When I reveal I’m not voting for Barack Obama, I sometimes see people's eyes go dull (occasionally followed by rage). I can tell I’m disappointing them, and practically hear their hearts breaking. They cannot imagine I would not be swayed, as a young, middle class woman, by Obama’s platform. They cannot comprehend, when I have seemingly more to personally gain by voting for Obama, that I would not support him. I have to admit, Obama is charismatic, and is credited with renewing hope and inspiration. But, in what? It matters.
Fortunately, I’m not easily swayed by emotion when it comes to choosing Presidents. I don’t care if a candidate is articulate, good-looking, Ivy League educated. I don’t care if he or she survived wars, has 5 children, or small-town values. Taken alone, those qualities can be inspiring and meaningful, but they do not guarantee good ideas and are meaningless for my choice in President.
I know if I voted for Barack Obama, I might get some nifty personal benefits courtesy the government. Just because I can vote a man into power that panders to my needs and quirks, doesn’t mean I will. Why? I believe everyone has a right to satisfy their needs and wants and that cannot be done if I vote for a man whose platform largely rests on increasing the scope of socialized programs, and restricting individual rights to satisfy special interest groups, no matter what percentage of the population it may benefit.
What matters in choosing a President is simple to discover, but it takes a bit more time to research, learn, and decide:
1. What are his or her proposed policies?
2. What are the effects of said policies through every strata of society? (Not just the rich, or just the poor, or just the businesspeople, or just the farmers.)
3. Do those policies increase freedoms or restrict them? Do they increase the overall wealth and standard of living for society?
There are correct conclusions to this mode of inquiry for me, but not everyone shares a philosophy based in protection of individual freedoms, private property, and minimal barriers to trade and doing business. Some people believe in collectivism (sometimes masquerading as classism and nationalism) and begin with the premise that it is fair to restrict freedoms of those who are deemed to have too much or are using their resources inefficiently by narrow definitions, which I find discriminatory and reckless where public policy is concerned.
I believe if more people followed the logic or did the math, they’d be astonished at what they’d find. A glaring example I recently posted (and I hope you take the time to read) bears repetition:
From the Obama/Biden website:
Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. Photo by Luisimi1985
Obama's fundamental misunderstanding of profits and taxes is obvious. What windfall profits is Obama planning on taxing? For example, Exxon Mobil enjoys $1,400 a second in profits, sounds excessive, right? They also pay out $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs. $1,400 is their net figure. If Obama considers keeping 6.8% of profits a windfall, we should fear what he'll do to our pocketbooks. Furthermore, when a corporation's taxes increase, they cannot materialize the additional funds from thin air, it is taken from their bottom line. "So what?," you think. But think again; corporations will raise their prices on you, the consumer, or fire employees (that would be you again) to make ends meet. This isn't gouging, but economic survival.
Realistically, we only get two choices this election, and since I'm in a swing state, I won't risk a third-party vote. In my eyes, Obama’s plans will cause extensive damage in the long-term, though he might eke out a few temporary benefits. Since my ideal candidate didn't make it, my vote is going to John McCain this November, I believe he is the far better choice.
7 Comments:
I'm curious to see what you are thinking...