Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Why I Voted McCain

Much to the shock and dismay of most of my friends at home in the states and certainly to all of the socialist Frenchies here in France, this election I was a proud supporter of John McCain. And here's why.

I can't say that I necessarily loved him, but he, far more than Obama, represented for me the change that our country needs. Especially in light of the present financial crisis, I think it has become evident that the American people have become FAR too dependent on their government. It seems to me that they believe that the government is there to clean up after them and help them when not only when they fail, but always. I am of the belief that less government is more government, which, in a sense, makes me a liberal republican (with strong anarchistic tendencies). It also makes me very anti-socialist. I am against most social programs, as I think these things are the role of the people and not the role of the government. Obama seems to live for social programs, and I would even go so far as to call him a socialist. Which is why I decided that I needed to forget about my liberal side for this election.

Alexander Tytler (some really intelligent Scottish lawyer) once said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." It seems to me that, in this election, that is what has happened. Or is at least starting to happen.

I respect Barack Obama in so many ways, especially for his stance on animals.
However, I believe that Barack Obama's policies, financial and otherwise, do nothing but create more and more dependence on the government while giving crap to people that have worked hard for themselves for their whole lives (instead taking away from them to give to people that don't necessarily need or deserve it). McCain on animals - not so much (see same link). However, I think that his proposed policies would have saved our economy and help to wean the people off of their dependence on the government. And, in my opinion, that, more than anything, is what we need.

I am living in France right now, and, if any country could be considered a socialist country, France is it. So I see first hand that IT DOES NOT WORK. The people may think they want it. They may even be proud of their system. But they are all miserable here. I have never in my life seen a country full of such rude and miserable people. They would never outwardly SAY that it is because of their government, instead claiming and believing that it is the best in the world. But when interrogated specific aspects of it, one can't help but come to realize that they are miserable the way they are in great part because they are living in a socialist society.

For those that are actually interested - THING I DON'T LIKE ABOUT OBAMA
(This is NOT what this post was about, so I am putting it at the end, simply because I gather that there are some people that were curious.) Oh, and now that I have written it, I feel that I should add that, for ALL of these issues, I prefer what McCain has to say, unless otherwise mentioned. I realize that I should have probably put why, but now it is written, and I am done.

To me, Obama's idea to "spread the wealth" basically means you work your butt off and then you use your savings to pay for someone else's life.

Health Care - Free low cost health care? Okay, so then I no longer have any say over my medical decisions and am paying for the health care of other people who can't afford it and who are suffering because of idiotic decisions that they have made in their life and that I have chosen not to make in my life. I have to say, I hate the cost of socialized health care (and have seen it failing in both Canada and France), but I wouldn't hate it so adamantly if I thought that the United States was promoting healthy lifestyles. Instead, you have the beef and dairy industries providing the only health education plans. Any surveys will show you that this basically means that CANCER itself is providing the health education plans. Very few schools are capable of providing health dietary choices for the children. Smoking is still legal, and in many states, it's still legal to smoke in bars and other public places. Etc, etc, etc. . . It's not MY fault if you eat at McDonald's every day or smoke a pack a day or drink your liver into submission. So why should I have to pay for it? Before we can have any sort of socialized health care, we need proper health care EDUCATION which the United States, for the time being, is too afraid to give. I think McCain's ideas are crap, but I prefer them to Obama's any day.

Social programs and taxes - The over a trillion dollars that Barack Obama has set aside on social spending would be much better spent elsewhere. Even better in the pockets of the people who will soon be paying it in what he calls fair taxes and I call unfair taxes. The national debt is already high enough as it is (and no, none of Obama's ridiculously high tax proposals are predicted to help decrease the national debt - and, um, bringing back the inheritance tax in full swing i.e. mega increasing it. I have never heard anything sadder). I gather that all of his social spending would do something like triple the antional debt. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but that would cause mega inflation which would cause the already plummeting stocks to plummet even further and then, goodbye the value of the dollar. Also, if we're going to be having the kind of social and welfare programs proposed by Obama, I think that people already on welfare or receiving unemployment money should not be allowed to vote. Leave it up to the people giving the money, not the people receiving it.

Gun control - let the people have their guns. People that are going to go crazy with them are going to find ways to have them no matter what, so we might as well at least be able to have our guns to protect ourselves. And guess what - it doesn't matter what KIND of gun it is. It's still going to SHOOT, and it can still kill. So if there are going to be questions about whether or not people should be able to own guns, should there really be questions about what KIND of guns they can own? Nothing more to say.

Affirmative action - it's okay, to an extent. McCain has voted AGAINST unnecessary affirmative action. Obama is all, YAY affirmative action, even if it is going to create problems, which it often does. What gives a poor kid who has dreamed his entire life of joining the electrician's union (and therefore will not NEED a college education but can still make tons of money) more of a right to go to college than someone who WANTS to go to college and is prepared to go to college - and whose family just so happens to have money? Give the opportunities to people that DESERVE them, not just people that can't afford them.

Acorn - I don't really think I even need to say anything here.

Education - I'm not going to talk about this, because while I hate what Barack Obama proposes (and really, I do NOT think that pre-school should be mandatory. I think at that point, kids are so young that they are almost better off at home, assuming they are living in healthy environments), I think McCain's proposals are also crap. And this isn't about me saying what I think should be done, so the end.

Energy - I'm totally okay with nuclear energy. The only thing scary about it is when nuclear plants explode or are bombed. Aside from that, they are completely clean and safe (even if they do waste a lot of energy). I don't think that we need to play with lots of energy sources and in the meantime create ethanol and waste energy resources. I do think that we should keep drilling off-shore. The wells are already there and working, and more and more environmental watches are being put on them. Let's keep this us. We are going to need this oil, especially if Obama gets his way with the troops coming out of Iraq (I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $10 a gallon). So let's keep drilling, use nuclear energy, and keep researching better energy alternatives.

Anti-Americanism - This sort of goes with what's coming next: War. Barack Obama called the people that were sent over to Afghanistan by our country WAR CRIMINALS. He actually said that. And yeah, maybe they were doing some crappy things over there, but THE UNITED STATES sent them over there to do these things.

The War - Obama wants troops out of Iraq within the next 16 months. I think - we started something, we need to finish it! I am anti-war, and I was against the war in the first place. But the fact is - as much as I would like to believe that every conflict can be resolved in a non-violent way, it is NOT the case. And now we are over in Iraq. It's really hard for me to write about this, as I get all worked up, and I completely agree with my best friend, Cathryn, on this point, so I'm just going to post what she has said. She said it much better than I ever could have:

# Cathryn's opinion: I used to believe that conflict could always be resolved without violence. I used to think war was barbaric and unnecessary, and that Bush was amusing himself by playing GI Joe with the US military. I was idealistic, and my views were righteous, but they were naive. Because although I am skilled at conflict resolution, my training and experience has taught me that it can never be avoided 100% of the time. And in those situations where violence is imminent, you have to act quickly and decisively. Once you suspect someone is going to attack you, you HAVE to move. If you wait, for any reason, you lose. Hesitation will cause a fight to escalate.
# Obama: wants to hesitate. To have happy little tea parties with a country that wants to slaughter us and push our allies into the sea. Hesitation will cause a fight to escalate, which will result in more lives lost. One thing I learned from dealing with dogmatic people is that you cannot reason with those who believe they are right. It is a mistake that will cost lives. I believe that Obama is strong enough to realize that he needs to fight. The problem is that by the time he realizes what is happening, it will be too late.

Immigration - Obama's ideas, while not being horrible, are completely unrealistic. McCain's ideas, while being quite odd, are at least HIS OWN. What other candidate has ever been known to stand up for what he believes in while being naggered by his own party? CERTAINLY not Barack Obama!

Stem cells - my view on this is shocking, given that I am pro-choice and everything. I think, continue the research that is happening, but don't start anything new. Especially not with my tax money. Obama, of course, supports everything. McCain agrees with me. :-)

Death Penalty - Obama supports it. I don't. (For the record, so does McCain)

Gay Marriage - You know he supports gay marriage. At least he should. And he used to. But no, he just supports civil unions. Why? McCain also supports civil unions, and I respect him for it. Again, it's probably really how he feels. I can't respect Obama for it, though, when I know it is not his stance but because he is afraid of the voters he might have lost had he actually come out and supported gay marriage.

Okay, I am done. That was long, and I realize that most people won't read it. And it probably should have come BEFORE the elections. But so many people on facebook were shocked at my stance that I decided I should probably defend it.
There we go.

10 things said:

Spiggy said...

Yes, I also found that nobody read mine either. Because, although they so love to criticize me for my choice, and ask "why" with a confused look on their face, as though they haven't even considered that there is another choice, they don't really *want* to know why. And the few people who actually started reading, never read the whole thing. Only one peron I know read it. That's the problem, they don't care about the truth - it actually confuses them. Because they have been indoctrinated - lead to believe by the media that they are so overwhelmingly right that they don't even need a reason anymore. yet they have no idea of the repercussions of their blind actions. You are exactly right about the economy, and that wasn't even a consideration in my narrative!
Listen to this clip. He literally says he is going to bankrupt the coal industry. I wish this had gotten out sooner.
Now he wants to restrict our personal liberties as well. Can someone point to the USA on a map, I think I am lost and I would like to get back home.

Anonymous said...

Hey Audster,

Juts wanted you to know that I did in fact read the whole thing. ..... interesting and yet I do pretty much completely disagree on everything I was really wondering why you didn't vote for Bob Barr. I get the sense that you'd side more with libertarians than republicans, but maybe I missed something. Third parties are more likely to "say what they believe" than mainstream ones because they have less to lose. What do you think? -josh

Audrey said...

Wow! I can't believe you read all of it! I hope that I was articulate - I really didn't bother myself too much with word choice, because I didn't actually think anyone would read it.
Can I just say it's beautiful that we can be such good friends leading (what I would call) very similar lifestyles and yet have such different political views.
As for not siding with Bob Barr - I actually AM WAY more sympathetic with libertarians than with republicans in general, and before knowing anything about the candidates, Bob Barr was my first choice. But in the end, I think he's kind of a pratt, and, to be honest, with his ideas, I don't know how he was running as a libertarian.
I find him far more right wing conservative than libertarian.
And then there was constitution party candidate Chuck Baldwin, who actually seems to me to be much closer to the libertarian ideals than Bob Barr. I actually love him in so many ways.
But in the end, there were quite a few things about which he didn't have a lot (or anything) to say, and so, in a sense, I felt as if I wouldn't have known whom I was voting for. There were also things that I hated about him.
And I figured if I was going to be voting for someone that I liked but that supported things I hated, it should a)at least be someone that had stated their views on all of the issues that are important to me and b)that failing, be someone that actually had the possibility of keeping out of office someone I like way less.
I know, I know, b) is sort of a cop out, but I really felt that was this time around.

It's weird, yknow - I don't actually remember when I developed such strong views on things. My freshman year at NYU, my friend Mike said he would go vegan if I joined the Ralph Nader campaign, and so I did, and I was all gung-ho Ralph Nader. And there are still things that I LOVE about him. But it's like, when I actually stepped back and starting thinking for myself about things, I realized, for me, the things that I love about him aren't the most important things for me about a government.
So it's like, I started hardcore liberal because I didn't think about things, and then when I did think about things, I went liberal libertarian/republican. If that makes sense. I feel like things don't often go that way.
And this is a comment, and now it is LONG. Sorry!
Just thought I would let you know that I really did think about Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (whom I for some reason can't stop calling Bill Malone).

Charles said...

You make many valid points here. There are a few things I want to comment on, though.
As to the war, I really think we've done everything we can in Iraq, and a continued US presence there isn't going to make a difference. The problem here is we continue to think that killing an enemy who isn't afraid of death is a winning strategy. I don't really know what would be, but all we're accomplishing now is helping al Quaida's recruiting.
As to nuclear power, there is the ever-present specter of nuclear waste. We can only bury it in Nevada or Utah or wherever they hide it for so long. There's also the problem of heat pollution in the rivers. This is something I read about a long time ago, so it may have been remedied, but they were pumping water used to cool the reactors into nearby rivers and lakes. This water is warmer than the normal environment. Warmer water holds less oxygen, and many aquatic species just aren't adapted to it, so you have major ecosystem damage.
As to stem cell research, fertility clinics destroy hundreds of unused embryos every day. It seems to me that it would be better to harvest the stem cells first.
Anyway, those are my ideas. I am a little concerned that the reason Obama got elected was not because of his own merits, but because people wanted to vote against Bush.
This was a lot longer than I intended.

Neil O said...

Hey Audrey! I also read the whole thing, since way back you mentioned strongly disliking Obama, but didn't want to go into all this at the time. And you were pretty eloquent, things like this are very hard to write, since things aren't simple, or black and white.

At any rate, fiscal policy, small vs large government, private vs public health care, higher vs lower taxes - these are all things where a reasonable debate is possible. The issues are complicated, and everybody is wrong, at least about some things. Governments try different things they think will work (and get kicked out of government when they're wrong), and we slowly progress towards a better understanding of how things should work. Otherwise there would only be one party, the one that's correct :).

I'm a bit confused about the abortion issue. Obama is clearly pro choice (hence the whole late term abortion rubbish / infanticide / leaving babies to die rubbish). McCain may be too, but Palin is certainly not, and the party in general is very socially conservative. Before the campaign got going, McCain seemed like a quite decent candidate to me. But his swing back to the right (selecting Palin, plus many other things) was to me disturbing. If the McCain from before the campaign was standing for election, he might (maybe) have won.

I disagree on health care. Having grown up somewhere where millions of people are poor and sick with AIDS, purely private health care doesn't make sense to me. But obviously, the US is very different, and so perhaps my instincts are not very useful. Certainly the system in the US works 'less badly' than I thought it did when I first heard about it.

There are a few things you write where I feel you've bought into some very partisan writings. I've read that thing about Obama and calling soldiers in Afghanistan war criminals. I've also read what he said (too long ago to remember exactly), and it was very clear that he was not faulting the soldiers. Also, it's simply not plausible that he would say that (even if you are disposed to think that he believes it, he would have to be an idiot to say it, and he is clearly not an idiot). At any rate, things like this (which feature so heavily in US elections, and from both sides) really annoy me. They are distractions. They are lies (or distortions strong enough that they may as well be). They take away from what's important - issues like most of the other points you have raised. And I think one significant thing that the economic meltdown did was dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the 'politics of distraction'.

I'm happy that Obama one, obviously mostly because I lean very left, but I also think that he's extremely smart, and more pragmatic then the ideologue he's been painted to be.

Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree :). Wow, I can't believe I wrote all this, I'm not even american. I've been reading way to much about these elections...

Hope you're doing well!

Anonymous said...

You are the biggest idiot I have ever seen. What is this supposed "dependence on government" that caused the financial crisis? Do you have any idea what caused the financial crisis? It was because of a lack of regulation. seriously. you suck so much.

Anonymous said...

The person above is an idiot.

kristen said...

so I am still disgusted with the election results so i am not going to write much but I have a theory that will negate the only thing about obama that you like: so you know he wants to get rid of the flag since it is a symbol of a country everyone hates...well, my theory is that we americans like our symbols so we will find a new one...probably the bald eagle since it is our next most popular symbol so you know he will probably be doing away with all bald eagles anyday now....

daddy warbucks said...

I thought I would weigh in albeit delinquently on why I voted for McCain. First Audrey, I am proud that you researched you decision and came to it from the beliefs you gathered rather than following the crowd. Not always easy to do.

First, broadly speaking this elections candidates represented "govt. is the solution" vs. " less govt is better'. My belief is govts. role is national security,infrastructure [roads, bridges etc]regulation to keep playing field level and such. I have rarely seen where govt. focuses my money to good end better than I can do thru choosing who,how, why, I want my American dollars spent.I can elaborate with experience ad nauseum on this but suffice the principle important and pro McCain.

The economy: First and foremost I am a free market conservative. Part of our current problem though is that regulation did not keep up with innovation.Let us also remember that a major part of the problem we are dealing with today stems from the democrats forcing " affordable housing" upon Freddie, Fannie, and many major banks. Translation...subprime mortages!I support the principle that one must qualify for a loan to get one. If not get a job or dont borrow. McCain is much more philosophically aligned with principles I support than Obama economically and this is without touching tax concepts Obama espouses that I completely disagree with. Again I am a taxation minimalist and let me decide where my American dollars will be deployed.

In the interest of brevity a couple of random thoughts/observations.Much of Obama's popularity came because he is an eloquent, bright guy representing change.His cental theme: change, hope and anti Bush. I believe much of his success was votes against Bush. And I agree not only did Bush make numerous errors unaligned with conservative Republican doctrine, he also is one of the poorest marketers of the good things he did of any recent president. McCain didnt do much better in the communication arena.Still not sufficient reason to elect someone with such undeveloped positions. Would have been more appropriate if Obama was running against Palin as pres. Neither very qualified.

Obama also got a free pass on many questionable issues . Mitt Romney was unsuccessful because he's a Morman. Obama -Jeramiah Wright?From there the list goes on: Farrenkahn, Ayers...Not the folks I want influencing our president.

Lastly, I would rather have Congress and the president represented by different party's to nuetralize political effectiveness. Republican pres, democratic congress or vice versus. I am uncomfortable with either party having too much influence.

I realize I could write a lot more but outcome is the same

Daddy warbucks

mom said...

..honey, in reference to the anonymous "idiot"....hopefully this person will someday learn to discuss the issues and not the person.