Reasons to vote for McCain; reasons to vote against Obama

My reasons for voting, not just for McCain, but also against Obama, are almost all premised upon two basic belief systems I hold: (1) As a general matter, that federal government is best which governs least; and (2) that country is safest which has a strong military and is willing to use it in its own defense. With those principles in mind, here's my laundry list of reasons for favoring McCain over Obama.

1. National Security. While Obama has run from the subject for a long time now, he had made it clear through his own speeches and those of his surrogates that he wishes to do two things that will turn America into a wounded deer, lying there to be savaged by rapacious scavenger nations. First, he intends to remove America instantly from Iraq, despite the fact that we're finally winning. While we all understand that even the best commanders sometimes have to conduct a strategic retreat ("he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"), it's insane to back out of a fight that one is winning. I don't think it's ever been done at any place in any time. Second, at a time when America is disliked by her friends and loathed by her foes, he wishes to slash the military. He seems to be clueless that, in the real world, you first get people to become your allies, and only then do you lower your defenses.

McCain understands that the best defense is the promise that, should anyone attack you, you can and will go powerfully on the offensive. His fundamentally cheerful personality makes it clear that he's not out there looking for trouble but if trouble looks for him, he's ready.

In that regard, I have to say that I find it amusing that all the good liberals at my martial arts dojo, the ones who are desperate to unilaterally disarm America, are assiduously training themselves to be strong in case of an unexpected personal attack on the street. It baffles me that they can recognize at a personal level that the strength and training they're developing will not turn them into killing machines, but merely keep them safe; but are unable to extend that basic principle to a national standard.

In any event, McCain's entirely successful take on the surge should in itself demonstrate that he understands warfare in the modern era and is the one most likely to be able to protect America from her stated and violent enemies.

2. The economy. Neither Obama nor McCain is an economist. Neither understands the minute ebb and flow of the economy. That's fine. We're not electing an economist in chief. But each does have a view of the government's role in the marketplace, and this view will definitely affect the economy.

Obama wants to push out individuals and make the state the major player in the market place. How? Redistributive taxes. He wants to take more and more money away from people who have earned it, not simply to fund basic government program such as defense and infrastructure, but to give it to people whom he thinks deserve it. He doesn't believe in a fluid, flexible, reactive marketplace that rewards initiative and hard work. He trusts only the government, which doesn't reward action and initiative, but merely distributes pay based on a victim hierarchy.

Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with the economy? Everything.

The government does not make money; it only spends money. When you suck money out of the marketplace, there's less to go around, and you create infinitely smaller incentives for the entrepreneurs who create products and jobs. And aside from the lack of incentive, punitive taxes that benefit people who haven't earned money provide a strong disincentive for workers and entrepreneurs. Why should I think, and risk, and create, and sweat, if it's just going to go to the guy who whined about the fact that life is hard? News flash: Life is hard and life is unfair.

In a large, heterogeneous society, it makes sense for the government to provide a safety net for those who cannot possibly succeed economically (the aged, the ill, the handicapped), just as it does to provide a safety net for productive people who have fallen on hard times. However, it drains the economy dry to suck money out of the productive segment of the economy only to divvy it up amongst those who feel entitled for no other reason than their identity. Even Obama figured this out when he said at the start of the market's problems that he wouldn't put his tax changes into effect (and, mark you, at that time he'd only been admitting to tax "refunds" made on the backs of small businesses) because it would harm the economy. Well, duh!

Fast forward to John McCain. McCain also can't talk economic tech talk, but he understands that people, not government, make money, and make jobs, and have ideas, and show initiative. He understands that, when it comes to the marketplace, the government's job isn't to take over, but to police. It's job is to make sure people don't cheat or abuse their privileges.

In that regard, one of my favorite books in the world, To Serve Them All My Days, tells the story of life in a small public boys school in England between the world wars. I mention it here because the wise old headmaster has a good policy. Rather than myriad rules than simply invite evasion, he operates the school on a single principle: "Few rules but unbreakable." This would be an excellent rule for the marketplace, too. Figure out the big cheating problems, and slam down on them. Then see what else flows from that.

3. The judiciary. Do you like judges to make it up as they go along, depending on their emotional response to the parties before them? Each judge gets to decide if any given party is a good guy or a bad guy, or if the party belongs to a class of good guys or bad guys. Oh, I almost forgot! The judge also gets to define what constitutes "good" and "bad."

If you think that's the appropriate way to run a judiciary that will result in fair rules of law and the reliable application of laws so that individuals and businesses can make future plans, then Obama is the guy for you. Not only is he a member of a political party that believe that judges are uniquely situated to make these kinds of personal decisions, he has also stated that he believes Supreme Court justices should be guided by empathy, not law. And as you all know, we recently learned that he thinks the courts should be used as instruments of economic redistribution of wealth.

If, however, you believe that judges are to apply the law equally to all parties before them, regardless of the judge's personal response to any given party, and if you believe that a judge's role is to interpret law, not to make law, McCain is definitely the guy for you. While not as pure as one would wish, there is no doubt, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that his judiciary will be more of a strict constructionist and less of an activist judiciary than Obama's.

By the way, one thing about judges: they're all former lawyers. If you think lawyers are scuzzy (and so many Americans do), why in the world would you want to vest all your trust in judges who are, after all, just lawyers? (Incidentally, let me remind that Obama is also a lawyer).

4. Abortion. The abortion issue is actually a subset of the judiciary issue. Despite all the screaming about the fact that Sarah Palin is pro-Life (and she actually walks the walk, rather than just talking the talk), the bottom line is that the president doesn't set abortion policy (nor, of course, does the VP). The only thing a president does that affects abortion is appoint judges.

A strict constructionist judge, one who sees the line between adjudicating and legislating, will honestly admit that Roe v. Wade made up a constitutional right where none exists. A strict constructionist judge will then say that, since there is no constitutional (i.e., federal) right, abortion must be decided either by the states or by constitutional amendment. Most states would continue to keep abortion legal, some states would limit it, and one or two might do away with it altogether.

There is no doubt but that McCain would appoint judges who wouldn't expand federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution) and who might in fact limit federal abortion rights (since they don't exist in the constitution). And there is no doubt that Obama, who refused to vote on a law that would allow live-born aborted babies to receive care, would not appoint those judges.

5. Freedom of speech. The evidence of your own eyes should convince you that Obama and his party are not committed to free speech. I'll give you a few examples. You can provide the rest.

First of all, there's the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which demands that radio stations give equal time to alternative political views, and then insists that the government determine what views get this time. Keep in mind, by the way, that the people advocating this doctrine also contend that NPR, the New York Times, The New Yorker, the Washington Post, ABCNBCCNNCBSMSNBC, etc., all have no actual political view -- they are, say the Fairness Doctrine advocates, impartial reporters of the news. It's only such nefarious sources as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Fox, Hugh Hewitt, etc., who purvey "biased" material that cannot be allowed to sully American ears, and that must be reduced by 50% (making it unprofitable, of course, for radio stations to carry them in the first place).

Suffice to say that, if Obama is president and a Democratic Congress passes the Fairness Doctrine into law, he'll sign the bill with pleasure. If McCain is president, and if the bill isn't veto proof, I can guarantee you he'll veto that bill.

That's big stuff. Here's the little stuff: Obama hasn't given a press conference in over a month; Obama's minions went after Joe the Plumber's private information in an effort to destroy him when he made Obama look bad (just by asking a question, mind you); Obama refuses to give future media access to two TV stations that asked Biden hardball questions; Obama has kicked off his plane reporters from media outlets that haven't endorsed him; Obama's minions threatened to investigate all of his major donors; and, lastly, Obama's minions have subverted the democratic process (which is a form of speech) through hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations.

6. Immigration. There is no doubt that conservatives think McCain is soft on immigration. But if you think he's bad, please remember that Obama represents a party that wants to do away with immigration limitations altogether. It's a party that wants an open border policy.

Is that what you want? Hey, even if you're Hispanic, even if you're a recent Hispanic immigrant, is that what you want? Keep in mind that an economy and a society can absorb only so many newcomers at a time. America's great virtue, as Tito the Builder appreciates, is that America provides enormous opportunities for those who come here, not simply to take from the government, but to work and to give back to this country. That system falls apart if America is flooded with unlimited numbers of immigrants. It's like overloading the lifeboat, with everyone drowning.

England serves as a great example of a country that is destroying itself through its unlimited immigration policies. Without passing any judgment on Muslim beliefs and values, it is still noteworthy that, in less than 15 years, Britain's elites have managed to create a situation that will see their ancient English culture gone in a few more decades

Think I'm exaggerating? The most popular baby name in Britain right now isn't Charles or Jonathan or Bert, its Mohammed. The biggest religion in England right now isn't the Church of England, it's the Catholic Church (because of the influx of Polish immigrants). I have great respect for the Catholic Church, but its current dominance is an historic irony that would make Bloody Mary happy, but that is, well, weird in the great panoply of British history. And when all those Mohammeds grow up, I can guarantee you a very bloody religious war in that country if the little Polish Lechs and Katerinas don't want to convert to Islam without a fight.

There are less than 72 hours left to the election. The media wants to tell you that this election should be Obama's because he's pretty and speaks well and has a calm temperament and, while we're not supposed to talk about race, he's of a race that will make the whole world happy and let us pat ourselves on our collective backs for being so open-minded. The media, of course, is wrong. This race is about incredibly important issues that will, at the least, affect us for years, and at the most (and worst) change America forever.

Even if you're no huge McCain fan because he's not conservative enough, or you're one of those Ivy League conservatives who thinks that Palin isn't "one of us," none of that should matter right now. In a vote between Obama and McCain, for those who cherish freedom from an intrusive federal government and who believe that the federal government's most vital role is national security, the choice should be clear: VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room and at Right Wing News

Why Obama's socialism should not be necessary in America

My mother, bless her heart, said something very important the other day. She said that Europeans are much more socially conscious than Americans and that's why they have all those government programs (i.e., socialism or spreading the wealth). She was clearly trying to say that Americans are mean and selfish, and that's why they've traditionally leaned to keeping their wealth, rather than allowing government redistribution. She's completely wrong, of course, but wrong in a very interesting way.

What she neglected to consider with her pronouncement is that, traditionally, America and Europe had vastly different social and economic fluidity. While Europe has had an exceptionally rigid class system from which few escape, America has been since it's inception a place in which people can "make it." Every immigrant group (and such is the nature of America that all but the Indigenous Americans are immigrant groups), has managed to assimilate and rise economically.

Census records from the Lower East Side in New York, through which passed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of immigrants from all over Europe, show that within two generations, all of the families that once lived there had moved into the working, middle or wealthy classes. Certainly, individuals may have suffered and failed but, en masse, the immigrants did well. They didn't need to become the recipients of perpetual government largesse.

In Europe, however, there were no systems by which the lower classes (and that also always meant the poorer classes) could escape their stratum. Whether by accent, education, poverty, or tradition, they stayed there. (And, interestingly, even the educational opportunities socialism provided didn't much change that. When I lived in England a couple of decades ago, after almost 40 years of free access to college education, most English people did not go on to college and people still gave away their class instantly just by opening their mouths.) Socialism, in other words, was just a totalitarian government substitute for the old noblesse oblige that saw the upper class (or, at least, the socially conscious ones) take care of the poorer orders, all the while ensuring that they stayed in their place.

The intense stratification of that system continues to exist with the new immigrants to Europe. Whether in Germany, Norway, Sweden, England, Italy or France, these new Muslim immigrants are instantly the recipients of government largesse that gives them housing and money -- and that essentially tells them to get into their immigrant ghettos, and stay there, preferably feeling grateful to and voting for the government that was so good to them. Its a shock to the ruling class, and one that they can't seem to understand, that these immigrants, rather than feeling grateful at being stuffed away into ghettos without any opportunities, loath the countries in which they live, and cheerfully envision their bloody overthrows.

My mother agreed with me on all of these points (how could she not?), but then produced her "a-ha!" to prove me wrong: "What about blacks in America (and, she could have added, Native Americans, too)?" To her, they proved I was entirely wrong in describing America's social and economic fluidity. To me, though, the were just the extra evidence I needed to prove that when, as they do you Europe, a government provides too much for people, it consigns them permanently to poverty and social exile.

As you know, African-Americans (and Native Americans) differed from all other immigrant groups in America because the American system essentially imposed against them, for centuries (and in brutal and horrible ways), a European style stratification that prevented any upward movement. This is true whether one is looking at slavery, relocation, genocidal wars or Jim Crow. I'll focus from here on out on what happened to blacks when Americans finally wised up to the error of their ways, but you can tell the same story about Native Americans.

Beginning in the 1940s (with the WWII economy) and continuing into the 1950s (with the Civil Rights movement), blacks started the same upward movement as other American groups. That is, once the nation began removing the artificial ceiling it had imposed on them, blacks too made social and economic strides. The strides were slow, because prejudice is slow to die, but they were real, and they created a rising black working and middle class composed of nuclear families. I have no doubt that, had the government continued to educate and police against discrimination, and otherwise left the market to do its work, African Americans would have joined other immigrant groups in realizing the American dream in a generation or two.

The death knell for this laborious, but real, social and economic ascent was the Great Society. The moment comprehensive welfare programs began (around the mid-1960s), government workers fanned out to black communities all over America and made huge efforts to tell blacks to stop working, because the government would pay for them. White guilt was at its apex, and government welfare was its expiation.

Being rational actors, blacks gave up bad, low-paying, often demeaning jobs for free money. And being rational actors, they gave up nuclear families and parental responsibility for even more free money. And so began the terrible slide of the African-American community. Even if you all don't remember that time, you do remember what finally arrested this slide and helped put African-Americans back on the same, slow upward trajectory that existed before the Great Society: The fact that Clinton, under duress from a real Republican Congress, ended “welfare as we know it.” Once again, African-Americans, being rational actors, were given the incentive to shelter in the strength of the nuclear family and plug into the American Dream.

Obama wants to undo the American Dream and turn us into a European economy, where all benefits flow from the government, rather than individual effort. You can call it "socialism," or "big government," or "spreading the wealth," or whatever else suits you, but the outcome will be the same: People will be locked into government induced poverty in perpetuity, the middle class will become slack, the economy will enter into stagflation, unemployment will rise, and service in every area of American life will fall as people lose their incentive (because they've lost the ability) to rise upwards and join in the American Dream.

Obama Presidency Could Bring Great Depression

Investing is all about confidence in the future. While we could argue that the polls have shifted against Senator McCain because of the bailout plan, most of the bad news is behind us. So why isn’t the Dow Jones Industrial Average going up? Why has it continued to slide?

Is Senator Obama's lead in the polls depressing the Dow Jones Industrial Average? The Dow should be coming up with news of Treasury Department's activities to stabilize the market. However, the Dow continues to drop. Is this due to Obama's current lead in the polls? Did we lose $1,000,000,000,000 (i.e., trillion) of the two trillion lost in the New York Stock Exchange because Obama is ahead in the polls? Most likely, investors don’t see a bright future if Obama wins. The Dow dropped 300 points on the day Obama clinched the Democrat nomination. Investors are afraid of his plans for the economy. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. The Obama plan is mostly the same old gibberish about increased investment not leading to job growth and that only the Federal government knows what is best.

Is the Dow dropping partially due to Obama's continuing lead in the polls? Yes, there was a huge mess on Wall Street that is now getting cleaned up, and the financial markets are being stabilized, but why isn't the Dow Jones Industrial Average going up? Isn’t it at least partially due to Obama's lead in the polls? Could it be because investors fear Obama's stated goal to raise taxes sharply and grow government? Socialist policies always panic Wall Street. The message of Robin Hood is to steal from the rich to give it to the poor. But is class warfare good economic policy? Many of Obama’s economic advisers are already involved in the economy through the Democrat-controlled Congress. Can we afford to have a Democrat in the White House, too?

Will electing Obama for President send the U.S. economy into another Great Depression? The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down almost $1 trillion dollars lower than it should be ($2 trillion down total since the financial crisis) and this seems to be because Obama is ahead in the polls. Will an Obama presidency destroy what is left of investor confidence and send the U.S. into another Great Depression? Yes, a Presidential candidate can hold sway over the stock market. Electing a candidate who is hostile toward investors can have a devastating effect on Wall Street.

The financial markets are down for a multitude of reasons. If Obama was seen as a savior who could help, the stock market would have recovered substantially. If my estimate is correct, imagine what the Dow will do if Obama is elected. Can America afford to elect Obama President? No!

You Call That a Plan?

So much for being above negative politics. Politico reported that Obama had some harsh words for John McCain at a barbecue in a local park in Eau Claire, Wisconsin yesterday after attending a local church, showing that it's back to politics-as-usual (which I'm not necessarily against, I'm just telling the guy “I told you so”).

To a group of 300 supporters, he said:

"If we can spend $10-12 billion a month in Iraq, we sure as hell can pay $10-12 billion right here in the United States of America to put people back to work."

He also said that he's the candidate for the middle class, "the teachers and nurses and the cops and firefighters." McCain, he said, "doesn't really have an economic plan, and everybody sort of knows it."

Did Obama have a few too many beers at this bbq? It's one thing to disagree with your opponent's plan, but he's starting to sound like the kids who ran against me in student council elections. And maybe he should take a look at McCain's detailed economic policies.

As for Obama's vision, the numbers say far more than any turn of phrase: he's planning on spending $800 billion, and that's going to hurt middle-class citizens the most. Why? Because that money has to come from somewhere, and it will be drained out of an economy that is already far from robust. And when the economy goes south, the jobs of middle-class Americans go with it. Ultimately, the middle class will pay for that extra spending in higher taxes, because Obama just won’t be able to squeeze that much money from “the rich.” Obama’s tax plan would reduce the incentives for the most productive Americans to work; the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) would rise from 44.6% to 62.8%. Obama’s plan amounts to a cut of one-third in the amount that these people keep from their earnings, after taxes.

So what will the high-earners do? Work less and produce less taxable wealth. Either that, or find ways to shelter their income from taxes. In both cases, the bills for Obama’s return to big government will come due for the same middle-income wage-earners he claims to defend.

Did the crowd in Eau Claire get to hear that?