My Vote

I have attempted to write this blog as an impartial amateur journalist/historian, as I explained here.

But now I want to step out of that role, and explain for whom I will vote, and why.

I plan to vote for Barack Obama. I have not voted Democratic for president since the last time the Phillies won the World Series.

As I see it, there are two aspects to a presidential campaign: 1) job interview, and 2) referendum on the issues.

Over the years, I've increasingly appreciated the importance of the job-interview aspect of the campaign. In other words, the part where voters decide which candidate would do a better job, aside from considerations of political philosophy.

I voted for George W. Bush both times but, in retrospect, he should have failed the job interview.

During his 2000 campaign, Bush struck the right chords for the various elements in the Republican coalition. But the results were something entirely different. There was significant growth in the scope of the federal government. And that was not limited to the inside-the-beltway growth that inevitably accompanies war. There was also the expansion of pork-barrel spending by congressional Republicans while the presidential veto pen sat idle.

I also believe that, while some of the U.S. military action that has been taken during Bush's presidency was necessary, much of it was not. His expansion of the war on Islamism into Iraq was unnecessary, and while, of course, the human cost in terms of people killed and wounded is the biggest issue, one also needs to take into account the resulting further increases in federal spending, and restrictions on civil liberties.

The main point that is relevant to this discussion is that that is very much contrary to the modest foreign policy that was promised by candidate Bush.

Now, John McCain is also saying many of the things Republicans want to hear. But, as I watched a McCain rally on C-SPAN last week, it struck me that his campaign promises were ones I've heard many times in past campaigns (and I've seen quite a few presidential campaigns by now).

As I've been tending to discount the usual campaign promises, I return to the question: which candidate would do a better job? I've decided that the answer to that question is Barack Obama.

One thing I've found in both the business and political worlds: the longer résumé is not necessarily the better one.

Arguably the best presidential résumé during my lifetime was that of George H.W. Bush, with experience in business, Congress, diplomacy, spying, and as vice president (though perhaps the least influential VP since the transformation of that office in the 1970s).

On paper, he had more experience that is relevant to the job of president than Ronald Reagan. But the Republican Party did not see it that way, when the two were battling for its presidential nomination in 1980. The verdict of history, I think it's safe by now to say, will also favor Reagan.

So what skill set does applicant Obama bring to his interview?

Many commentators have of course been talking about Obama's talking, i.e., his eloquence. His opponents dismiss him as a glib speaker who is more show than substance. But I consider eloquence to be a very important qualification for the job.

Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan could be called the two most effective 20th-century presidents. They were both very effective speakers. Had Roosevelt made the same choice of a first career as Reagan did, he could probably have done very well.

Both Bushes have been hampered by their ineloquence. The current president's folksy style is occasionally effective, as in his impromptu "people who knocked these buildings down" speech on September 14, 2001, at Ground Zero. But, for the most part, he has been a failure in rallying a nation for war, especially when contrasted with Roosevelt.

I don't think McCain is a much better speaker, if he's better at all, than the two Presidents Bush.

Another issue is that of temperament. Obama has appeared unflappable in his public appearances. That gives me more confidence than the more-emotional McCain, with his, apparently well-earned, reputation as a hothead.

At the risk of droning on long enough to produce a pro-McCain backlash, two more points:

This issue could be labeled either style or substance, depending on your mood.

It's the issue that one side would, quoting the Declaration of Independence, call "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". Another faction, those who eat freedom fries with their hamburgers, call it surrendering our foreign policy autonomy to the French. They would perhaps add one or more colorful words between "the" and "French".

While, as I mentioned above, I support some of the military actions the U.S. has taken against Islamist militants, I have for some time thought that the balance should to some degree swing back toward soft power and multilateral diplomacy.

I can't quantify precisely how much of a change there should be, but I think Obama is more likely to get that balance right than is McCain.

To finally end this, let's discuss the governor of Alaska.

My decision not to vote Republican this time was pretty much sealed when McCain chose Palin as his running mate.

With a 72-year-old cancer survivor at the top of that party's ticket, I think more than the usual degree of attention needs to be given to the number-two on that ticket.


One problem, but not the only one, I have with Palin is her inexperience. While it's somewhat of a gamble backing Obama, who until quite recently had no experience above the level of state legislator, I'm still more comfortable putting American foreign policy in the hands of someone who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, than someone with two years in Juneau.

My bigger concern has been her leanings toward the religious right.

I'm a member of a minority group within a minority group by being a gay Republican. As such, I'm attracted to that faction that has not been much in evidence lately, the libertarian Republicans. And, as you might guess, my least favorite faction is the religious right.

Palin gave a very moderate answer to a question about sexuality issues during her televised debate with Joe Biden. However, I still believe that, of all candidates on Republican tickets in recent decades, she is the one who is closest to the religious right point of view, more so than Reagan, Quayle and both Bushes. Along with my other doubts about her, that makes me want to look elsewhere for a vice president.