Categories
Politics & government

[1825] Of the best America has to offer

He was a relatively unknown United States Senator candidate for Illinois when he delivered the keynote address of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. With a devastated summer coming to an end, I found myself lying forlornly on a sofa watching the DNC on television. I wanted to listen to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards and John Kerry instead of a skinny black guy with a funny name as he called himself. The commentators on television however were discussing on how Barack Obama is a rising star in the Democratic Party, much like how the Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm was except that he writes well. Maybe I should give him a chance and stay in front of the television, I thought to myself.

I cannot recall who introduced him to the podium but I remember me being impressed in a way I have never been. His words, especially when he spoke of how “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is there United States of America”; how “there is not a black American and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America” moved me so much.

The next half hour was purely exhilarating that I as a foreigner in a little liberal fortress in the Midwest felt the urge to vote on November 4 even when I have no right to do that. I need not this speech to be partial to John Kerry but Obama’s address inspired me to participate in one way or another. It was hard to sit down while watching the crowd in Boston welcoming enthusiastically of Obama’s address. It was easy to be carried away by the spirit of the moment.

I keep track of him ever since that day in a July. The internet was buzzed with the possibility of Obama running for the Presidency sometimes in the future. The reason was simple: he outshone all speakers during the DNC.

The 2004 presidential race was easy for me. There was an illegitimate war in Iraq much to the disapproval of the majority in the world community. Fierce debates conducted within the hall of the United Nations Security Council and massive protests all over the world were evident to that.

Civil liberty meanwhile was under threat with the onerous Patriot Act passed. There were reports that telephone conversations were being bugged. Privacy was disrespected in the name of security.

As a Malaysian in the United States, I hated being profiled and pulled over by airport securities every time I took the airplane. That however was not as bad as some of fellow Malaysians had to suffer. They had to report to the some homeland security office all the way out of Ann Arbor in Detroit regularly.

Bush’s “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” speech made it all too angering that made it clearly, it was then anything but Bush. Well, actually, John Kerry was the only real option to George Bush. In the modern two-party system in the US, it is always between the Democrats and the Republicans.

But Kerry lost and Bush stayed in the Oval Office.

Four years later, the cycle begins anew and this time, it is between John McCain from the Republicans and Barack Obama from the Democrats, both being the US Senators. Choosing between McCain and Obama however is harder than it was between Bush and Kerry for me.

This is mostly because McCain, at least before he pandered to the base of the Republicans party for the upcoming Presidential race, has a mind of his own. He was, as others derisively called, a Republicans in name only; a RINO. He had the audacity to speak up his mind even if it is unpopular.

Who had the guts to tell off those farmers in Iowa that ethanol subsidy is wasteful, that it is far more efficient to import it from Brazil? Or facing off those automotive workers in Michigan that they need to compete fairly against their counterparts across the Pacific?

It is an unpopular but the right positions to take. Nobody who participated in the Democratic and the Republican primaries, save probably Ron Paul, has the guts to say that but John McCain.

What made McCain refreshing to me is that he is one of those blue green politicians which are so rare in American politics — he believes in free market and care for the environment. He sees the market economy and the environment as not something mutually exclusive.

In the fierce repeating debates to open the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in Alaska for drilling, he joined the Democrats in opposing it. In the early 2000s, he together with Joe Lieberman drafted a bill to do something about US carbon emissions through market-based mechanism.

McCain does however hold disagreeable political positions from my point of view. Some of them are issues on security and civil liberty, hawkish foreign policy, abortion, religion and teaching on evolution. While I was prepared to overlook these issues, they have unfortunately been amplified during the primaries. Instead of maintaining a centrist outlook, McCain’s journey to the right to join the religious conservative is disappointing. Having Sarah Palin as his running mate made it all worse.

Under Obama as the President, it is unlikely that the same social and civil liberty issues would disturb me as much. Democrats, after all, on average are conscious of civil liberty.

The best of all, having a black President would challenge the xenophobic tendency of the conservatives. At the end of the day, it is an effort at the creation of a United States less riddled with prejudice.

When McCain should have distanced himself from the policies of Bush, he made a u-turn to gain the favor of the socially conservatives within the Republican Party during the primaries, as he competed for votes with other candidates like Mitt Romney and the religiously conservative Mike Huckabee.

The Economist lamented McCain’s transformation months ago and recently, translated its disappointment by endorsing Obama. The disappointment is shared by many libertarians.

A number of libertarians are abandoning the Republicans by are migrating to the Obama camp. The Republican Party under Bush has betrayed the libertarians and there is a need for libertarians to make a statement.  There is a need to point out that libertarians as independents too can play the role of a kingmaker. The role is not unique to the socially conservatives or the evangelicals.

These libertarians are now hoping that Rubinomics would reign in spite of all the speeches that Obama gave, like the renegotiation of NAFTA or punishment for firms which outsource its operations outside of the US.

I am however unsure how wise that switch of camp is, especially so when the Democrats are controlling both the House of Representative and the Senate. With another Democrat in the Oval Office, there might be a tendency to take an overtly populist protectionist stance against trade, hurting the fuel of prosperity for people all over the world. The unnecessary expansion of the role of government seems inevitable with the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government.

This is especially so given the current economic climate in the US where it is easy to make a scapegoat out of the idea of economic liberty. Short term but shape pain has a way in making people forget the cumulative net benefits reaped from the very idea which they scorn.

The worry should be typical of a centrist which has the ideal candidate conscious of civil and economic liberty. I want a candidate which believes in both civil and economic liberty.

In the United States the ideal candidate is hard to come by. The Republican Party represents the socially conservative but economic liberal group, sometimes with the tendency to trump civil liberty in the name of security. The inverse is true for the Democratic Party. Both sides have their strengths and both sides have their weaknesses.

In any case, both McCain and Obama are trying to blur the traditional separation line. Obama does take up some idea of economic liberty more than most Democrats and McCain does respect civil liberty more than most Republicans. Both are less divisive than say Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton or Tom DeLay or George Bush. Both are willing to reach across the aisle.

For this reason, especially when I do not have the right to vote in the election, I am one of those undecided individuals standing by the sidelines watching race intently. Though I cannot vote, I will be affected by the results of the election because after all, the US is a superpower with presence all over the world.

Whatever the outcome to the November 4 2008 Presidential Election, the winner will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which guarantees the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whatever the result will be, it will be the testament of the best America has to offer; liberal democracy.

I am unable to endorse either candidate because I like and dislike both. I however can endorse something larger and I endorse the system.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

By Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

5 replies on “[1825] Of the best America has to offer”

Whether the surge worked or not, that is beside the point. It is the initiation of an illegal war. There is a need to punish those that supported the war to lower the probability of wars based on false information from happening. I do agree however that withdrawal cannot be done immediately.

On abortion, there is also libertarian argument for pro-choice position. Pro-choice after all is the mainstream position within libertarianism. And it is true that abortion isn’t necessarily a fundamentalist agenda but it certainly mostly supported by them.

In any case, McCain maybe not as bad in issues of civil liberties but one has to look from the bigger picture. McCain, if he had won, would be dependent on those on the far right given the base of the Republican Party. These people would exert extraordinary pressure on McCain to do what he would not have done.

Talking about the judiciary and positive rights, let’s be real. How many judges could Obama elect to make that a significant threat? It’s worth noting that 7 out of 9 judges sitting on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents.

Finally,

I don’t see how libertarians are hesistant to support McCain just because of his campaign rhetoric – especially when you gave Obama allowance for campaign rhetoric.

I’m not giving any allowance for rhetoric. If you notice, I decided to stay neutral.

Ya I also agree “it would be good for the Republicans to have some time-out and so some soul-searching – maybe they will decide to return to espousing limited government and free markets.”

In fact, the Republican has no one but itself to blame for their downfall.

Hopefully,the Grand Old Party will resurrect two years later for the fight for the Senate & the HOuse with fresh ideas, new image & better candidates, much like the revival of the conservatives in UK!

re: Rajan R

I prefer McCain too, with more or less the same reasons as you touted. On foreign policy I suspect there won’t be much of a difference between the two candidates (Biden is a hawk). But it would be good for the Republicans to have some time-out and so some soul-searching – maybe they will decide to return to espousing limited government and free markets.

Whoever loses this election is the lucky one i.m.o.

And Palin is awesome.

On Guantanamo Bay, both candidates support closing it, and with most issues, they share almost identical positions. Iraq being the differing point. In as much as Obama opposed the War on Iraq from the beginning (from the position of Illinois State Senator, where it is politically most convenient anyway), the real question really is when US ought to withdraw from Iraq. Obama from the primaries sought to withdraw on an immediate basis, with a fixed time table. He also opposed the surge. McCain supported the surge, and withdrawal on the basis on the situation in Iraq. With violence going down dramatically all over Iraq, and with Bush already pulling back some of the troops from Iraq, it is clear who was on the better side.

On civil liberties, they differ largely on abortion. But Obama takes it to the other extreme – he voted four times against protections of infants born from botched abortions (well, “present” is functionally the same as a no vote). Abortion isn’t necessarily a fundamentalist Christian right pet issue, but there is a perfectly legitimate libertarian set of arguments against abortion (www.lfl.org). Just because McCain philosophically defines life at conception and thinks that the preborn have an intrinsic right to life, prioritizing that over the mother’s choice, doesn’t indicate how he would be on other civil rights issues.

Considering the manner Obama aides have sought to pull critics off the media through threats of lawsuits or unleashing their mobs on media outlets daring to host such figures, I think McCain, in the very least, is no worse than Obama in terms of civil liberties.

More importantly, McCain will appoint judges on the basis of originalism, Obama has indicated that he favours the constitution being reinterpreted by the courts to include positive rights.

Looking at economic issues, you already mentioned how McCain is a far more consistent supporter of free markets and trade. McCain didn’t do the populist thing (tax cut/credits to the middle class!) and is campaigning for tax cuts on America’s absurdly high corporate tax and capital gains tax. The welfare programs they suggested, Obama involved less markets and more expenditure.

Unless you feel really strongly about pulling out of Iraq (something that would happen anyway under an improbable McCain administration, seeing the strengthening trend in Iraq), abortion, etc., I don’t see how libertarians are hesistant to support McCain just because of his campaign rhetoric – especially when you gave Obama allowance for campaign rhetoric. Without the conservative, Bible-belt rhetoric on the McCain camp, McCain has no chance whatsoever in winning – even if he gets 100% of the libertarian vote.

As another blogger pointed out, ‘liberal’ democracy in America produced a choice between Pepsi (a socialist but reluctant warmonger) and Coke (a warmonger but reluctant socialist). I want Sprite. Some libertarians are encouraging people to either abstain from voting or vote for a third party.

Whatever the outcome, we will see bigger government, bigger deficits, greater socialism, continuation of similar foreign policies, pandering to the same interest groups, lesser liberty and with the rights of the American people trampled all over. And the Constitution would just be another piece of paper.

Three cheers to democracy!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.