Why McCain and not Obama
by Michael Stuart Kelly

I am endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for President and Vice President of the USA.

I have strong reasons to do so.

I realize that not everyone on this board agrees with me. Also, in the Objectivist world, some support Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Despite the many discussions where many reasons are given, I perceive that they are alarmed at the pro-life stance of the Republican ticket and small-town religiousness of Palin. Following the Randian tradition of putting metaphysics first, they use this as their primary standard. There is also a famous injunction by a leading Objectivist to vote Democrat at all costs.

Many are frustrated that Libertarians do not have a chance in hell, but will vote Libertarian anyway on principle. (This might apply to another small political party, but I have not seen it so far.)

Many are so disgusted they are not going to vote for anyone. Of everyone in this dispute, I sympathize most with these last, although, as far as I can tell, I have a much higher opinion of the candidates than anybody else. Having lived in another country, Brazil, for over 30 years and having seen some really evil mainstream politicians up close (although they were few among generally good people), I am proud of the high-quality of the candidates currently running for office.

Still, I want to make an appeal to undecided readers and posters. This is based on my own understanding of reality and Objectivism. If you have the slightest doubt, even the slightest nag in the back of your mind, please vote for McCain and Palin.

In the best of all possible worlds, I would not make such a request. I have no special love for politics and, frankly, it is irritating to see parts of what I believe in on one side, and other parts on the other side. For example, why isn't pro-market freedoms on the same side as pro-choice for pregnancy and abortion? That is just one set of fundamental issues among several. Another irritation is that both tickets are far too statist for my taste.

But A is A. Reality is what it is. It does not matter what perfect world I believe in. The choice in front of me is between one of two sides. One of them is going to be in office next year. No one else will. That is reality.

How's them metaphysics for ya'?

Within this context, I see a clear divide on a practical issue that will impact all of us. To quote myself:


I cannot think of any one thing that will impact the lives of everyone in this country more severely over the next four years. Not abortion. Not foreign policy. Not tax credits. Not Social Security. Not anything.

We are going to have inflation, folks. It's coming. The choice is how much do we allow.

I have lived in an economy of skyrocketing inflation and it is no fun. It makes good people do bad things. Try getting by at 50% inflation a month. Month after month. Try hell on earth. I don't want to live under this again. Ever.

We are already going to have some inflation because of Bush's hog-wild spending and end-of-term wholesale financial train-wreck. Cleaning that mess up is going to hurt. Adding more spending and government controls as proposed by Obama to this mess is throwing gasoline on the fire. I have seen it happen. I have lived under it. The measures Obama is proposing are essentially what was done in Brazil during the high inflation years.

Will McCain and Palin put the fire out? I don't believe so. But I do believe they will get it under some kind of control.

Nowadays, I am hearing Rand's ideas in the mouths of mainstream politicians and on mainstream news. That includes McCain and Palin. Disgust at "spread the wealth." Love of production. "Get out of our way" when talking about producers and the government. Let people keep what they earn.

The Atlas Shrugged movie is also coming, folks. It will probably be released during the next administration. We all know that it will get its 15 minutes of mainstream media attention. But we also know that Rand's ideas are powerful. All they need are those 15 minutes and they will shake things up big time.

So I ask. Do you think the impact will be greater in a veiled welfare economy under Obama with extremely high inflation, or a mixed one aimed at freezing government spending under McCain?

I believe Rand's impact from the movie will be greater under McCain. And I believe there will be a chance at showing—in concrete terms at short term—the prosperity her ideas produce.

So once again, if you are in doubt, please vote for McCain. If for nothing else, his administration will result in a hell of a lot less inflation. The law of identity and causality will not be denied. I do not want to say later to anyone, "I told you so."

(I am invoking executive privilege as forum owner to put this on the front page, but other comments are welcome. I will remove this thread from the front page on November 5th and move it to the "Stumping in the Backyard" section.)

Michael

Not once does your posting even mention the word WAR. The pre-eminent and most crucial issue of our time.

Both McCain and Obama are committed to supporting the Empire, neither rejecting its demands of theft, slavery, and death. Yet only Obama, of the two, has actually spoken of using diplomacy first against some of what the neoconservatives have been ginning up as "our" "enemies." That makes him marginally less painfully intolerable.

You don't talk about it at all, though. I wonder what planet you're observing.

"I am convinced that McCain and Palin [...] will dismantle some of it on principle."

Give us one example of consequence. Of how either has actually done it, on principle, in legislative or executive terms. Try to, anyway.

Nothing whatsoever in the United States government has actually been "dismantled" since Reagan ended the last vestiges (on oil) of Nixon's wage and price controls, and that was done 27 years ago.

I'm not sanguine, to say the least, about anyone actually doing so soon, from either wing of the statist bird of prey.

Steve,

Why would I mention war when you yourself say it makes no difference since everybody is evuuuul?

Michael

Michael,
In the meantime the seeds of our salvation are being planted. Ron Paul has ignited a freedom movement which despite its inconsistencies is moving forwards. Whether it is able to gain traction, stay alive, continue to grow and ultimately become a viable alternative in the years to come remains to be seen.

I am referring to his www.campaignforliberty.com or CFL movement. Here in Massachusetts, the place where the first successful revolution began over two hundred years ago, the birthplace of our battle for individual freedom, the CFL is alive and well. The first quarterly meeting of the CFL of MA will be held this Saturday in Worcester to choose district coordinators and plan for further growth. It is attracting hundreds of people to the movement. The CFL is nationwide and is organizing everywhere. They are presently targeting those congressmen who voted, in their misguided way so characteristic of our current crop of ignorant, incompetent, inept pseudo representatives, for the bailout.

Members of CFL are modern day Minutemen, armed with a variety of intellectual ammunition, including Austrian economics which is recommended by Ron Paul in his best seller The Revolution: A Manifesto in which he also recommends Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. That recommendation is sufficient despite his disclaimer that he has disagreements with her to enable us to recommend her other essays and books to the Ron Paul supporters across the country as well as the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

Consider joining the movement and helping to guide it in a more consistently rational direction. Just go to www.campaignforliberty.com to follow its progress.

Our votes in this election matter little especially if you live in other than a battleground swing state. But CFL will be supporting candidates for Congress and the Senate over the years ahead who will provide a rational alternative, hopefully, at least in the realm of restoring the Constitution and establishing sound money and a free market.

Keep in mind that the prospect of inflation is already set by the Feds unleashing of paper to date. The next president will have the opportunity to install one, two or three Supreme Court Justices. Obama's are more likely to be pro choice and McCain's are certainly going to be anti choice. Admittedly only one issue.

Restoring the Constitution is crucial if the government is ever to be reigned in and inflation stopped before the dollar becomes worthless. That is why I see the efforts of the CFL to be worth supporting.

Wm

Galt; This is impressive and I could support it if you would make clear that the US Constitution does not support Sharia law and those who would impose it.

People have made the point that working as a non-partisan political group would be more productive that something like the Libertarian Party.

Folks,

This is a thread about the present election and which way to vote.

The last I looked, there were two main contenders running, and neither was running on a strong plank of debating the so-called empire and war, nor a grassroots movement about another topic.

Ignoring that this is an election—on this thread—is simply putting you head in the sand and saying you don't want to be bothered.

Unfortunately, when you buy groceries in a supermarket where the prices of everything in it increase on a daily basis (as I have done), you don't have that luxury.

Michael

I realize that this would sound a lot more "with it" if I touched on one of the hot button items, but I see them as either temporary or permanent. The maternity rights issue will not be decided by either candidate. Both candidates will have to deal with war if they win and probably not to the satisfaction of anyone. And on and on and on...

But on this inflation thing, here is how I see it playing out. Obama wants a trillion dollars in new spending. And he says he is going to take a scalpel to the government programs that don't work and tax the rich to get it. What I have seen so often that it's not funny is that this kind of politician will set up a few cases where individuals will be brutally sacrificed for public show, just to say he is doing what he said he will do, then the loopholes will start to appear for everybody else.

But...

That trillion dollars will no longer be enough. Obama will need more and he will get it. Oodles more, probably a few trillion more. Then, of course, there will be a one time need for a special exception tax, and we all know where that goes. Since it will be ugly, he will get a good part of his money from devaluing the currency while printing gobs of new money (starting with treasury bills, then with the invention of special new government bonds). I see new official indexes starting in this scenario.

McCain wants a freeze on government spending, with a big honking loophole called essential services, yada yada yada. However, it is harder to keep pushing the essential services button than it is the "need more money to do it right" button of Obama.

All this means inflation, with the following measurements:

McCain = Some inflation
Obama = High inflation

That is the only real short term issue where I see a fundamental impact on all of us.

Michael

Michael; The issue you bring up is important. I'm sorry for getting side-tracked.

I am going to be interested in how soon buyer's remorse set in. It is however worth noting that I don't think that until the failure of the hostage rescue effort that the public really turned on Jimmy Carter in 1980. It may be a very long four years.

leftists and isolationists love throwing around the word "Empire" We've been pretty successful in our "Empire building", ya know, because we no longer have representative elections and are a republic, but are in fact a dictatorship (yeah, I'm still waiting for Bush to become a Dictator, elections are just around the corner, he better make his move soon!) And South Korea, Japan, Tawain, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, etc etc etc, are all actually run by the American Empire / Dictatorship!

The Roman Empire was called an EMPIRE when it ceased to be a Republic, and was ruled by an 'emperor' it also maintained complete governmental control over all the territories it conquered, it did not help them become free, assist them in maintaining their freedom, and trade openly with them. It conquered and ruled them, and then traded with them.

To you, empire is apparently anything that is not isolationism.

With a very leftist Obama as president, a very real economic crisis and massive appeals to more regulations and control, and a filibuster proof democratic majority, a move to suspend presidential term limits could actually be successful, and given the liberal paternalistic craving might very well be accepted by the majority. THAT scares me.

When does a country become an empire?

It becomes an empire when it establishes a military presence in other countries. It becomes an empire when it hands out foreign aid to other countries. It becomes an empire when it just starts poking its nose into everything else. It becomes an empire when it takes sides in petty Hatfield-McCoy feuds, like the ones in the Caucasus Mountains.

The isolationism argument is just a straw man. Actually Rand herself was not too troubled by that term. I believe in free trade with most nations.

In fact the imperialist is the true isolationist. The imperialist inspires hatred form most everyone around the world. A hated nation is more isolated than a respected one.

Actually a country doesn't have to be liked to be safe. It does have to be respected to be safe. People can hate a country and still respect it.

In one area, the USA is different from previous empires. While the Roman Empire dominated other nations and people, the USA sometimes kowtows to other nations. When Israel attacked the _USS Liberty_ in 1967, the USA did nothing. When Israelis spies steal classified information from the USA, the spies get off with a slap on the wrist. While past empires plundered other countries, the USA actually allows itself to be plundered by countries that it could wipe out in a matter of months. This also includes kissing the butt of Mikhail Saakashvili.

Garet Garrett summarized it: "Everything goes out. Nothing comes in." It's truly embarrassing and is completely contrary to what Jefferson and Washington envisioned for this country.

This is a good forecast.

An increase in money and credit (deficit spending is the latter) may not lead to an immediate increase in prices, but it will eventually w/o a countervailing force. The simple quantity theory of money says MV = PT or MV = PQ. I have not seen the velocity of money mentioned in regard to the current credit crisis, but I assume that a "credit crunch" leads to a decrease in the velocity of money. Prima facie, this seems to explain price deflation, despite an increase in the amount of money and available credit. Also, it seems to me that prices most easily fall in the stock market. The stock market seems to be the place for the most discretionary use of money. This is my tentative thinking.

The Fed has injected a lot of money into the system lately. In other words, M in the equations MV = PT and MV = PQ has increased sharply. If eventually M is not reduced as V returns to a more normal level, then P (prices) will increase. We will have to wait and see what happens. Similar to politicians, the Fed may be averse to reducing or slowing demand by reducing or slowing M for fear of slowing or stalling the economy, even in boom times. Of course, you can bet on banks on wanting the Fed to keep the punch bowl full. The more M they have, the more they can earn by borrowing at one rate and lending at a higher rate. Their gross margin = M * interest rate spread = M * (lend rate - borrow rate). Also, money supply contraction (about 1/3 between 1929 and 1932) was the major cause of the Great Depression, so politicians and their friends at the Fed are deathly afraid of any contraction.

Who is this?



It certainly makes me more cynical about people around the world. Hans-Hermann Hoppe pointed out that while a market is a competition in the production of goods, democracy is competition in the production of "bads." What causes the scum to rise to the top so much? How do people create a system in which the best rise to the top?



If you vote for something you don't want, that's what you will get. I have decided that anyone who votes for McCain or Obama has absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever to complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff that took place last month. If you vote for McCain or Obama, you are sanctioning this ripoff.



What makes you think this?



When this happens, I will be thinking that the majority of Americans are getting exactly what they deserve.

Again and again, I hear people telling me what they are voting against. It's like drinking Pepsi because you don't want Coke to be the #1 soft drink. What is most telling about apologists for the duopoly is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for 30 years.

What is your Pepsi? What do you offer as original?

Chris,

The leading Objectivist is Leonard Peikoff and there are quotes on his site. His priority is not to endorse Democrats, but to remove power from Republicans. If voting Democrat is the way to do that, this, for him, is the way to do that as evidenced by his own words. It started in 2006 with the famous injunction I mentioned:


I have not listened to the recent podcasts on his site, but I have little doubt that he has changed his mind. There was a big issue that drug on for the longest time on Solo Passion where a lot of young ARI people defended this position tooth and nail. As the owner would not stop ranting against Peikoff for this, they mostly left. Even now, once in a while you will see a Peikoff follower state proudly that he votes Democrat.


Jesus, you can get snarky over nothing. Here. Let me flip that and you will see how true that shoe fits your own foot.

"What is most telling about apologists for ignoring immediate reality is that their arguments are never original. They simply repeat the same dusty bromides over and over again and have been for countless years."

To be clear, that applies to your arguments.

So what is gained by that?

Nothing. That's what.

Michael

Merlin,

Thanks for the math. I was just using common sense and observation from living decades in another country with similar government monkeyshines in the financial market. It's good to have that kind of verification running also.

Michael

any presence in any country? Or just presences you disagree with? And what if the military presence is of critical self defense value and voluntarily welcomed by the host nation which is a representative free nation?



Really, is that government foriegn aide or voluntary foriegn aide from citizens? Do you have to have a military presence AND dole out forieng aide? Canada and Sweeden dole out alot of foriegn aide, are they EMPIRES?



So it should ignore absolutely everything that goes on in every other country, lest it is an 'empire' in your eyes. Shall we build a giant wall, close our borders, and look only inward?



So is 'empire' and 'interventionist' Rand certainly had no problem with the later and advocated military intervention in Israel. Free trade with murderous tyrannies? Free trade with murderous tyrannies which invade our allies? Of course, how would we even know if they were a murderous tyranny or invading our allies if we can't 'poke our nose' in other places. You are a military and political isolationist, like an ostrich, but don't care who buys your goods or what they use it for? Perhaps we should sell nuclear bombs to Islamic terrorists?



So does the independent individualist or the productive man of rational self interest, inspire hatred from most everyone else around the world. Does that mean he should not be an independent individualist, or a productive man acting in rational self interest? Whether or not the world hate's you is independent of the fact of whether they are RIGHT to hate you, and whether that should alter your behavior.

So lets imagine ourselves in 1979, and instead of invading Afghanastan, the Soviet Union actually invades Canada. They didn't do anything to us, they didnt attack us, or restrict our trade. And what do you propose we do? If Canada asked us to help fight of the communist invaders, are we an 'empire' for doing so? And if in response to a massive build up of forces and intelligence reports which suggest a full scale invasion of canada, they ask us to place a military base there? Are we an 'empire' for doing so, and should we do it?

Drink what you want to drink, Merlin. You can create your own soft drink if you like. I don't know what you want, nor do I know what you consider "original."

I will repeat one thing I posted here before. If you vote for McCain or Obama, then do not complain about the trillion-dollar ripoff.

I figured it was Peikoff. I thought I should check first.

Actually if I had only the two choices, I would vote for Obama. It's mainly because I want to see the Obama-tons become completely and totally disillusioned with him. Obama is already well-known to be in Israel's pocket. He will change very little with regard to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Americna imperialism in general. His approval ratings in 2011 will be about as bad as Bush's are now. It will be a pretty sight to see.

I predict that Obama will win. I also predict that he won't even run in 2012. He will go out just like the original piece of Texas trailer trash--Lying Bastard Johnson.

It will be the death of the anti-war left. Then, sincere anti-war politicians will finally get the recognition they deserve. There may still be useful idiots like the writers at DailyKos and Rolling Stone. The general public, however, will finally realize that Obama and his cronies are also just one branch of the War Party. Hopefully, the average American idiot will never again fall for a phony anti-war candidate.

There is a good chance that the major neo-cons and Trotskyite war hawks will go back over to the party of Obama. They left that party in 1972 when George McGovern was nominated. Then there will be a chance for a true America-first candidate to be nominated in 2012. It will be a positive paradigm shift. To a certain degree, it's already happening with the likes of Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama.

The neo-cons are not creatures of party. They are creatures of war. They will migrate again just as they did back then.

If a miracle happens and McCain wins, I also predict that he won't run again. If he dies in office or becomes the first President to be placed in a mental institution, Palin could possibly win in 2012.

My question was about your drink, not mine. Use you own standard of "original." I await your answer, although it won't surprise me if it's "blank out."

I disagree with a military presence in all countries. It's just the same way that I don't ask my neighbor to keep my guns in his house.



That's a straw man. I have never advocated any such thing. Rand herself understood the connection between foreign trade and peace. I do as well. It means commerce and trade with everyone, just like Jefferson advocated in his first inaugural address. Governments don't trade. Countries don't trade. Individuals and businesses do.



This is up to the people doing the trading. Individuals and businesses trade.



I generally don't believe in alliances. I do believe in goodwill. Individuals and businesses engaging in free commerce promotes goodwill. It also promotes our ideals and makes murderous tyrannies less likely.



I take my car to a mechanic to get the oil changed. I don't care if the mechanic is male or female, white or non-white, young or old, straight or gay. I only care that the mechanic does the job.



Selling munitions automatically makes you an ally in any war. I personally don't sell any nuclear bombs. In this sense, I don't think the US Government should sell munitions to anyone.

Now, if Joe the Farmer wants to sell or give cabbages and lettuce to Islamic terrorists, I don't care. A food fight would be better than nuclear war anyway. In that same sense, if an American nuclear scientist wants to go to work for them, that's his business.



Here we go with Objectivist martyrdom. It's a psychological confession. It goes like this: "I'm an Objectivist. People hate me. They hate me because I'm independent. They hate me because I'm rational. They hate me because I'm productive. They hate me because I'm smart." I know this because I have done it in the past. In fact, that's why I can smell it out so easily. Some people have shown me just how disempowering it is. It brings up the question: If you are so smart, then why can't you get these supposedly dumb people to like you?

I have known some very independent, productive, and rational people who are quite well-liked. It just shows how smart they are. It never enters their minds that people will dislike them because of their virtues.They don't act or think like victims and don't get victimized.

On the other hand, if you act and think like a victim, the predators in this world can smell you a mile away.



Let's deal with reality instead. The Soviet Union puts missles in Cuba. In that isolated context, I do think John F Kennedy acted correctly. The "crisis" was over without firing a shot. More significantly, the Soviets threw out the guy who was responsible for it. Above all, it showed that they really didn't want a war.

In the case of an invasion of Canada, it wouldn't work. There is too much land. It actually would have brought down the Soviet Union faster than the invasion of Afghanistan would have. The system couldn't sustain an empire, as it clearly showed. The US wouldn't have had to do anything.

Communism wasn't productive. The less productive a country is, the less likely it is to succeed in war.

I would advocate some preparedness. Putting troops near the Canadian border would certainly be wise.

I am very reluctantly voting for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was not a write-in, I would vote for him.

My two (non-inflationary) cents:

I'll vote against all the incumbents on the ballot and leaving the presidential race unmarked.

The next day, I'll wait for the inevitable "I have a mandate" speech and cringe over my morning coffee.

Or the FDA. The FTC. The FBI. The DEA. The DoE. The DoA. Etc.

--Brant

I don't think Peikoff has changed his mind in general. He considers both major party tickets this year to be "abominable," and he can't imagine voting for either of them. I thought it was amusing to hear his pithy characterizations of the four main candidates, and I abbreviate them even further: McCain is a moron, Obama is a phony, Biden is a windbag, and Palin is an opportunist desperately trying to become a moron, a phony, and a windbag. What's apparent, this time around, is that Obama/Biden have disgusted Peikoff sufficiently that he cannot bring himself to consider them preferable to McCain/Palin, even despite Palin's religious fundamentalism, partly because Obama appears also to be a fundamentalist Christian (even apart from the Muslim fumes swirling around him), as well as clearly (to Peikoff) an anti-American.

Coincidentally, my wife Becky and I had an extended discussion tonight of the ballot propositions and the Presidential campaign, and we decided to abstain from voting on the latter and instead to write a letter of protest to the Libertarian Party for nominating an opportunist candidate who is not a genuine Libertarian. Beyond that? Hunker down and hope the best (or the least bad).

REB

Roger and Everyone else; There is no silver lining. There is only more black cloud. Hunkering down maybe all we can do.

Chris,

This is a double standard. If you apply this to people who face the election as it exists, you certainly have to apply it to economics as it exists.

Thus I could say, "If you use United States currency in buying your groceries, then do not complain about the government's economic policies. You thus sanction all the evils in the USA economic system."

Obviously, this is so oversimplified that it is painful. But that applies to your oversimplification as well.

Just because you vote for a viable candidate, that does not mean you vote for everything the government has done nor everything the candidate proposes. It is perfectly reasonable to have a specific purpose in mind, just like it is when you use tainted currency in a tainted system (by your standard) to buy groceries.

I make the case for trying to alleviate the coming inflation with my support of McCain. I don't see how inflation can be stopped. And I am beginning to realize that people here in America have no real idea of what it means, nor do they think it will happen.

I should have seen that coming, though. The entire current social-economic fabric is woven with debt used as a commodity. Now people are wondering why it is imploding. It couldn't do otherwise because debt is not a commodity.

Inflation coming from massive government spending and massive government bailouts is kinda like that, especially now that debt will no longer inject expanding currency into the economy, at least not on the scale it used to.

Michael

This is a repeat of another post I just made. Just being biased.

Michael,

I have not been on this board for a while (I'm afraid) and I want to make it clear that I still love this forum.

I am replying in this thread because I believe you have raised an important point. However, I wish to make clear that as much as I understand the reasoning behind your decision and can understand why you would come to such a conclusion (thus, I do not think you are being irrational), I disagree with your position.

I will state first that if I were an American Citizen, I'd be voting for Bob Barr. He may be a moderate libertarian (he is no longer that sadistic atheist-hating drug-warrior neo-nazi we knew from when he was in the house), but unfortunately moderates are more attractive than principled candidates and I'd rather a moderate libertarian than a moderate conservative or a moderate leftist (I refuse to call them 'liberals' since it is the libertarians that are the true liberals).

Now, as for your position, you reasoning is as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): Obama will create more inflation than McCain, Inflation is the largest problem facing the US, therefore Obama is the greater of two evils.

I agree with you that both candidates are "two evils" and I also agree that inflation is a monumental problem for the US. I import a lot of stuff from the US, and inflation in America is the last thing I want given how the Australian Dollar's exchange rate has recently plunged against the US Dollar. However, I disagree with the proposition that Obama will create more inflation than McCain. I concede I am only speculating about what is most likely to happen, but I do believe that it is more likely for McCain to create more inflation.

There are two ways to fund government: printing money or taxation. Republicans tend to be more wary of raising taxes than Democrats and thus they would be more likely to inflate to raise money than to raise taxes. In addition, McCain is more interventionist than Obama (I concede, Obama is likely more interventionist than many of his anti-war followers). Since War is expensive, it has to be paid for, and there are only two ways to do this: inflation or taxation. Given McCain's Republican-ness, he is more likely to do the former.

Also, lets look at the opportunity costs of social programs versus war. Social programs are almost always a net loss, they are run inefficiently and they are nearly always inferior to their market-based alternatives. However, they at least produce SOME level of return (even if the net benefit is negative). War, on the other hand, produces no return at all, except if the war is in self-defense (and Iraq does not, in my judgement, fall under that category). Thus, I would say the opportunity costs of social programs are probably a bit better (note the "probably a bit") than those of war.

So overall, Michael, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of McCain vs Obama.

Additionally, with the chance of McCain dying in office, a vote for him seems like a vote for Palin, and as bad as Obama and McCain both are, Palin is by far much worse. She is so disgracefully anti-rational, anti-human, anti-capitalist (her constant hymns to the glory of small town virtue do not sit well with big-city, 'sin'-encouraging capitalism) and just plain demented that she is a few rungs lower than all the alternatives.

Make no mistake, I do not like Obama or Biden. Obama is a centrist-pragmatist (although he is not (anymore) the hardline marxist he once was... read any issue of The Economist that looks at his advisors, their credentials are all impeccably moderate-market (and have stated to The Economist multiple times that Obama's anti-NAFTA statements are driven by pandering-to-the-electors (i.e. they are lies) and not honest conviction)), and Biden is a Unionist Trial-Lawyer. Both suck. But in the debate over who sucks least, I would say Obama, ever-so-slightly.

I do, however, respect your reasoning behind your position.

Hi Michael,
Fo me it is very hard to see Sara Palin as Vice President. And I cant understand How McCain choose this lady,
and that is why I think he has a really less IQ comparing to Obama.Also shows that he lacks also self-confidence.
Because people with lack of self-confidence they look for people similar to them.
I understand your point about "spread of wealth"....But I dont think Obama can or want(it is not in his interest) to transform US to a socialist conutry.

I want to comapre also regarding 2 issue.(Econimical growth and foreign policy against Iran) the Republican and Democrats.
me as a non-american what I see is
1..During Clinton presidency US was only growing econimically. while as during Bush presidency(also his father) you know better.
2..Historically and paradoxically I would prefer to say why Mollah suffer much much more during Demcrat presidency.
For all respect that I have for Reigan but it was a shame his policy with Iran.
and I dont know why(I say in in this way) why Mullah had a lot of confidence during Bush presidency?!!!!!!!!!!

I think it is time to look at everything deeper.

I dont have really any preferance about Republinan and Democrats...
I prefer Reigan to Carter but Clinton to Bush and now I think in this period 2008 to 2009 at least McCain is out of question.
Shahram

Andrew,

This is incorrect in a few key aspects, although it is true that Obama's policies will create more inflation than McCain's.

1. I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates. I stand by this. Sure, both played the game to get where they are and have their fair share of blemishes, but I sense that both are committed to principles of doing good. I also believe that common sense plays a strong part in those principles, so this tempers any fanaticism. Obama comes from the left and McCain comes from the right, both both are fundamentally aligned on many issues dead center. If you are in the center, it doesn't matter how you got there. You are still in the center.

Whichever candidate becomes President, his administration will be more of a centrist orientation than a leftist or rightist one in actual deeds and not just rhetoric. I don't find the center bad when I look at what the excesses of the extremes have caused. Frankly, I consider the extremists I have seen to be absolutely nuts. (I speak politically, not idealogically.)

In a different political scenario than today's, I might think differently. But I have no illusions about the capacity of all people to make horrible choices, especially if they become involved in one side or another of a power structure. So I am a big fan of checks and balances. Bravo to our Founding Fathers for lasting wisdom.

In this sense, I do not see the glass half empty. I do not see this election as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men.

2. Nowhere did I say that inflation is the largest problem facing the USA. I do believe it is a serious upcoming problem that people are currently ignoring, just as they ignored what would happen when powerful people started repackaging bad debt and selling it almost like a separate commodity. The public cry was not against the impending catastrophe. Those who did cry out were treated as kooks, conspiracy nuts, unreal idealists, or just plain quirky. The public cry was that people wanted more. Well they got it. Here we are. Notice that reality will not be ignored.

The same goes for upcoming inflation. The law of causality exists, even when there are complicated inputs. Rand, in writing about a book on Kant, once stated something to the effect of looking down the centuries, pointing to the wars and large scale misery that has constantly erupted in human history, then pointing to Kant's ideas and saying "this leads to that." If we can get the issue away from Kant and focus just on the ideas she was talking about, this is true. When you divorce reason from knowledge, then base your laws of human conduct on that quality of knowledge, anything goes. Those with an aggressive bent will cash in on it and the masses will follow.

So when I see high government spending and taxing the rich openly proposed, I look to the future. I see that government spending will increase even more, especially after the first increase precedent "takes," and the rich will find loopholes or migrate their money out of the country. The only place the money can then come from is taking it from the less rich and devaluing the currency. I look at all this and say, "This will lead to that." I don't see how this cannot not happen. I have lived with this up close for over 30 years. (btw - Brazil got out of high inflation. Guess how? They privatized government stuff, thus cutting down on spending, stopped all that borrowing and reformed taxes.)

3. Getting back to the issue of the largest problem facing the USA, there are several severe problems, not just one. My position is that I don't see much of a change in any of these problems (except for future inflation) regardless of which candidate wins. So I am indifferent to both candidates in analyzing these problems irrespective of their campaign rhetoric. (I do admit Obama's Marxist sentiment gives me great pause.) I think they will hover around the center in practice. This does not mean I am indifferent to the problems or think they are less important than inflation. I am simply indifferent to these candidates to impact the problems in a manner different than anyone else in the center would.

This even includes the war in Iraq and American military presence overseas. Obama wants to set a timetable for withdrawal, but in practice, I do not believe it would happen as he plans. McCain wants total victory there, but he will eventually get out. The centrist drift is to get out with honor and both will. If somehow both were allowed to become President in parallel universes, I wager that both would get out at approximately the same time.

I don't see this sameness with inflation. There I do see a real difference between Obama and McCain, and even then, I see it as a matter of degree and not kind. But the degree is big and honking.

4. I don't know enough about Barr to comment intelligently on him. At this stage of the election, the Libertarian party does not have a chance in this election. I didn't see signs of it before, either, so I never became interested. (I did register as a Libertarian when I got my Florida driver's license on returning to the USA, so I guess I am on record somewhere in their files, but I have no intention of getting involved or voting Libertiarian as a crusade unless matters change greatly.) Even Ron Paul ran as a Republican. I don't care much for devoting time, money and energy to ineffective organizations. I do know that voting for Barr is essentially the same thing as not voting in terms of what the final outcome will be in the present election. This is a gesture that I refuse to make. I actually do want to make a difference in this election.

I hope that clarifies my views a bit more.

Michael

On the Palin is not fit to be President issue, I think she is.

Nothing prepared her to be Governor, but she became one. A damn good one who wielded power effectively and produced results—very good results when compared against her predecessors. And, as icing to that cake, she is one of the most popular Governors in the country.

If she becomes President, she'll do just fine. The elite will hate her, but they hate any outsider they did not groom.

I don't agree with Sarah Palin on some things, but she is a good person. I look at her deeds and see this, but it also radiates from her charisma. I like good people.

Michael

Thankyou for clarifying your views. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

However, I do think you are being excessively optimistic about Governor Palin. Note, that I do not condemn you for this optimism... it is one of the traits that is quite distinctive about your attitude to Objectivism, in that you assume the best in people will win out (except in very extreme cases). I can often assume this but upon the subject of Governor Palin, I cannot assume she is a good person. She has been indicted for abuse of power (Troopergate). She is militantly pro-life and antifederalist (she supports constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage and abortion). You, as a supporter of checks and balances, should be quite scared about what she might do to these checks and balances.

Regarding taxing the rich and government spending, if the tax hikes are enough to fund the government expenditure then no inflation will occur. What will happen is that investment will slow down (as income goes up, Marginal Propensity to Invest goes up, thus taxing the rich does disproportionately affect the amount of money invested. This sucks, agreed, but it is not inflation. Of course, if credit expansion ALSO occurs along with the spending you will be correct, but Democrats usually don't have the aversion to tax hikes that Republicans do, and as such I think Obama would be more likely to avoid having to print money to fund his promises (I admit, this is not certain, I just think it is more likely that Obama wouldn't have to inflate to fund his spending binge).

Also, McCain's policies are, in my judgement, also inflationary. The Republican aversion to tax hikes plus the potentially higher level of, ahem, 'defense' spending McCain would make compared to Obama would suggest to me that the inflation under McCain would be worse.

Looking at Obama's advisors, I see a team with all the standard faults of current popular economic wisdom. They aren't different to the current crowd, nor are McCain's. Obama's pseudo-Marxism seems, to me, purely populist. And McCain has entertained the rhetoric as well, damning Wall Street for "greed" very frequently.

Whilst Im not trying to forgive Obama's lunacy (I support dissecting all of his problems and exposing him to philosophical scrutiny), I think that Obama is more likely to be a moderate, relatively innoffensive president, than McCain is (or Palin would be). I concede, I may be wrong, I'm simply going on the basis of what I have seen and read.

Andrew,

I do admit that Sarah Palin might not be very... er... sympathetic to Gothics...



Michael

Well, I don't think that "the goth community" ever was a large constituency, but you are probably right. After Columbine the Christian Right basically framed us goths as public enemy number one. We were cast as a child-corrupting cult out to make your children renounce god and accept satan.

Michael: "I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men."
"I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates."

Just for reference, has there ever been a case where, at the time of the election of non-incumbents, you thought that one of them was not a "good man" or not "high quality"?

Michael,

The coming inflation is baked into the system and cannot or will not be vitiated. Frankly, the only good thing about Obama is he's intelligent and he might pull a rabbit out of his hat. However, he's essentially empty-headed and the empty-headed electorate is his natural constituency. I think of all the stupid/passive/non-thinking kids I went to school with and how many grew up to be teachers teaching the next generation to be even dumber and how this public-education avalanche is finally over-whelming American politics.

It doesn't matter how "good" the candidates are; being "bad" is like running around naked with ugly bodies and nobody's that stupid except certain naturalists who only associate with the like-minded. It's how good and bad policies and ideologies are. It's doing good, whatever that is, not bad. It's not getting educated in foreign policy with the price of New York City being blown up.

--Brant

**Voting for President Essentialized**

Since politicians lie, pander, or are confused there is only one thing to consider when choosing between Obama and McCain: What is he likely to -do- as President.

To use language from the physics course I'm teaching, a President's choices are a 'vector sum' of the following forces:

1) His actual convictions or political philosophy (help the poor, keep people free, be loved abroad, carry the fight to the terrorists)
2) What his advisors convince him of (you have to study the people he has kept around him in the past)
3) Domestic politics (what Congress will go along with, what the press is shouting, what the people seem to be willing to accept).

Number one is measured by what the man said and did *before* he started running for President. You can take everything since then and almost completely disregard it.

Number two is important because no man is an expert in every area and he must rely heavily on what people tell him. And past advisors are likely to be somewhat predictive of future advisors.

Number three is the least easy to predict. And depends on whether he is weathervane who moves with the prevailing breezes or a tough-minded person who will often not take the easy course.

In the case of Obama, 1) and 2) seem much worse than for McCain on most issues. Domestic: Regulation, Spending, Taxes. Foreign: Appeasement vs. Strength and Willingness to Stop Iran and Terrorism. Those are the five LIFE AND DEATH / FREEDOM VS. SLAVERY issues for the next five or ten years.

Don't even THINK about voting for President based on any other issues.

Dennis,

Bush (the younger) versus Gore. Two old-boy crony politicians.

I didn't like either.

I consider old-boy crony politics to be poor quality. Personal profit for their tribe always takes precedence over all other considerations.

Michael

Studakent; Sarah Palin was not indicted for Trooper Gate. She would be facing a trial. She isn't. Since you are from outside the US I can see how you might get your facts wrong.

I agree with Michael and think that if Gov. Palin is elected Vice President she will do just fine.

Here is what I just posted elsewhere on OL. I will be adding a transcript later.



EDIT:

My source of the YouTube link:



Doubts anyone?

EDIT AGAIN: Transcript of the video here.

I watched the video in post #27. When asked about Obama wanting to spread the wealth around, Joe Biden responds. "The only person who has spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain's tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the late 1920's 1% of the American people make over 21% of all the income in America. That wasn't the way before George Bush became President." A bit later Biden says: "He [Obama] is not spreading the wealth around. He's talking about the middle class getting the tax breaks they use to have."

Biden is a demagogue and spreading falsehoods. While the share of income of the top 1% or the top quintile has risen in recent years, it is as much or more due to new entrants in the lowest quintile (probably to a great extent Hispanic immigrants) than those at the top earning more.

Here is a simplified example to illustrate. In the following two sets of data the incomes for 100 people are identical. The only difference in people and incomes is that the 2nd set adds 10 people with low incomes. But look at the shares column. Shares of income are higher in the second set for the 4th and highest quintiles, despite no change in income for the individuals. (In the second set each quintile has 22 people.)

people income quintile share
20 ...... 15900 .... Low ..... 3.7%
20 ...... 37400 .... 2nd ..... 8.7%
20 ...... 58500 .... Middle . 13.7%
20 ...... 85200 .... 4th ..... 19.9%
20 ..... 231300 ... High .... 54.0%

people income quintile share
10 ...... 12000 ... Low ..... 3.6%
20 ...... 15900 .... 2nd ..... 7.5%
20 ...... 37400 ... Middle . 13.4%
20 ...... 58500 .... 4th .... 20.4%
20 ...... 85200 ... High ... 55.2%
20 .... 231300

Another comparison is worth noting. The shares of the 2nd and middle quintiles are less in the 2nd set. Hence, it appears that "the middle class is worse off." That is clearly not the case. The relevant people have the same income in each set.

On an ROR thread Michael Marotta gave a link to some income and tax statistics. Have a look at the numbers in Table 1C of the Excel file on the linked page for shares of pre-tax or after-tax income. I think my explanation above largely explains the trends in the numbers. Table 1A also shows that the effective individual income tax rate for the middle quintile has been on a steady decline since 1981. Indeed, the effective rates in the Clinton years was 5% or more, and less than 4% in the George Bush years. Table1C also show incomes. The statistics belie Biden's claim.

Incidentally, I conjecture that the pattern of numbers for the highest quintile since 1995 are due to stock market performance, more exactly capital gains and income from exercising employee stock options.

The transcript of the video in Post 40:


This thing reads like parts of it were taken whole from Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

Even when it is of strategic value to both you and your neighbor? That is naive. It is the proper function of a government to provide self defense, and it is proper to combine resources with allies who have a harmony of interests to do so. It is murderously stupid to not recognize common values with allies (even if they do not share every single value) and act in co-operation with them against common enemies.



Great, so if I manufacture stinger missiles, as an individual, can I go ahead and sell those to the taliban? If I run a nuclear power plant, can I sell weapons grade uranium or plutonium to the highest bidder, even if it's a murderous tyrant who wants to build a nuclear bomb and attack a major US city?

And it's no straw man, you specifically saw we should 'mind our own business' that means, explicitly, not only not interfereing with the affairs of other nations, but ignoring those affairs.



If it is a proper function of the government to provide self defense, how is enabling the armament of enemies not a violation of that?



You form an alliance with your neighbor in paying for police to protect your neighboorhood. Even though a thug didn't mug YOU, your money is still used to apprehend, sequester, and punish him. Why? He didn't attack YOU? he attacked someone else, why should you care! Because it is in your own rational self interest to oppose any violations of rights on your neighbor punish those who commit those crimes. To not do so would mean a thug is free as long as he actually kills his victim. To not do so actually encourages the violent violation of rights by thugs. Similarly, it is in your own long term rational self interest to recognize the harmony of interests you have with neighboring *countries* that share the same earth that you exist on, and allying with the oppose and punish perpetrators of violent crimes, assaults, or wars, is as rational and proper as allying with your neighbor to do so against a thug who never touched you.

If the United States had adopted your 'alliance free' and 'mind your own business' ideas during the cold war we would today be a client state of the soviet union.



Oh, and maybe your mechanic did a good job on YOUR car, but screws over everyone else. And so we develop as system, with our neighbors, in alliance with them, to rate and judge the competency of your mechanic. Lets say you are jewish, and your mechanic a neo-nazi, every dollar you pay him to fix your car goes into making life for you, and probably many people you care about, more difficult. Who cares though, he doesnt know your jewish, and he fixes your car well! In your alliance free world, I can be a murderous scumbag, rape, molest, and kill your neighbor, then, with blood dripping from my hands, smile and offer to mow your lawn. "How much?" you'll say "Just don't get any blood on my lawn"



So can private US citizens sell nuclear bombs to terrorists and enemies of our nation?



Sure, but what if he BUILDS nuclear bombs HERE, and sells them to those islamic terrorists. Hey, Free Trade you say.



That's not the point, the point is whether or not people like you is completely irrelevant to whether or not what you are doing is right. You draw no distinction. You can be doing everything right, as a nation, or a person, and many people will still hate you.



Because our "allies" let us put nuclear missiles on the doorstep of the soviet union without our 'allies' which you don't believe we should have, we would have had no bargaining position with which to get the soviet union to remove their nuclear missiles from their allies from our doorstep. In your alliance free isolationist world, the soviet union would have laughed, and said 'ha, what will you do if I do not remove my missiles, not sell me things?'



More of that inept libertarian fantasy world which conveniently ignores the historical fact that virtually EVERYWHERE the United States could oppose and contain communism it did so, and THAT more than anything else contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the height of the Vietnam war, fully half of the Soviet Union's GDP was going into that conflict, our's never passed over 6%. Today the areas which make up the former Soviet Union consist of 6% of the worlds population and yet only 3% of it's GDP. The US, at 5% of the worlds population, makes over 20% of the Worlds GDP. Every dollar spent to fight the Soviet Union cost the soviet union over $10 to combat. Same for Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc etc. The only reason the US and the USSR avoided an outright war was because they fought them in every other country. Your 'alliance free' dream world would have let the soviet union take over every single other country on the planet (which was it's explicit goal and one of it's founding principles) until the US could pose not threat whatsoever. Not that you would even know that the entire world had become a rights crushing totalitarian regime, because you would be 'minding your own business' and selling them the very goods and weapons they will use to defeat and enslave you.



And yet it steamrolled through about 1/4 of the nations on the planet, invaded or instigated revolutions in about 1/2 of them, and killed almost 170 million people during it's reign. The reason it's reign lasted less than 100 years and not 1,000 is because it was actively opposed every step of the way by allies with common interests. Sure it would have collapsed eventually, but the feudal religious tyranny of the middle ages took 1,000 years to collapse. I personally see no reason to sit and wait a few hundred years for communism to collapse because it has killed every productive person and devolved humanity into disgusting nihilistic parasites.



And putting a base in Canada, and combining forces with Canada to fight this murderous tyranny, would be even wiser. Your foreign policy and alliance free world is murderously naive and suicidal.

With the several posts I made today, I have just about Obama-bashed out.

I got the essential information about Obama up for those interested in the facts on record and not just the pretty words. See my thread on Hannity's videos. Barbara also posted an extremely pertinent and disturbing article from Mark Levin: The Obama Temptation.

Barring a major change of some sort, like Obama's redistribution of the wealth interview that emerged today, I will not be posting much more on this. I have to get back to work. (I know I won't be able to avoid quips, but that is another matter.)

I still consider Obama someone in the Center who got there from the Far Left. In his campaign speeches today he emphasized common sense over ideology. I prefer a principled person, but in someone like him, I find common sense over principle a plus. Also, his demeanor is very reasonable and I expect that to continue regardless of which way the election goes. The problem is that Obama might gravitate back to where he came from if he gets in power and gets real comfortable. I do know he has favors outstanding and will have to pay a few. We all know they will lean left.

My opinion that McCain will result in some inflation and Obama will result in high inflation is unchanged. I admit, though, that I am more disturbed now about an Obama Presidency than I was a few days ago.

Michael

Michael, Obama's emphasis of "common sense over ideology" is an echo of the PRAGMATISM of the 60s. Re-read Rand's "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus." I work 5 days a week in a band, several of which are rabid liberals (some frothing more than others), and part of their current schtick is that ideology (i.e., principle) is dangerous, divisive, and destructive, and that we need to solve problems, "find what works," and be "pragmatic." Sound like Obama's "common sense"? Yup.

Also, bear in mind that if Obama is ~truly~ pragmatic and "common sense," rather than a closet ideologue (wanna put money on that??), then he will be pushed strongly to the Left by those who ~are~ principled statists. Forget about his obligations and debts. Just consider Rand's insight that the more consistent person in a dispute will win, and you have to fear for the triumvirate that we are on the verge of electing. Who among principled individualists, let alone conservatives, will balance this influence, and how?

Also, I ~guarantee~ you that if Obama is elected, then in 2-3 years, when the economy is ~further~ damaged by their insane policies, there will be a big push to nationalize one or more industries. (Precedent in the financial sector, don't you know.) When we and ARI and CATO and Rush and Hannity speak up, what will happen to us? Not long after the big push for nationalization, there will be a big push for censorship and/or suppression of dissent. Then perhaps it will be time to shrug -- or revolt.

Maybe the electorate will come to its senses next Tuesday, and it will be "morning in America" once more. We'll see.

REB

I have a comment on the question of integrity and deceit.

I recently saw an interview with Curt Schilling, the Red Sox pitcher and he made an interesting comment that resonated with my inner Objectivist strings.

He mentioned that integrity means doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Whether one agrees with all of McCain's views or not, he is very forthcoming about his principles and I have no doubt whatsoever he will act on them with the lights on or off. He is a man of principle to the core. In a torture chamber in Vietnam he did what he thought was right when no one was looking and it cost him more torture and confinement. But he did it.

That, I submit, is acting on principle.

We see Obama denying and minimizing the ugly parts of his past. We also see a strong pure left-wing consistency in his past that he downplays. He was not caught saying empty campaign talk with the Joe the Plumber incident. His core values were exposed. He even lives in the same multi-million dollar neighborhood with some really ugly leftist people. This is not just coincidence. He moved there on purpose and they helped him do it.

(See the videos I put up that document this.)

In effect, the feeling I get with Obama is that the electors will vote for one thing and get another. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that he will act strongly on his agenda if he gets power and will keep cooking up shaggy dog stories to tell to the public to cover his purpose.

It has become very faddish for USA Presidents to not be too concerned with aligning their words with their deeds, whether Clinton making a bald-face lie about Lewinsky or Bush's smokescreens to cover cronyism. Obama is merely cashing in on what others have prepared for him. People are used to it.

Well I lived in Brazil where this is all you get and I am not used to it. Not in a USA President. Reagan didn't have that problem. What you saw is what you got. You may not have liked what you got at times, but there was no doubt it was what you saw.

McCain has that. Obama does not.

Here is how this difference plays out in a practical ugly matter, especially for Objectivists and libertarians. Both McCain and Obama voted for the $700 billion bailout, pork and all. Both said it was for an emergency and both want to fix the emergency. But there the similarity ends. McCain wants nothing more from that money than fix the emergency. On the Obama side, I get an image of hungry statists salivating over the precedent and using it to jockey for more and more and more. Look at all the campaigns right now for more bailouts.

In a recent interview on "Meet the Press," Brokaw tried to push McCain into a corner with the automobile industry currently asking for $15 billion. McCain's answer was that they haven't even received the $25 billion in loans assigned to them yet, so the best course is to get that to them, then see. I believe this is what he will do, too. Does anybody have any doubt that Obama's people would be in a back-room cutting a nasty deal over this and scheming about what to say to the public?

I fully believe that there is room for recognizing character in Objectivist ethics, even when some other values conflict. McCain has character and he has integrity, just like Reagan did.

He is reasonable, too. If he can be convinced that something is right when he has believed otherwise or not thought about it too much, he will preach it and act on it.

Michael

I just read your last post Michael, very nice!

Michael

Hi,
I can not believe that How some people listen to Prank Call From Fake French President
and then don't ask themselves who I am voting for?,,,,,I am sorry but a minimum IQ is necessary sometimes.
And I am surprised how McCain could be so careless to choose her?
Michael really you don't worry about McCain will repeat these type of errors and carelessness.
I am wondering How easily you close you eyes to reality. Closing eyes to reality is not Objectivist Living..
Judging from emotions is not Objectivist Living.
I wonder how some people call themselves objectivist...
Shahram

Shahram or whatever the hell you call yourself in your anonymity,

Deep...

Here's a reality check.

The issue in this thread is the election.

Funny how people miss the obvious, ain't it?



Michael

EDIT: I am not a big fan of anonymous sniping, nor making anonymous pranks. I prefer an open and honest view of whom I am addressing. I am sure Palin feels the same. I have little doubt another prankster will have the chance this mediocrity did.

Ah... the vain...

Big vanity... Little actual courage...

Lots of self-deception...

Michael,

Thank you. There are so many Objectivist people bashing McCain based on a kneejerk understanding of his rhetoric, I am not so surprised to see that they miss something fundamental like character. But it needs to be said.

McCain's character is something I believe Objectivists should emulate, not ignore or bash. To reiterate, he will do the right thing according to his conscious whether anyone is looking or not.

In fact, the more I read about this man, the more I perceive that he is using the wrong words for the concepts he actually holds. When he says a man should serve something larger than himself, he is talking about a chosen moral value. What is the difference between that approach and Rand's idea that one should choose one's values and stand by them through thick and thin?

McCain's idea of country is not just government, but a way of life that involves a whole series of moral issues. He says he serves his country, but he is actually serving his choice of that way of life. His devotion to government is solely to protect that way of life. How is that different than Rand's use of individualism and reason as a way of life she would be willing to give her own life for? Notice that McCain does not say other people should choose your large moral values in life. He makes it clear that this is an individual choice. (Obviously, I leave out the abortion issue in this evaluation.)

Contrary to agreeing with all the McCain bashing by Objectivists I have read, I believe they are thinking with words only. They are especially strong on the slant they give the words from the standard bashes Rand made, and I do not perceive the concepts behind the words in their McCain-bashing arguments.

McCain is a much greater man than Objectivists give him credit for. I do admit that he is not much of an intellectual and has a very poor choice of slogan words. But look at his acts. If you put politics aside, ss Rand would say, metaphysically the man is a valuer. He has a life premise. And I might add, he is a valuer of individual choice. McCain believes in volition as a fundamental premise.

In fact, if you get away from his rhetoric, the majority of McCain's policies (excepting abortion) have volition at root epistemologically, and respect for the volition of individual citizens politically.

And he has character.

Let others bash him. I admire that man. I trust him.

Michael