Maybe it's an artifact of living in the Bay Area, but almost all of my friends at work will be voting for Obama in the fall. Even among my evangelical friends, a surprisingly high number are still undecided or leaning Obama. (Of course, a surprisingly high number are frighteningly uninformed, but that's another blog entry altogether.) Living here in California, our electoral college votes will ultimately go to the Democrats. But, when asked (as is often the case), here are the five reasons I'm not voting for Obama.
1. It's the economy, stupid!
Comprehensive healthcare reform is at the heart of Obama's domestic policy. I'm not sure when Social Security and Medicare righted themselves (what happened to the lockbox?), but to hear Barack talk about healthcare reform, you would think that the Treasury is flush with cash and we're struggling to find ways to spend it all. I'm all for comprehensive healthcare reform. I think it's horrible that many Americans are uninsured or underinsured, that healthcare insurance is tied to employment, that inefficiencies abound in the system, and that many general practioners are overworked and underpaid. But in a time of economic instability, the last thing we need is the inauguration of a major new entitlement program.
This program will not only bind our hands today (and prevent us from spending tax revenue in ways tailored to stimulating economic growth), but will be a continuing obligation of the US government -- the proverbial albatross around the nation's neck. We'll end up paying for it by either increasing the national debt, and mortgaging our children's futures, or raising taxes today, when the economy can least afford it.
2. Iraq
In hindsight, it's pretty clear that we should not have invaded Iraq. It's equally evident that once we decided to invade, we should have adhered to the Powell Doctrine instead of the Rumsfeld gambit. However, while clear, hindsight tends to focus attention on the assessment of blame rather than the development of solutions. And in Iraq, blame is in much greater supply than solutions.
Obama's simplistic solution would be for us to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. This course of action would result, at best, in an Iraq that is a puppet state of Iran, and, at worst, in full-blown civil war. In either case, this outcome breaches our responsibility to the people of Iraq, whose lives we disrupted by invading Iraq and to whom we owe a moral obligation to restore a measure of normality. While a quick withdrawal might result in short-term gains in the US's international prestige, in the long term it would reinforce our enemies' belief that the US is fundamentally a paper tiger and hamper our ability to negotiate on the world stage. Finally, withdrawal would ultimately decrease the security of the US mainland, by providing terrorists with fertile recruiting and training ground and by moving the lines of combat from Iraq to the continental US.
Under General Patraeus' leadership, we are finally improving the security situation in Iraq, winning some hearts and minds, and starting to rebuild the country's infrastructure. This would be the worst time to pull out. We may never have another opportunity to begin to cure our previous errors and truly effect positive change in the Middle East. If we don't follow through on our current efforts, I have little doubt that the future actions of today's insurgents will be far worse than what we've faced up to this point.
3. Abortion
I'm a huge proponent of equal rights for women. It's a travestry that, even in these enlightened times, many women are still paid less than men for doing the same job and are responsible for most of the housework (sorry, Dr. Dobson). I know pregnancy is difficult and dangerous, and I understand and empathize with the pro-choice argument that women should be allowed to control their bodies.
My position on the abortion question, however, comes down to one issue: when does life begin. I am not absolutely certain that life begins as conception. But I am absolutely certain that a person's mere physical location -- inside or outside of the womb -- should not dictate whether that person is deemed alive. Babies in the womb are deemed viable at 25 weeks -- just over halfway through a typical pregnancy. It's ridiculous to me that a baby born at 25 weeks should be entitled to rights and protection that a baby inside the womb would not be equally entitled to. And the 25-week marker is an arbitrary one. Babies born earlier than 25 weeks have been known to survive, and technology pushes the barrier earlier every year.
We require criminal juries to determine guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Yet pro-choice advocates seem perfectly happy to sentence what may be an innocent child to death with much less certainty. Pregnancy, however challenging, is temporary; death is permanent. Obama claims to be the champion of the underdog. But as an advocate of abortion, he suggests that his patronage may only extend to that limited portion of humanity that actually has a vote.
4. Experience
As Hillary famously asked in her phone ad, who do you want picking up the red phone at 3 am in the morning? My preference is the candidate who'd already served almost a decade in Congress by the time Obama graduated from law school. Obama heralds the fact that he's a Washington novice, not yet tainted by life inside the Beltway. But success in the White House -- especially in times of crisis -- often depends on a comprehensive knowledge of the relevant issues and strong personal relationships with the members of Congress, military officers, and career bureaucrats you're going to be working with. It's this knowledge and these relationships -- on both sides of the aisle -- that McCain's developed in his quarter century in the nation's capitol. It's easy for Obama to tout his experience working in the Illinois Senate as suggestive of his ability to effectively motivate and coordinate folks in DC. I for one, however, remember the last candidate whose success in state politics prompted him to declare, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."
Taking a longer view of things, the recent trend of selecting candidates with light resumes does not bode well for the future of American politics. Americans today would prefer to elect a charismatic, untested candidate on whom they can project their hopes and desires than a more seasoned candidate with known warts and wrinkles. The flip-side of American optimism is the expectation that our leaders will be perfect. And the increased information available in the modern media-rich world has made that perfection only attainable by those who have done very little. Already many of the most qualified individuals are eschewing higher office, leaving the field with a strange combination of the least-experienced and the most ambitious (a combination not uncommonly found in the same individual). If we want the best political leaders for America, it's time for us to reward those who have served Amercia. Obama may eventually turn out to be an effective president, but I am willing to accept a few warts and less charisma for increased certainty about the future.
5. Where's the straight talk?
Obama weaves a great vision of hope and change, albeit in inoffensive, ambiguous terms. But he's less consistent about his choice of political supporters, about his positions, and about his beliefs. While he promises to clean up Washington and to bring an end to politics as usual, he neglects to mention his own background in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics -- a city not known for clean politics -- and his personal association with the likes of Tony Rezko, an inner-city slum lord now indicted for influence-peddling in the administration of Illinois Governor Blagojevich. He told voters in Ohio that he'd renegotiate NAFTA, while he sent an aide to the Canadian government to let them know not to worry, and he reassured supporters at a swanky fund-raiser in San Francisco that he's actually in favor of free trade through and through. At that same fund-raiser, Obama expressed his true feelings about small-town Americans:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Notwithstanding whether or not small town voters are actually bitter, it's peculiar that man who frequently proclaims his own faith so casually associates the faith of others with guns, prejudice, and anti-immigrant sentiment.
I don't think Obama is a bad person; in fact, I genuinely believe that his intentions -- and those of Senator McCain -- are good. As good-intentioned as Obama may be, and as charismatic and eloquent he is, however, he's not always going to be right. When he's wrong, I don't want visions of hope and change, I want the facts. Democracy isn't an election that happens every four years, it's a continuous process of give and take involving the media, advocacy groups, and individual citizens participating in an ongoing dialogue with our elected leaders. Perhaps no elected official is always fond of these exchanges, but McCain at least understands the importance of the conversation and often seems to enjoy engaging in free-ranging discussion with the press and voters. He's also not afraid to say exactly what he thinks -- even when his audience doesn't agree with him. In fact, I find that I don't always agree with McCain, but at least I know where he stands. In contrast, Obama prefers carefully-staged, stadium-style events where he controls the message and everyone is expected to stay on-script. He may sound prettier, but when it comes to straight talk, the self-proclaimed harbinger of change seems fundamentally aligned with the current occupant of the White House.
