise like ALERT and an Airforce laser.
I know Denny and Chris have seen this list before because we discussed it at length in the midst of a wide-ranging chat about the possible military applications of laser guns.
Definite evidence of him spending on advance weapons R&D, indicative that he's not opposed to doing it again. (And not just money for proven concepts either.)
He's not suggesting that we scrap DARPA. He's suggesting that there are limits to what we should be throwing money at which could be better spent giving us 'the Army we want' (imagine that spoken in a spot-on Rummy impression.)
Spending priorities will always differ between one person and the next. An Obama presidency will not end our way of life any more than the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton administrations did. (In fairness, neither will a McCain administration with an appropriate list appended of past Republican presidents except GW.)
Scott, I was not saying that the "military stretched thin" meme was a Democrat line. I believe it is a military and administration propaganda technique. Why they are doing it remains to be seen.
As for Palin, my point is simply that she is in good company as a governor running for federal office. It's easy to forget how little someone like Carter or Clinton or Bush knew when they ran because they learned a lot while in office as presidents. Obama will do the same thing if elected. Why not Palin?
I understand that Obama is not against all advanced systems, my contention with him is the systems he is against. I do not have time to cite the specific references now, but my understanding is that he has specifically suggested scrapping the F-35 and CVN-77 programs.
These are mainline programs needed to replace existing platforms before we loose our edge to existing next generation platforms from Russia and China. To me there is a big difference between canceling a concept program and canceling a program specifically designed to replace aging systems. That's my issue with Obama and why I think his views are naive.
Finally, I disagree with the assessment that an Obama presidency will not have an affect on our way of life for many of the same reasons so many people think GWB's presidency has changed our way of life. I think we are at a fragile, critical time in our nation's history, and who we elect now will make a huge difference for our nation in the next four years.
I am very concerned about Obama's big government views in a time when it is clear that big government is unsustainable. Add that to the fact that his view of national security is completely different from my own, and there is no way I can vote for him.
Denny,
"Barack Obama is so far from my positions on anything that it is hard to take away from his potential for election anything other than that my way of life is under assault."
I wonder if you're really giving him a fair chance or if you're influenced by anti-Obama propagandists. There are some differences between Obama and McCain on the issues, but they aren't that far apart from what I can see. I understand your placing a high priority on national security / defense, but as I think Scott has shown, at least some of Obama's positions on those issues are widely mischaracterized. Further, I'm still trying to figure out why everyone so easily accepts the idea that McCain has so much foreign policy experience when no one ever mentions what it IS. His committee assignments certainly account for some of it and his time in the military. I find those examples undercut by his lack of grasp over basic facts when he talks about foreign policy issues. And his military experience, though laudable, don't wow me by any objective standards. Sure, he gets points on basic human compassion for his captivity, but his actual military record is less than compelling. I'm not trying to say that Obama has MORE experience in foreign affairs; I'm merely saying the gap isn't as wide as conventional wisdom makes it seem. Personally, I think Obama shows good judgment, but I can understand why he wouldn't be compelling for some people. I just don't think you should feel panicked about Obama becoming President. He's a centrist Democrat (and by that I mean he's in about the center of his own party) at a time when the Democrats have yielded so much ground to the conservative-run Republican party, that you don't need to fear him marching us toward socialism or something.
"I agree that there is a problem with "upper class" people being significantly under represented in the military, but I think that is one of the risks of an all volunteer military force. I also do not think the way to fix that problem is something drastic like a draft, but rather an approach that rewards service more effectively."
I agree with you here. I don't support a draft. For me, as for many others who make the claim of disproportionate representation in the military, the point is that the people who make the decision about war are so divorced from the consequences and reality of their decisions that they too blithely put us in those situations. Many of the loudest war cheerleaders in Washington and the press have no actual skin in the game. That doesn't mean you should be required to have a son or daughter in the service, it's just an observation that it's easier to volunteer someone else to go die for your goals than it is to take part in the risk yourself. Sharing in the risk might change how some of these people behave.
"By the way, how is Palin any less prepared than Carter or Clinton or GW Bush were? They were all former governors with almost no foreign policy experience, and franly, it showed. Palin's in good company, considering history and who is running this time around."
Put aside Palin's party affiliation and religious and social beliefs for a moment. In fact, pretend that she's a Democrat and ask yourself what you think about her credentials and her performance in various interviews. Other than mouthing the party talking points about foreign policy in the most general and provacative ways, does she really impress you as knowledegable about foreign policy? (Having just re-read your post, I see that you aren't impressed with her. You seem to think she's no better or worse than, say Bill Clinton. Are you really saying you'd support Clinton as VP in this election?)
Carter was not only Governor of Georgia, he graduated with distinction from the Naval Academy, served in the Navy in some of the most cutting edge submarine programs (among other duties), ran the family business, and served in a number of levels of state government. His subsequent achievements in foreign policy as President demonstrate his preparedness for the job.
Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown and Yale and was a Rhodes Scholar. He served multiple terms as Governor of Arkansas and also served as the state's Attorney General. While none of that bears directly on foreign policy experience, it does demonstrate intelligence and a high level of achievement (that goes for Carter as well).
George W. Bush also went to Yale where he performed at a middling level at best. His business ventures were marked by consistent failure that was only mitigated by his father's wealthy connections. His service in the National Guard was of questionable quality. He ran away from his one big asset, his father's experience in foreign affairs, and toward what is, in my opinion, an extremist view of foreign policy. While I wouldn't characterize him as stupid, Bush doesn't hold an intellectual candle to either Carter or Clinton (or Obama or McCain for that matter).
Sarah Palin has a BS in Journalism and Communication from the University of Idaho. As Scott pointed out, she has been on a city council, been Mayor/Manager of a small town (and by some accounts turned the managerial portion of her job over to someone else), and served a couple of years as Governor of our smallest state by population. By her own admission, her claim to foreign policy expertise is that Russia shares a border with Alaska. Now we know that she isn't in negotiations with these people. It's not like she's had tea with Putin and told him not to bother coming across the border because her national guard will eviscerate him. Most disturbingly, she has looked absolutely ridiculous in her interviews when it comes to foreign policy. She can barely master the prepared talking points. And this isn't some floozy from Wasilla. She's a beauty queen and former sports reporter. She knows how to be in front of the camera, so I don't think we can write it off to nerves. And even if we could, that would be a bad sign.
Seriously, she does not have the background or gravitas of any of the people you mentioned.
Your arguments about McCain at least hold some water, but your support of Palin is purely partisan. You can refuse to concede that ground if you like, but I think it damages your credibility on other issues. As someone who believes in real Republican values, I'd be nervous about Palin if I were you. Your only hopes with her on the ticket are that 1) McCain doesn't die in office and 2) if he does, that someone else steps up to run the White House the way Cheney and Rove did for Bush. Otherwise, it will be disaster for all. And I think that is only a little bit of hyperbole.
And he could have had Elizabeth Dole!
David,
I guess my distance from Obama is what makes me an extremist then. I am not a centrist, nor do I claim to be. Perhaps the way that I differ from other extremists is that I actually embrace the process that distills views like my own into a system that an entire country can embrace. You and Scott may be right about Obama in some respects, but in my book, he's the wrong man for the job based on the standards I use. I've explained those standards, and I accept that many, many people disagree. I still think that, if Obama follows through on his stated plans for the presidency with regard to foreign policy, he risks making the United States less safe than it is now.
As to Palin, what appeals to me is the fact that it's been a long time since one of our presidential contenders has been someone who looks a lot more like me than like McCain or Obama. One of the reasons that I think our government is broken is because virtually none of our politicians are still connected with the lives the rest of us live everyday.
I grant your contention that she is not as refined of a politicians, but that is the appeal for me. I do not need my politicians to be nobility in order to believe that they are capable. I have faith in Americans--all Americans--not just in politicians.
Let me make something else clear: the only reason I support McCain is because his positions on national security are closer to my own than Obama's are. My choice for the conservative candidate chose not to run, so I am left with making a pick based on my views. I like Palin because she is Palin, not because she is a Republican or because she is McCain's running mate. That's not a partisan position but a personal one.
By the way, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican. Yes, I am a conservative in many ways, but I find the affiliation of a particular political party to be confining. I am also a pragmatist. I could vote for the Constitutionalists or Libertarian candidates, but what is the point? Hence my support for McCain.
Denny,
I wasn't calling you an extremist. One, one person's rational belief is another's extreme almost every time. Two, and more importantly, I wasn't of the mind that you agreed with everything the current administration has done. I've certainly seen you defend actions I thought were extreme, but I often got the impression you did so not so much out of a belief in the extreme view, but out of a belief that the process would ultimately work. Was I wrong about that?
Your comment about why Palin appeals to you has some sense to it, but ultimately surprises me. Sure, it's nice to have someone who is closer to the public than many who are in Washington, and I agree that being "one of the people" doesn't necessarily mean you aren't competent to run the country. But just as being educated doesn't mean you have good judgment or ability, neither does being one of the people make you someone of judgment and intelligence. Good ole common sense is usually not as common or sensical as we like to believe.
Given her inability to articulate any kind of clear answer to even the most basic questions, what makes you think she is equipped to take that mythical 3am phone call? I don't even think she can keep her head above water on a normal day. Personal or not, I think you're overlooking a lot of flaws to support Palin. That said, I can understand if your support for McCain is such that you're willing to overlook those flaws.
On the vote thing, that's always a tough call, isn't it? On the one hand, when you say "what's the point" to voting for who you want even though they don't have a chance, you're basically saying what's the point to the whole thing. On the other hand, I can see you casting a vote for someone when you think it will make a difference and both put someone in who is close to what you want and keep someone out who is far away.
I'd really like to see reform on this issue. The big two parties have so much power now, they can essentially exclude the others. We need more REAL choice. I wonder if we took more of an active role supporting candidates we really wanted, if we could cut into the near monopoly the Republicrats and Democrins have on the process.
David,
I should have been more clear: I was calling myself an extremist, not saying you were. I understand that my views on some things, like the importance of national security, are absolute and that absoluteness makes them extreme. I'm glad not everyone is like me because the world would be a draconian and humorless place if they were.
As for Palin, my views on her have a lot more to do with McCain than her. The way I see things, she makes the McCain pill easier to swallow. This is a dangerous gamble, but I think the biggest mistake GWB made in 2004--my perspective--is keeping any of the people from his previous administration, but especially Cheney. If he had dumped Cheney for someone who could have run this year, the entire calculus might be different. If McCain gets elected, my hope is that he gets at least four good years--the actuaries are on my side there--giving Palin plenty of time to grow into the kind of candidate I think she can be with a little exposure.
Why take this risk? Because as much as I do not want Obama to get elected, President Biden frightens me. There is a reason that even Democrats have failed to nominate him for president at least twice now. What suddenly makes him the right man for veep? Even though I would not have voted for them, Obama/Clinton would have been an unbeatable ticket.
Also, I have believed for a long time that the monopoly of the political parties is hurting us. I have no idea how to fix that as long as gobs of money are involved in getting presidents elected.
Indeed there are many things I disagree with the current administration about; however I do not see Obama as the solution to the resulting problems. I think the system will solve the ancillary stuff, but I do not trust Obama to be a strong national security president in a time of world threat. I am not going to vote for a career politician because he promises change, but because he delivers on the issues important to me. Obama does not deliver on national security for me. McCain does.
No sweat. I didn't think you were calling me extreme. I was surprised to see you call yourself extreme and wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't saying that about you.
Just an aside, but I think it is interesting that I haven't heard anyone in the media talking about how unusual this election is. We rarely ever elect a Senator to be President and this year we have two of the running (and three out of four places on the ticket).
Given how low Congress' approval rating is, I think most of us peasants feel screwed by the whole thing. :)
Post a Comment