Posts
I am a believer in limited central government - as you might have guessed from this previous post. One of the reasons why I am so disappointed with the current US administration is that "W" won me over during his campaign in 2000 with his talk of "learning the lessons of Vietnam" and "reaching across the aisle". I had no idea the neo-conservative branch of the Republican party would render him into little more than a goofy-talking sock puppet mascot for their agenda of global economic and military supremacy. Yeah, this from a guy who bought the Iraq WMD argument and voted for "W" again in 2004.
Of the two major candidates, John McCain embodies my political and philosophic views more accurately. (of all cadidates, that would be Ron Paul) Yet, I am just as susceptible to a reaction of disgust for what we have all been through in the past eight years (let alone the shocking meltdown of the US financial system in recent weeks) as anyone else. In 1993, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives was implicated in a sordid fraud scheme that involved the House post office. That straw was enough to break the camel's back and give the House of Representatives a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. 1980 gave us Reagan Democrats and I suspect 2008 will have its share of Obama Republicans.
And yet, I wonder, is all this reactionary decision-making serving us well? Taking a step back from the whole scene, it is highly unlikely that a John McCain presidency would look anything like "W"'s regime. He's not one of the Washington good ol' boys with a hundred butts to kiss, he wouldn't have a rabid war hawk with ties to the defense industry as a VP, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he (or any other Republican president for the next decade) will get a rubber-stamping legislature. Put simply, just because he voted the party line 90% of the time doesn't make him a "W" clone. It makes him a Republican. George H. Bush's presidency didn't look anything like Reagan's did before him.
A Democrat president with a Democrat-majority congress could lead to the kind of "We've got a mandate" mentality that leads to cures far worse than the diseases they intend to cure.
Well, I'll tip my hand. All I want for Christmas is some old-fashioned gridlock in Washington for the next four to eight years. Like the kind we had under Clinton, where congress would squash the president's agenda and then the president would veto congress's bills. As far as I'm concerned, that was a key contributor to the prosperity we experienced from 1995 to 2000. And if this somehow manages to suffocate the global military hegemony we've got going on (long after its purpose, winning the Cold War, died out) as well as atrophy the federal bureaucracy by oh, say one third to one half, that would be nice too. OK, now I'm really dreaming, but hey - why not?
See, my problem is, I'm just old enough to remember the reactions to oil, war, and power which swept Jimmy Carter into the presidency. Such a great smile. Such a thoughtful, gracious person. Such a disaster for the country, policy-wise. Whoops, that looks like guilt by association as well. Maybe I'll just stick to my guns and write in "Ron Paul" on my ballot.
