Nine months into the Obama presidency, it is clear that he
and Senator McCain would have produced wildly different
administrations. Now is the time to reflect and learn — and then
to move on.
Taking the percentages of those who failed to show up,
coupled with the knowledge that a significant number of voters
crossed party lines — to the Obama camp — suggests President
Obama’s margin of
victory was not insurmountable: 52.9 percent to McCain’s 45.7
percent. A shift in just over 3-½ percent of the voting bloc
would have given McCain the win. While Democrats were slightly
ramping up their numbers, Republicans were ramping up their
convictions that fighting for McCain was fighting for a lost
cause. As stated by a post-election article in
CNN:
“A downturn in the number and percentage of
Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary
explanation for the lower than predicted
turnout.…” Compared to 2004, Republican
turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent,
while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7
percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.… Many people
were fooled…by this year’s increase in
registration (more than 10 million added
to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in
inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and
African American voting, and the extensive grassroots
organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that
turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004. (Emphasis
mine.)
Senator McCain could have won,
and there was a huge difference between the candidates. There
is a huge difference between the
philosophies. That should be abundantly clear by
now.
The Internet Freedom Act of
2009 is a glimpse into what was behind door No. 2. It’s an
example of what could have been. The bill is an attempt to keep
government out of insidious Internet regulation. Not
surprisingly, it’s being introduced by Senator McCain.
In foreign policy, Senator John McCain is solid. He is
making the case for
action in Afghanistan. Under the last administration, Senator
McCain had the conscience and confidence to fall out of step with
his President and criticize the strategy in Iraq. We called it
the surge. It worked. It brought a
measurable degree of hope and change to American national
security. It allowed us to begin troop withdrawals. It was the
right thing to do. That was last year. This month, Senator McCain
is again pressing his President, this time aligned with a
different party, calling for an end to the inertia in
Afghanistan. His voice is significant because it was almost
our voice. It was almost
the voice of the Commander in Chief. But for a variety of
reasons, most of them lamentable, that was not to be. Had
wide-eyed Americans gone to the polls in larger numbers or taken
an unemotional look at Barack Obama, would we be debating whether
we’re “dithering”
or losing the battle? No, I dare say that the word dither would
not be crossing anyone’s lips, not in foreign policy.
I’m inclined to think that under a McCain administration,
things would have been different:
better-different — and not just in foreign
affairs.
Domestically, President Obama has
been anything but dithering. In the months since he took office,
we have suffered stimulation, bailouts, Supreme Court
Justice-fications, environmental
indulgences, and health care histrionics. In short, despite a
mild hurricane season, meteorologically speaking, this
Administration has been on a domestic rampage, systematically
attacking years of fiscal and social structure in a welcoming
environment of low-pressure and high expectations. As hurricanes
go, this one is just getting started. Policies and bulwarks
against government intrusion lay scattered and broken along the
battered shoreline. The warm water of the mainstream press
coupled with the blowing winds of a Democrat-run legislature,
ensure the likelihood that this season will not end with the
coming winter, but will rage on until the midterm
elections.
It could have been prevented.
That is not to say that John McCain is or was the perfect
antidote to Obama fever — McCain comes with his own
shortcomings. Understood. McCain made some choices during the
Bush presidency that baffled the Right, perturbed the Party, and
empowered the petulant press. Suffice it to say that he did that.
Enumerating those moments is unavailing.
But as adversity brings out the worst in some, it also
brings out the best in others. Since the election, on nearly
every issue and at every turn, Senator John McCain has been a
high pressure of resistance against the push of big government.
That is what we’re fighting against, after all, the absolute and
utter intrusion of government regulation and interference like no
time in recent memory. We’re witnessing the infusion of
artificial life and intelligence into a ravenous government, on
an increasingly unapologetic scale. We’re witnessing the birth of
an era of government, not just government, big
government — the type of government that takes from one
person according to his ability — against his will — and
redistributes to another according to his need: an insidious form
of government.
Generally speaking, government is good, is virtuous, is
eternal, and is a necessary component of law, order, and justice.
But a Big-Brother version of government is a vice. If left
unregulated by its governees, this vice
will tear through the fabric of our supernal system of
self-governance. Alexander Pope’s brilliant commentary on vice
illustrates the regrettable transformation:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated, needs but to be seen.
Yet seen to oft, familiar with her face,
First we pity, then endure, then embrace.
Years ago we lamented big government. Years ago, big
government was seen for the brutish behemoth that it is. But that
antipathy has been tempered through years of familiarity and
assiduously “innocuous” propaganda about need, helplessness, and
compassion.
Taking responsibility from the one and forcing it on the
many is not just. Passing legislation that has not been read is
not virtuous. Forcing the private sector to bow to
anticompetitive energy policies is not necessary. Exploiting 30
million
uninsured in order to place the reins of health care in the
fist of the governmental is not compassionate. But shifting our
power from the governed to the governing can bring about unwanted
outcomes that smack of eternity.
In November of 2008, we could have made a better choice.
For some of us, our ideology got in the way. We’re worse for
it.
On the call to reduce regulations of sub-prime lending —
the ultimate cause of this economic tribulation — Senator McCain
fought back. On the nomination of Justice Sonya Sotomayor, a
Justice who articulated acceptance of judge-made law, Senator
McCain fought back. On the passage of another round of stimulus
money, Senator McCain is fighting back. On the expansion of
government into banking and finance, Senator McCain is fighting
back. On the push for governmental takeover of health care in
America, Senator McCain is fighting back. On the push to win in
Afghanistan according to the dictates of the best-informed and
highest-ranking boots on the ground, and against the delay of the
current administration, Senator McCain is fighting back. And on
the push toward a general increase in government, Senator McCain
is fighting
forward: “Keeping business free from oppressive regulations
is the best stimulus for the current economy.”
Yes, it is.
Senator McCain has been solid. He has stood firm against
President Obama when it’s been needed and he has stood by
President Obama when it’s been necessary. Is he the rebirth of
another Reagan or Goldwater? — probably not. But, as France’s
President Nicolas Sarkozy stated, referring to President Obama’s
atomic altruism, “we live in the real world, not a virtual one.”
In the real world, Americans elected Barack Obama as President.
An imperfect conservative lost the election to a near perfect
liberal. That is the real world that we live in.
If we hope to change the world in the next election, we
must not let our principles cripple our pragmatism. Ideology
feeds aspirations; it cannot stand in place of them. The human
condition is necessarily a pragmatic one. Until we can create the
perfect president, we must make do with imperfect politicians. We
must see their place in the larger picture as our best selves.
Then, when they fall short — as they surely will do — we must
scour the nation for better ones.
We cannot turn back the tide of November, 2008, but we can
learn from it. We can see that our votes, and lack of votes, have
consequences.
We would be better off with less stimulus, a Justice who
seeks to interpret rather than make law, the tendency toward less
government in health care and energy regulations, and a leader
who dared to make the right call on matters of foreign policy and
the war on terror.
We would have been better off with John McCain. Let’s hope
we have learned our lesson.
