My Political Hero

Hell must be freezing over. I am going to vote for Barack Obama. What happened?

I first came to know John McCain as I started to follow politics closely in the early 2000's through Hardball, a politically charged cable television show. He was different from the others. The main thing I noticed was that he talked about issues from his head and heart rather than from a list of transparent talking points. I never agreed with all of his policies, but he was a unique figure: a courageous man that approached issues in a pragmatic and thoughtful way in the land of Neocons and maniacal anti-war Democrats.

I read "Worth The Fighting For," the autobiographical narrative of most of McCain's political career. I found this politician fascinating, especially his ability to admit his own character flaws in the "go it alone, no turning back" Bush era. His notion of honor, selflessness, and service appealed to me in a way that no other politician could quite do. The book is still on my shelves.

Ask any of my politically engaged friends over the last five years who my political hero was and they could have effortlessly responded "John McCain." The Senator from Arizona frequently talks about his glory days as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, I thought of myself as a foot soldier in the McCain Revolution.

In essence, McCain appealed to me because of how I thought he approached issues. In addition, his willingness to cross party lines further proved that he put his "Country First." For example, he showed courage and leadership when he was one of the ringleaders of the Gang of 14, a move that outraged Republican colleagues.

Despite my admiration for McCain, I am fairly libertarian and conservative. I believe in small government, low taxes, and low government interference. My generation will pay a heavy price down the road should we continue our irresponsible spending spree in Washington. More than anything else, however, I consider myself a proponent of The Age of Bloomberg, an approach to government that is pragmatic rather than ideological in nature.

I think that decision making and leadership capabilities are often overlooked qualifications for the Presidency that our nation ignores over the ongoing debate of issues that never seem to die: abortion, health-care, and taxes. In fact, the President is more like the CEO of America, not the Board of Directors. His job is not only to run a massive bureaucracy, but to lead our nation. He is the "leader of the free world." Of course, any President's policy preferences matter a great deal, but inevitably, a President cannot push all of their policies. In reality, they only have so much political capital.

So why Obama?

1) Socialism and the Economy - The chatter on socialism has become absurd. In the highest tax bracket, the difference between McCain's and Obama's tax rates are 35% and 39.6%, respectively. No one likes paying higher taxes, but apparently McCain and Palin think the definition of socialism hinges on a 4.6% difference in income tax rates. According to their measure, we have been practicing socialism since the early 20th century when we enacted progressive income taxes. To put this all in perspective, the highest tax rate in the highest tax bracket was 94% in 1944 and 70% in 1967, respectively.

I refuse to vote for such a short term personal interest in deference to other more powerful reasons to vote for Obama: leadership, Palin, and foreign policy.

Both McCain and Obama's plan for the economy doesn't satisfy me. McCain has no clear strategy and Obama is hypocritical with his pledge of free trade while yearning to amend NAFTA. Obama's plan is barely bearable, but at least he has a vision.

2) Leadership - Over the course of the campaign, Obama has shown a propensity for leadership that I believe is rare. Not only is he "calm, cool, and collected," but he has shown that he has an ability to weigh all sides of an issue and make an educated decision. Read this article on Iraq.

Leadership is the most important quality of a potential President. McCain has not showed any sort of decision making prowess and he is known for his temper. His campaign has been badly mismanaged and has no message for the future of our country. Their message is the same message we have been hearing for many years and they aren't necessarily the right solutions to the problems of our day. Furthermore, McCain decided to select Sarah Palin as his VP. It is fairly obvious that she was a hail marry pass. The big gamble failed big.

I am willing to set aside my support for McCain because, as with stock picking, what matters is future performance, not past performance. Obama seems to be the better leader forward in our challenging and complicated 21st century.

3) Palin, Palin, Palin - When McCain selected her for VP I was both uneasy and excited at the same time. Who was this unknown woman from Alaska? I think she did a great job at the convention, sticking to a speech where she talked about everything from foreign policy, taxes, and special needs rights. Then came the debate.

As she continued to debate with Joe Biden, if it can be called that, it became clear to me that she did not have the depth of knowledge I demand in a Vice President, let alone a President. She said, "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president."

Wrong. The constitution is very clear on the role of the Vice President. It says, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." That is, the VP can only break a tie in the Senate. Furthermore, the constitution states, "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." That is, if the President is incapacitated, the VP becomes President.

Any person who reads the constitution can figure this one out. Either she is ignorant of the role of the Vice Presidency, or she is trying to grab more power and legislative influence as a VP. Either case reflects poorly upon her.

To spare you from a lengthy post of examples, I will summarize. It is clear to me as a casual observer of domestic and international events that Palin does not have even a basic breadth of knowledge on the most complex issues of our day. Furthermore, she panders unapologetically to the group of "Angry White Voters" that I spoke of in an earlier post. In my opinion, Palin is the heir apparent to Bush's political empire. Her no-questions-asked style and willingness to pander to "the base" is more reminiscent of Bush than anyone else. Due to McCain's age, we cannot take any risks with a Palin Presidency.

4) Foreign Policy - I think Obama's foreign policy style is more suited to our increasingly global world than is McCain's adversarial approach. Why not talk to Iran? Fist waiving has not gotten us anywhere in the last eight years. Untrue to Teddy Rosevelt, we have been "speaking loudly and carrying a big stick." We must approach this challenge pragmatically and realistically.

For the last eight years, I think we have been conducting a foreign policy from a basis of fear -- fear that we will lose our sole superpower status. We must conduct a policy from a position of strength, working with our allies to solve problems while being firm with our enemies to avoid international conflict. Furthermore, we must end the idea, and current version of "The White Man's Burden," where it is our mission on earth to spread democracy. Hamas' rule in Gaza is a perfect example of this policy gone awry.

The best example of an Obama-Biden foreign policy is exemplified by their stance on Russia: firm yet engaging. Indeed, both nations have shared interests, it would be rash to provoke any unnecessary conflict with them.

McCain appears to approach Russia and China with a 20th century cold war mentality. We have different challenges in the 21st century, and a different strategy is needed.

On Iraq - I agree more with McCain than I do with Obama, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we are succeeding in Iraq. I doubt Obama would risk everything we have gained by hastily withdrawing without any practical thought on the matter. I am willing to risk this one.

5) Israel - This one is to my Jewish friends with a strong passion for the State of Israel, which I share. There are more issues in a Presidential election than who is the most Pro-Israel. I became aware of the "One Issue Israel Voter" my freshman year of college when a friend of mine rightly or wrongly believed that Bush was better for Israel than Kerry. As an American citizen she argued that Jews should vote for whoever is better for Israel.

I strongly and respectfully disagree. As a citizen, we have a duty to vote for a President that we believe will lead our country in all aspects. Voting for a candidate who represents one specific view for one specific type of voter is a disservice to our nation. What kind of serious American citizen votes in favor of a candidate that he or she believes will serve a very particular role in Israeli-Palestinian affairs to the exclusion of other important issues like energy, health-care, and globalization?

In any event, I think Obama and Biden are strong on Israel. They are in favor of a strong Israel-US relationship, Israel's right to self defense, foreign assistance, and a two-state solution. Blindly giving what Israel wants all of the time does not move the peace process forward and in the long run hurts Israel.

And that is why I am voting for Barack Obama for President.