Why I Will Not Be Voting For Barack Obama

A departure here from "what is happening with the family now", to "how I hope things shape out for my family in the future".

Tauni and I have been sucked into this (insanely long) presidential campaign, and while I'm not thrilled with either candidate, I do still believe in voting for the best pragmatic option. As such, I'll be voting for John McCain. Why? Great question.

1 - National Security. When I consider what I expect the government to provide to my family in return for our tax dollars, national security is a clear #1 on that list. I want a government that is a strong advocate for American security in the world. I want a military and Commander in Chief that is strong enough to be a deterrent to those interested in threatening America's peace and safety.

Let's consider Obama. You have to be worried when his own running mate, Joe Biden, warned the nation last week that (audio here), "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Obama like it did John Kennedy... Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Granted, Biden couches this in the context of "being a student of history", but is this not still disconcerting? If I vote for Obama, it comes with the baggage of a guaranteed, generated international crisis? Joe, what do you know about the way the world truly thinks about Obama? Are they salivating over the prospect of a weaker America?

Of course, in now patented form, Obama uses his "trivialize it to make it go away" tactic in response to his own running mate's comments. "I think Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes". So, let me get this straight - McCain is the impetuous hot-head that we must keep out of office? And how is a "rhetorical flourish" different than his blunders? I love the inconsistencies on both sides of the proverbial aisle here.

Bottom line - if you are an international terrorist, who do you want as the next American President? Obama, who opposed the war and surge and even voted against troop funding? Or, McCain, who, call him impetuous and a bit crazy, is at least going to respond with more than rhetoric. So, advantage McCain.

2 - Economics. Last time I checked, neither of these candidates has either (a) real executive business experience or (b) government executive experience. So, where have they learned their economics? Is there an MBA amongst either of them? No, of course not. Which brings me to my point - Washington DC is not the place to look for economic stimulus. The best thing DC can do is to provide a fair legal environment for businesses to thrive. Has Bush done that? Not lately. He's acted like a true lame-duck for the past four years and has been a fiscal nightmare.

Governments don't drive business booms. If you think government is so masterful at playing the economy, name the last great economic expansion driven by government policy? At best, government plays maintenance. They have no tricks in their bag to drive expansion. Contraction? Yes, that one's easy. Just suck money out of the economy (aka higher taxes). Expansions are driven by factors like education, R&D, technological breakthroughs, new labor and consumer markets, etc.

So, why is Obama perceived as having a better economic plan than McCain? Did he warn us about this current financial crisis? Did he, with his great economic understanding, foresee and warn about this? No (watch). Did McCain? Mildly. Mind you, I'm not thrilled by his efforts either.

What mainly drives me crazy is that America is no longer allowed to ride out natural business cycles. Economies binge and diet. It's a historical fact going back centuries. Somehow in this politically-correct world, we are no longer allowed to feel any pain from contraction and must instead forever expand. It's not possible. This "recession" was inevitable. Perhaps it's just because I'm from California and I saw the home appreciation insanity firsthand. But, anyone who stopped to think about it knew that "what goes up, must come down". What drove the "Dot Bomb" era? Valuations that far outstripped actual revenues and profit potential. What's driving the foreclosure era? Home appreciations (and the resulting mortgage debt) that far outstrips earning potential.

If you think that the Democrats are not likewise guilty for the current financial crisis, please ignore the talking points for a second and think again. Read this. When did the creation of easy money and soft lending practices begin? Pre-Bush. Read this. If I wanted to, I could weave a conspiracy theory out of all of this that shows this process was calculated to make more people beholden to government. I wish that were not true, but I'm not convinced. At a bare minimum, it's pretty obvious that the blatant creation of easy money via lower interest rates and soft lending standards was a crushing blow to the lower and middle classes (who, regardless, still chose their poison) who bought into record levels of household debt that have pointed many closer to serfdom than the supposed "financial independence" of home ownership.

So, where was I? Oh yeah, Economics. Advantage - McCain. Why? Obama's economic plan is socialism. If you believe in his "spread the wealth" notion, go visit Canada. We were able to rent a video for a mere $5.99 per night in Kelowna, BC, this summer. Why? Because socialism is built on false principles. Here's how it really plays out - watch this. If you don't believe it, read your economic history. Remind me who the last great socialist nation was again?

3 - Big Government. Every "solution" Senator Obama is putting forward points to bigger government. The analysis on this one for me is extremely practical. This is how I process it - Let me think of a government institution that I think is doing a fabulous job, working efficiently and serving its stakeholders well. Hmmm. In the past year, I've been to government record offices that feel soul-crushing in their lethargic energy level, inefficiently providing routine paperwork to me with the standard "five business days turnaround time". Sounds very modern that, right? You ever get frustrated by road construction projects that seem to take forever? Can you imagine having to call the equivalent of the DMV to sort out your healthcare options whilst in the middle of a health crisis with one of your children? Let's be honest, government operations and bureaucracy are the laughing-stock of many a joke. In my industry as a tech consultant, we desperately try to avoid having to work on government projects. Why? Because everything moves at 1/2 speed. And that's the same government that is somehow going to magically take care of my healthcare and retirement fund (the Democrats already want to tax your 401K) and kids' education? Let's not be naive; beyond the rhetoric is the ugly reality of an impending level of service yielding far less bang for the buck than we are being sold.

4 - New Supreme Court appointments. The Founding Fathers of this country envisioned that the Judicial Branch of government would be the "least dangerous branch". James Madison, specifically, anticipated that the court would be the guardian of our civil liberties according to the Bill of Rights.

What does this mean? Well, the notion was that the Court would rule according to the Constitution and the laws of the land. Like seemingly everything else in America, there are two primary schools of thought on how the Supreme Court should judge. First, judicial restraint, best explained as ruling according to the law. Second, judicial activism, best explained as possibly going past the interpretation of law to the actual creation of law.

During the next President's reign in office, there is likely to be turnover in the nation's highest court. The appointment of new justices is a matter of grave importance to our national liberties and can hinge on one vote. Roe vs Wade? 5-4. The recent decision reinforcing our right to bear arms? 5-4. The California court overturning a citizen-voted proposition to ban gay marriage (thus setting up Proposition 8)? 4-3. So, abortion, the right to bear arms, and the definition of marriage were all decided by one vote. One vote. Which president do you want appointing the next Supreme Court Justice? Someone who (in spite of middle-leaning campaign rhetoric) is the most liberal member of the Senate (watch this)? No.

Supreme Court Appointments: advantage McCain

5 - Checks and Balances. Given my recent confidence in the ability of the federal government to accomplish anything positive, if Congress currently had a Republican majority, I would consider voting Democratic just to magnify the veto power. (Please don't start with Obama's talking points putting all of our issues on President Bush's back. Obama's party has controlled Congress for the past two years. If he is such a magnificent leader, why hasn't he rallied that Democratic-majority Congress to start to push the "change" that he promises? Why not? Well, obviously because he has been on the campaign trail chasing his personal political ambitions far more than the interests of his constituents.) With both legislative and executive branches coming from the same power, we will have no checks and no balances. Just think if the judiciary tilted as well.

To preserve checks and balances in the face of a Democrat-led Congress: Advantage, McCain.

6 - Pandering. Now, both sides can easily be accused of pandering, so I'll keep this simple.

(a) Senator Obama continually leans on what I will call the "Politics of Ignorance". He continually blames the Executive Branch of government (President Bush) for the "problems of the past eight years". It's a brilliant talking point, but an insanely condescending one. What is the purpose of the Executive Branch? To execute. To execute what? To execute the laws that are drafted by the Legislative Branch (Congress). So, who's creating the laws that govern the land? Congress. Who has controlled Congress for the past two years? The Democratic Party. Does President Bush have the power to pass law in and of himself? Of course not. Unfortunately, there is a total misconception in our country that the President is somehow akin to an all-powerful King. Hardly. In my opinion, Obama plays on this misconception. Politically, it's a great talking point. Too bad it completely overstates and actually belies the reality of the situation.

(b) If you wanted to win an election and you knew it would take roughly 50% of the population (granted we have an Electoral College system, not a strict majority vote; hear me out) to win, and you knew that 40% of that population did not pay income taxes, would you think it a wise political move to offer tax rebates (aka checks) to this 40%? Seems a good way to buy votes to me (we used to call this welfare; receiving money from the government instead of giving it). So, 40% swayed, 10% to go to get to a majority. Hmmm.

(c) Finally, socialist rhetoric is populist rhetoric. Unfortunately, it never tells the true story. The masses are seduced by the rhetoric of entitlement and want to storm the rich. The rich (aka the investors and capitalists who own the means to production and thereby create jobs) have fewer dollars to invest, thereby contracting investment and jobs. Who wins? The government. We all become more beholden. This issue to me doesn't seem that complex. What moves an economy? Well, right now we are under the false notion that it's simply consumption. But, it's obviously production as well. We produce and we consume and the wheels keep moving. If we just hand out checks without requiring production, we lose 1/2 of the equation. Why not create jobs? Then, the same person produces, is paid for that production and then consumes. So, instead of pandering for votes by offering checks (here's a fish), why not "teach the people how to fish"? Empower people with skills to get jobs and contribute, not just sit on the sideline and become a drain on the economy. Liberals like to appear charitable became they are giving money to the poor. Give them money in the form of jobs, not checks. Jobs produce checks and create self-reliance. Production and consumption for rich, middle, and poor is the answer.

On a related note, show me the last time that a rebate check emboldened the human spirit, gave it that soul-lifting sense of purpose? Never. Do Socialist governments care? No. They prefer serfs to free agents. I wish I understood why. It's very feudal really.

Alright. That's far more than I intended to write, but I'm happy to at least have done my part to contribute to the discourse. I love my country. I love freedom. I resist anything that takes freedom from the individual and hands it to an institution. The individual must retain free agency. While both current presidential candidates are imperfect, Senator Obama's policies will do more to erode individual agency than Senator McCain's. Obviously that's my opinion and I've made my reasons known. Go vote. I don't care about the liberal-media driven polls (which mispredicted a Kerry win in 2004), this race isn't over.

Find out more about Senator Obama.
On Obama and Christianity.