John McCain and I do not share the same views on the 1st amendment. McCain and I do not share the same views on global warming. (Though, we are in agreement about one of his claims: “the facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.” Only, by facts I would mean the utter lack of statistical evidence and by attention I would mean having a real discussion over this “catastrophe” that didn’t involve fear-mongering.) John McCain and I do not share the same views on Bipartisanship. John McCain and I do not share the same views on Immigration (though these are more closely aligned with my views than his other policies are). John McCain and I do share the same explicitly stated values (according to his website) on Gun Control, although in legislation he has not shared anything in common with me or his purported view. (Check here and here and here.) I think everyone has the idea here. So, here I have a dilemma: vote for someone I don’t agree with or vote third party.
Ultimately, I believe that my vote reflected a similar situation a lot of folks were in. I am unconcerned with what John McCain would have done or with what the difference would be between the two major candidates’ presidencies. I felt that if I voted for McCain, I would have been voting against Obama. Actually, I’m not sure I know anyone who voted for McCain, but I know plenty of people who voted against Obama.
At the expense of making this post sound like another pity party for individual liberties or free market principles, I am not going to be blaming John McCain for being John McCain. Instead, I’ll be pointing my finger at everyone who wanted to make a giraffe a lion. McCain seems to think that there is an area that we can go, outside of principles, where we can get what we want at the expense of “giving a little.” Only, there is a problem fundamentally with this: reality.
Let me make this point to clarify. The free market isn’t magic; it isn’t a theory; it isn’t an alternative; it isn’t even a possibility. It is the way markets work when bad ideas are out of the way, which is another way of saying, it is the way things work when people stop trying to artificially control markets. Even when the market is artificially restricted, it adjusts to this artificial restriction in a predictable, free market fashion. There is no amount of emphasis I can put on this point that will be sufficient to cover the massive misunderstanding people have of this. I do not think this is radical, except in the way it is understated by everyone who doesn’t understand it.
For the primary example in this election, the bailout bill, I have a few different examples of the stupidity being enacted on the basis that one can control the market. The first few examples come from my home state of South Dakota, and the three direct representatives that I have to the federal government. John Thune is the Republican Senator, and he voted for the bailout bill. In his letter addressed to me on this vote, he says:
As a general matter, I don’t think the government should get involved in the free market. I believe that our system of free markets and capitalism is the best in the world and that it is not the government’s responsibility to step in and shield people form the negative consequences of bad decisions. . . . Unfortunately, the negative impacts of a systemic financial collapse would hit main streets in South Dakota and across the country.
He is correct with this, as the economy is not a vacuum system, and any failure will inevitably result in the opening of markets where the failure occurred. However, his conclusion is absolutely backwards. His claim is “. . . I think it was the responsible thing to do to avoid a far worse economic impact on South Dakota families and businesses.” NO. Mr. Thune, your damn job does not include avoiding economic impacts. Why does the economy somehow take a special place in politician’s hearts? If the issue was about, say, drug laws putting “potential workers” in jail, one would not say, indeed Sen. Thune would not say, “The responsible thing to do is to let these offenses fall away to avoid potential impacts to the working base.” So why don’t we let these business’ fail? (Incidentally, to all those with a knee-jerk reaction to explain to me about sacrifice – I’ve heard it. But here’s the thing – I will have to sacrifice either way, right? Either with a stifled ability to get loan or with the government taking more out of my paycheck, I will be impacted. So I choose to stick with free market principles and to take my chances with the loan companies.)
Tim Johnson, the Democratic senior Senator and Stephanie Sandlin, the Democratic Representative from South Dakota, strangely enough, both voted against the bailout bill. Congratulations, you’ve both made the right choice. But, in exploring their reasoning behind the “no” vote, their views on the matter became clear. Sen. Johnson states: “Frankly, I believe that any bailout should have been accompanied by stronger taxpayer protections and stronger regulatory reforms; it made no sense to hand over a bunch of taxpayer’ money without also putting in place strong reforms that will prevent this mess from recurring in the future.” Clearly, Sen. Johnson believes that attempting to control the market is not only possible, but apparently he has a better plan for regulation than the authors of this bailout bill.
Alright, on to Mrs. Sandlin, who said: “I am deeply concerned over how a very effective measure for which I advocated was watered down, undermining our ability to require that entities receiving taxpayer funds ensure that taxpayers recoup the hundreds of billions of dollars that may be necessary to stabilize the financial system.” Further, she claims, “Ultimately, I could not support this legislation, because I believed it was more important to get it right than to simply pass something right away. . . . Otherwise, we could well find ourselves in the very near future – $700 billion later – in an even deeper economic hole, with fewer options, and with requests that we spend even more.” WOW! I am proud of my Democratic Representative. Although she and I probably do not agree on many fundamentals, we at least agree on one thing: our knowledge is finite and very fallible.
After those three examples, I would like to express my appreciation to Sen. Jeff Sessions on his fantastic opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. He was an articulate, intelligent voice against this awful business, and I say “hats off,” to him.
Finally, on to Mr. John McCain: in this election, one of the top issues on voting day was the economy. The bailout was a fine example of why John McCain lost the election – he voted the same way Barack Obama did – “Yes.” Our primary process was a joke, upon reflection. I remember thinking to myself, “All of these guys are claiming to be more like Reagan. Let’s see whether or not they act like it.” McCain clearly was not a “Reagan Conservative.” I’d say probably Fred Thompson, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter were the three most closely resembling Reagan Conservatism, but only Ron Paul had a fairly large following. McCain squeaked through the Republican Primaries to get the nomination, and in the end, the only thing conservative about him was his running mate. The good news: I think election will 1) Keep McCain from running for President again (fingers crossed) and 2) will demonstrate to moderate Republicans how mistaken they are. I feel no need to apologize for being conservative, yet if I had voted for McCain in the primaries, I might have a reason to apologize for claiming to be Republican.
0 Responses to “On John McCain”