The 2008 Presidential Elections

[James Kilbourne]

The 2008 Presidential Elections

By James Kilbourne

“You can tell when a famine is over in China when the price of baby flesh drops below the price of rice.” The year was 1966, and I was listening to this drivel from my professor of Far East studies, who had just finished telling us that Mao's China was morally superior to modern America's crassly materialistic world view. I stood up and left the class never to return, but much wiser for having had the experience of seeing the twisted “logic” of a 60's leftist. Whenever I have difficulty finding the correct priorities in a given situation, I think of this worm of a man and this statement, delivered almost gleefully to a bunch of 20-year-olds who snickered nervously, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. I was the only one who stood up and left the class that day, and I frequently feel the same indignation and loneliness when I listen to the current political discourse.

My first realization in establishing the priorities needed to make a solid decision on how I will vote in 2008 is that it would be extremely difficult for me to vote for a Democrat, particularly for President, in any election since the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. The reason is that since that time the nature of the party has ignored ideology in favor of a practical effort of achieving 50% plus one vote by stitching together a quilt of disparate interest groups through promising special favors these groups would find unobtainable in the market place. This is a formula that has created the most dishonest political campaigns in our history, and has lead to the elevation of the least principled and most underhanded characters to the highest positions in the party.

Barack Obama is a brilliant, complex, and difficult man to understand on many levels, and his election in itself would be a victory of the truth of the American process in its essence, but leaving him aside, is there any doubt about the honesty and depth of a Joe Biden or a John Kerry or a Jonathan Edwards, to name the other national candidates in the last two elections? I realize that it is seldom that the very finest statesmen rise to the positions of Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate, but who among us can listen to a Reid or Pelosi speech after a good meal and be capable of retaining the nutrients gained for more than a moment?

My second prioritizer comes from my understanding that, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the essential intellectual battle has gone from freedom versus tyranny to the American Revolution versus the French Revolution. It is “freedom, individualism, capitalism” versus “liberte, fraternite, egalite”. It is the difference between inalienable individual rights and the right to pursue your goals freely in the marketplace versus the “freedom” to come to a already moralistically-decided brotherhood; freedom at the starting line of a race versus equality at the finish line. This is an easy choice for me.

My decision on what I will do on November 4th this year was finalized this morning when I heard the last 5 minutes of a campaign speech from Toledo, Ohio, by Sarah Palin, on energy policy. First, a word on Obama and Palin. Certainly, they are the two most interesting candidates in this election. Although I have not completely decided on the character of Obama, I knew I could not vote for him under any condition. Obama is the French Revolution and a Democrat. There are many honest people who hold his worldview, but I am certainly not one of them, even though I am much closer to him as a “social liberal” than I am to many of the Republican positions ( abortion rights and gay marriage, to name just two). While I understand that politics is an effort to win a majority of votes through compromising actions with various interest groups, continuing revelations of past Obama speeches dissuade me from the possibility that he might not be a doctrinaire leftist, and that he might be convinced by results to follow a more positive economic path after a few years in office, as Bill Clinton did when confronted by the Gingrich revolution in 1994. Like much of the American and European left, liberalism is more a religion than a search for what is politically most fruitful, and I now believe that an Obama presidency will keep the faith over saving the economy.

I am sad that I can't vote for him on a few levels; he is one of the most steady and intelligent men I have seen in a long time in politics, and watching the clueless John McCain flailing around from one absurd reaction to another through the events of the last several months makes one long for an intelligent and long-range perspective. Obama's speech on race, given as an answer to the Rev. Wright problem during the campaign was very flawed, but in its beginning, it presented a clear picture of the general history of the problem and what was necessary for all races to do to start a meaningful effort to put this problem behind us. There were also some brilliant moments of understanding in his Berlin address and other incidents where he has shown a real overview and a glimpse of ways to make progress among people of different races and backgrounds. Although I don't believe ANYTHING said by ALMOST ANYONE in the media on either side these days, the general consensus is that Obama will win next week. I will not be happy if he does, but I will take a few moments to feel the warmth of further certainty that the American method of defining rights as outlined by Adams in thought and Jefferson in words in the Declaration of Independence is continuing to control the development of human freedom. What a shame that the left will need to deny this, but deny it they will, for anything American is evil to them. Look at the pathetic writings of Bill Ayers if you want to find a good example of this “thinking”.

No sense in wasting any time on Joe Biden. If one smile from him doesn't reveal his depth and motives to you, spend your own time on him, but “insincere lightweight” is offered as a description for those who might be searching for words to describe him.

Now to the Palin case. The vitriol thrown her way was the first reason I was given to take a look at her. I haven't seen such raw hatred towards a person since the times I would bring up the name of Ayn Rand to the left in the 1960's. I learned that the hatred came from a fear that their real motives were in danger of being exposed by Rand that caused the frothing around the mouth that occurred when her name was mentioned. I don't mean to compare Palin with Rand as intellectuals, but her speech on energy and the direction the country would take under the Obama and McCain alternatives showed a superb understanding of the differences offered by the American Revolution versus the French Revolution approach. I urge you to listen to it, if you still have an open mind. I will vote for McCain /Palin with a conviction that he will at least be generally given clear and sound advice on the problems of the day, even though I remain unconvinced that he is bright enough to consistently understand and follow it.

Regardless of the November 4th outcome, we can all relax. A Republican victory could lead to a slow path forward, a Democratic victory to a slow regression, but neither will be the end of the United States, as the panic-stricken believers on both sides scream at anyone still willing to listen. As pointed out by Obama in Chicago in 2001, the Constitution is a flawed document, but it certainly will not be corrected by the smug arrogance of those on the left who have “better ideas”. Thanks primarily to Washington, Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, the method for its correction is built into the amendment process. It is a slow and painful way to correct it, but therein lies its brilliance. Great men know how to lead, but America has a document that allows us to survive even its fools.

[Brant Gaede]

Obama is brilliant, all right. He'd better be a fast study too, especially in geo-political realities. If he's elected my hope is he becomes a whore to a wider, national constituency than what he came out of in Chicago.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

McCain's total inability to make coherent statements about the economy and what's to be done about it have probably doomed us to to an Obama presidency. McCain hardly knows the first thing about freedom, witness his sponsorship of that insane campaign-reform bill. The logical result of conservatism was Bush's "compassionate

conservatism." Wishy-washy crap and nonsense. Where is it now? In the dumpster along with his reputation. Obama is smarter than F. Roosevelt so common political glibness leaves the question open as to whether he'll be a very good President or a very bad one. I now think I'm only an American because I live here. This country has done too much harm to people all around the world and has done harm historically to the direct extent it was powerful. From murdering indians to murdering Mexicans to killing its own citizens to murdering ... millions of malarial victims to this day, f... this country. The United States of America has twisted the entire world out of its natural shape, especially with its involvement in WWI which led to communism and Naziism, WWII and all the rest including the entire disfunctional Middle-Eastern situation. Instead of being a "City on a Hill," the US is the bully in your backyard if not in the house. Now, with Obama, Israel will be left more to its own devices and the redistribution of power relationships will probably mean Israel will nuke Iran. Since Omert will be in power until this Spring, it will unlikely happen before then.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

You gave a penetrating dichotomy of the attitudes in American politics: freedom at the start or freedom at the end. Not since I read Ken Wilber's dichotomy of internal/external have I read a standard other than Rand's individualism/collectivism that made me pause.

(Wilber maintains that Conservatives tend to view the world internally, i.e., a person molds his own soul through moral choices with a focus on the work ethic and personal responsibility, etc. Liberals tend to view a person as a product of external factors like social environment, upbringing, etc.)

Great food for thought.

Oh, I almost forgot, vote McCain, everybody...

Michael

[galtgulch]

The 2008 Presidential Elections

By James Kilbourne

..."the Constitution is a flawed document, but it certainly will not be corrected by the smug arrogance of those on the left who have “better ideas”. Thanks primarily to Washington, Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, the method for its correction is built into the amendment process. It is a slow and painful way to correct it, but therein lies its brilliance. Great men know how to lead, but America has a document that allows us to survive even its fools.

And just what the flaws are which wait to be corrected remains a mystery to the populace who are unlikely to have read the Constitution. Those who manage to get elected to office must take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution so it is conceivable that they have read it through at some point in their lives, more likely in elementary school long before they have honed their critical faculty of reason. I doubt that any reread it just before taking the oath of office.

Amending the Constitution is a awesome process but one is even more awestruck to realize how politicians have managed to ignore the Constitutional limits so boldly as they adopt and create federal programs not authorized within the Constitution at all.

Take heart though for Ron Paul has ignited a movement of over 100,000 citizens who have joined his www.campaignforliberty.com and they are determined to abide by the Constitution and devoted to the task of electing men and women to office who share their commitment to restore the Constitutional Republic and to correct the flaws. Hopefully enough of them are open to listening to reason so their own inconsistencies can be resolved as they go forth to battle the dragons and windmills.

galt

[Darrell Hougen]

James,

You gave a penetrating dichotomy of the attitudes in American politics: freedom at the start or freedom at the end. Not since I read Ken Wilber's dichotomy of internal/external have I read a standard other than Rand's individualism/collectivism that made me pause.

(Wilber maintains that Conservatives tend to view the world internally, i.e., a person molds his own soul through moral choices with a focus on the work ethic and personal responsibility, etc. Liberals tend to view a person as a product of external factors like social environment, upbringing, etc.)

Great food for thought.

Oh, I almost forgot, vote McCain, everybody...

Michael

Go McCain!

Rand explained the difference between conservatives and liberals in terms of the mind-body dichotomy. Conservatives tend to view the mind (or soul) as the important side of the dichotomy. Consequently, a person's moral attitudes and behavior are viewed as more important than his material condition. Ironically, they therefore attempt to control a man's moral behavior. If a person behaves badly, it is reasoned, he cannot go to heaven when he dies. He is doomed to go hell. Therefore, it is imperative for others (the government) to prevent people from behaving in an immoral manner. Hence, prostitution, pornography, adultery, drinking, drug use, gambling and other vices are banned. Even books with "dangerous" ideas may be banned. Man's activity in the material realm, e.g., his money making activities are generally ignored and go unregulated so long as he is honest and moral in his activities.

Liberals, on the other hand, dwell on the body side of the dichotomy. They may even deny the existence of the mind, attributing human activity to simplistic material causes. Consequently, they believe that a person's material condition is the most important aspect of his existence. Ironically, they therefore attempt to control a man's material welfare. Nothing is worse, for a liberal, than for a man to live his life in poverty. Such a life is a wasted life. Therefore, they attempt to make sure that everyone has at least a modest income and livelihood, regardless of his moral behavior. They call for redistribution of wealth while ignoring all of the vices listed above.

I would add that because liberals view man in purely mechanical terms, they ignore his capacity for free will. They view both the condition of the poor man and the wealth of the successful man as accidents of existence. Therefore, they have no qualms about taking from the rich (who don't deserve to be rich) and giving to the poor (who do not deserve to be poor).

Objectivism, of course, denies the mind-body dichotomy and affirms the existence of free will. It therefore rejects the restrictions on freedom placed by both the left and right.

Anyway, it seems that Wilber's views might be similar to Rand's.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

We won't know if this election will be an absolute calamity for this country until we learn about the results of the races for various US Senate seats.

This election may be the fourth great political disaster for the US if not the world during the last 100 years.

The first was Teddy Roosevelt's decision to run for President as a third party candidate in 1912, putting Wilson into the White House and getting the US into WWI leading to the rise of communism and Naziism, WWII and the shape of today's world.

The second was the Great Depression created by Herbert Hoover whose policies were taken over and expanded upon by FDR.

The third was the assassination of JFK, which led to the Vietnam War--Kennedy was too smart for that--and The Great Society. It was the time of the assassination, late 1963, which made it impossible for Goldwater to do much more than be overwhelmingly defeated by a President who hadn't been in office long enough to be much faulted by the electorate, which consequentially gave LBJ legislative dominance.

Now the economy is giving us Obama ...

There are two primary villains for what has happened and will happen, Bush and Greenspan, and it is hard to tell who was worse. Bush with his Iraqi oil war or Greenspan who never took away the punch bowl. The only gross damage Obama will be able to add to this will be his lack of understanding of what it takes to defend the United States. I fully expect NYC to be blown up eventually, especially if something is not done about Iran and Pakistan.

The degeneration of the US into a hapless and poor giant continues regardless.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this off the front page and here into "Stumping in the Backyard."

The election is over.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I moved this off the front page and here into "Stumping in the Backyard."

The election is over.

Michael

The election has just begun.

--Brant