Long-Term

Okay, so a long time ago I stated that I would only have one post on politics. Then I broke that promise and added another. Well, they say there is strength in the number three so here goes.

I agree with the talk show host that said he was ready to have the election now to get it out of the way. After all, everyone has made up there mind by now except for the undecideds and isn't it rather frightening that the future of our country rests in the hands of people who can't make up their minds?

I'm officially tired of this election year, mainly, because like most election campaigns, I don't buy most of what is being said. Neither candidate is as bad or as good as they, or other people, claim they are. When it is all said and done they will both be saying how much they admire and respect each other.

I did run across an interesting thought, though, and I thought I would write it down for future reference. Is it possible to elect a president who is not the best for the country during his/her term but is best for the country in the long run?

Here's the thought process. I've read that some are extremely concerned about Obama winning and the Democrats winning a filibuster proof majority in the senate. About the only thing Americans hate or fear more than political gridlock is having no checks and balances. That's why some feel it is important that McCain win.

I think McCain would do a pretty good job as president. He is nothing like Bush despite what the commercials say. He has a history of trying to work in bi-partisan ways to solve problems. And despite the recent debacle of unregulated financial institutions he would be the least likely of the two to over-react and institute a ridiculous amount of government oversight in the name of protecting us poor simple-minded folk. Yes we have a problem but Cowperthwaite's mantra, “…in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if it is often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.” is still true. The idea that corrupt politicians are going to oversee corrupt businessmen, and we are going to come out ahead is ridiculous.

I think Obama would be a pretty good president, though I'm not as sure about him. He has also tried to be bi-partisan at times but he has also been very quick to pull the tent pegs and run back to partisan politics on a regular basis. I really don't think he is his own man yet. He is still trying to work out who he is in the political world. That's why I was not happy when he chose Biden as a running mate. That and my general dislike of Biden anyway. His pick seemed to be based on making sure he catered to the right group, in order to win the election, rather than finding someone who could help him forward his vision during a presidential term. So I have some reservations.

But back to the original thought. What would be the long term effect of an Obama victory, based on who he is right now, and not what he does in office? We have a black man, who is a Christian, with a Muslim father from Africa, with a white mother, and who has a middle-eastern sounding name. If America elected such a person as president what would that do for race relations? What would that do for relations between people of different faiths? What impact would that have on people in the rest of the world including Europe, the middle-east, and especially Africa? I'm not just talking about in terms of relationships with the US either. I think it would have a social impact that would be felt in many countries in a positive way.

So I found it to be an interesting thought. Is it possible for someone to not be the best presidential choice in terms of immediate US interests but be the best choice in the long run?