The American presidential election process is justifiably derided as too long, as giving inordinate weight to small states, as concentrating on irrelevancies to leadership like fund-raising ability, campaign organization, gaffes, and oratorical flourishes.
Defenders of the process say that it tests the candidates, that over the two years that the campaign season now stretches, voters get opportunity after opportunity to know the candidates. This is especially important when one of the candidates is a complete unknown.
Senator Obama was an unknown but it says here that he benefited by this marathon, as did we voters. He is much better versed in the issues now than he was at the beginning, when he was an accidental senator halfway through his first term. For many of us, there has been no evidence that this lack of experience at the beginning has left him uninformed now.
For Senator John McCain the campaign has done the opposite. A good man who would make a good president, Senator McCain has given two alarming insights into the way that he would make decisions as president.
The selection of Governor Palin took everyone, including those within his own campaign, by surprise. By all accounts it was a gut pick, not one completely thought through.
Then his decision to suspend his campaign to hurry back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis occurred. Supporter William Kristol in an otherwise favorable column characterized the move as "impetuous." Impetuous means acting without having thought things through. It is close in meaning to reckless.
By contrast Senator Obama's initial response to the financial crisis was to call for "calm." That, in a panic-filled environment, is just what was needed.
By contrast Senator Obama more thoroughly vetted his vice presidential selection and noone can gainsay Senator Biden's qualifications for the office.
Then there is the matter of the decisions that will be the product of these different decision-making processes. I am probably more sanguine with those of Senator McCain. Senator Obama has a very liberal voting record, to the extent that he has any voting record. His positions, when articulated, are liberal. More often than not though, his positions are so vaguely articulated that it is hard to know what they really are.
The most notorious example is his Green Bay speech in which he laid out his "plan" for dealing with the financial crisis. It was almost a parody of the political speech. It was as if Bill Murray or Professor Irwin Corey had written it. Senator Obama's policies remain inexcusably vague.
By contrast, Senator MCain has been by far more specific--on Iraq, on the financial crisis, on energy policy, on foreign policy in general. To some extent, I and other independents who will cast our votes for Obama, do so on faith. I hope that President Obama will learn and not fear to change his policies when facts on the ground conflict with his instincts. He has given evidence that he will do that. He makes decisions rationally, not at a gut level as does Senator McCain.
The McCain campaign is in critical condition at this time because of the financial crisis. I make no pretension to understanding it but my sense is that we are in this pickle in some significant part because of the cumulative effect of years and years of deregulation of the economy under the Republicans.
I share an American character trait that makes me wary of Bigness in every form. In governmental structure I wish that there were "sunset" laws on, for example, new legislation, new taxes, new government financed benefits, programs, and cabinet departments. The most pernicious development in my political life was the War Powers Act which gave to the president powers previously reserved by the Constitution for Congress. It has led to what others have described as the "Imperial Presidency."
Likewise, and I get back to the point here, I have been disturbed by the growth of huge corporations which grow bigger by buying up competitors, as if the U.S. had no anti-trust laws.
A McCain administration, with economic advisors like former Senator Phil Gramm and all of those Republicans who voted against the $700 billion "bailout" will only increase the bigness of Big Business while my sense is that we have to go--and significantly so--in the opposite direction: toward more regulation and more stringent enforcement of the anti-trust laws.
And so, on both the process of decision-making and on perhaps the most serious policy issue that will confront our new president, I believe that Senator Obama is the better choice. But personally, I feel fortunate to have two men of such quality to choose between. I am Benjamin Harris.
