I have a few thoughts about a possible Obama-vs-McCain US presidential race that I’m too foolish not to share.
Question. Suppose it’s Obama for the Democrats and McCain for the Republicans. If Obama won, it’s pretty clear that he would be elected with a mandate for change. But if McCain won, would it be because he’s not Obama, rather than because conservatives like his policies?
McCain doesn’t seem too bad; a few weeks ago, Huckabee’s campaign was still floating like a spectre, and according to Wired McCain is the least-worst for geeks. But would he be able to make the positive changes that he seems to support during a first term? Obama, on the other hand, would be expected to do big things right from the beginning, and no one would complain (unless he’s an abject failure) because they would know what they’re signing up for.
At any rate, that’s my tip and my hope: Obama-vs-McCain. A good time will be had by all.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
2 February 2008 at 12:46 am
Rigg
It is a very possible possibility that the race will turn out that way. I am disconcerted that the people of this country are so quick to give up on free markets, small government and freedom. These are the people who have the lead. With all o f the celebrity endorsements and emotions involved, it is no wonder that we have choices that want to give us stuff. People like free stuff. I have a post that you might enjoy. You can read more about this election at:
http://riggword.wordpress.com/
2 February 2008 at 1:51 am
Benjamin Carnys
Thanks for taking the time to post your comment, Rigg. I did enjoy your blog post, although I have differing opinions on much of it.
Anyhow, since I’m not a US citizen, I can only say so much of relevance to the presidential race, and my post above exhausted me for today. But I will say some irrelevant things.
I also have little time for celebrity endorsements (and what is Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of McCain—political or celebrity?), but emotions are part of politics. If you’d like to avoid emotion, you might consider demarchy, instead of democracy.
Emotions aside, it’s pretty hard for people to give up on things that they’ve never had and can’t ever have. I understand the allure of free markets as theoretically-efficient capital allocation devices, but I also think it’s an error to ignore the market externalities—i.e. human beings and the rest of the planet—in favour of an unachieveable ideal. Idealistic free market economics is a bit like communism, if only in that it sounds great but rarely (if ever) ‘does what it says on the tin’. The last 30 years of boom-and-bust economic cycles pays testament to “the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”. Maybe one day when we are all robots, we can try again.
Now, “small government”? That’s just two words to hide a hugely complex issue. Some parts of government probably should be small or non-existent—the ones running warrentless wiretaps, for example—but not all (c.f. my free-markets-can’t-do-it-all diatribe, above). In any case, if you want small government, you’re going to have to do what McCain (for one) has been talking about, and institute some campaign funding reform. Big government is too attractive as an extension of big business—except, of course, in the case of things like the health services industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining the current “small government” regime of third- or fourth- or fifth-rate public healthcare.
As for “freedom”… well, for decades now that word has been an empty, degraded political euphemism for various warm fuzzy feelings, designed so that demagogues can say, more-or-less, “I’m one of you, and we’re better than everyone else.” I think that you should leave it at home if you’re going to decry the emotive aspects of the campaign, because “freedom” is a purely emotive term with little or no relevance to policy or vision for the country. Don’t even get me started on “liberty”!
Gosh, I really did go to town on your comment there, didn’t I? Sorry, I really do appreciate your taking the time to post it.