For Whom Should I Vote?

2008 October 29
by Matt Deaton

With less than a week to go, it’s been said that if you’re still not sure who to vote for, you’ve got commitment issues. Maybe so, but perhaps you’re like me in ’04, when frustration led me to literally cast a write-in ballot for “f— ‘em both”. Though I think the choices are of higher quality this time around, if you’re honest with yourself, you’ve probably figured out that neither represents your values on every issue. So here’s a quick breakdown that may help, complete with a rough weighting of each issue’s practical importance.

Abortion: advantage McCain—Obama seems to be the more thoughtful of the two when it comes to abortion (admits he’s unsure when life begins), but as I’ve written before, his peculiar stance on partial birth abortion discredits his moral judgment. That said, the federal PBA ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so there’s little risk Obama could do much damage. McCain’s strengthened his rhetoric since securing the nomination, but has traditionally been quite pro-choice. While this is an issue with incredible emotional import, which candidate wins may have little bearing on policy.

Foreign Policy: advantage McCain—McCain has the the experience, the expertise, and most importantly the clout. Though I respect Obama’s idealism, I’m afraid Biden’s probably right—if he wins, some nutball will test him soon after inauguration. This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t rise to the occasion, but I’m much more comfortable with McCain in charge. Foreign policy is one area in which presidents exercise wide discretion, and with Iran rattling their saber and Russia on the upswing, this is an incredibly important issue.

Social Justice: advantage Obama—If progressive income taxes and estate taxes and educational benefits for the poor are socialist, so be it. As much as the dreaded s-word is hurled at Obama, you’d think McCarthy was advising McCain’s campaign. Nobody thinks straight welfare or handouts are justified, but workfare and well-deserved assistance is. Sure, the minimalist state would maximize efficiency, but we have other values to balance beyond GDP. Namely, securing our fellow citizens’ basic human dignity. Either candidate will need congressional cooperation to get anything done, but with our economy headed south, tax policy is especially important.

Healthcare: advantage Obama—Simply put, access to basic healthcare is a moral requirement of any just nation. Why? Because citizens can’t exercise any of their other cherished rights if their physical ailments go untreated. This doesn’t mean we have to follow Canada’s model. In fact, we probably shouldn’t. But it does mean something substantive is in order. McCain cares a little about healthcare, so I give him some credit, but he’s not committed enough. Obama on the other hand explicitly acknowledges healthcare as a human right. An issue in need of long overdue attention, this fundamental right is of moderate importance.

Immigration: Tie—This is one issue that’s been seriously neglected—all the rage in the primaries, but all but absent in the head-to-head debates. Of course, more pressing issues like energy and the economy take precedence, but you’d think they’d say something about immigration. However, as far as I can tell, there’s little real difference between the candidates’ approaches, so this marginally important issue is a tie.

Guns: advantage McCain—Obama’s sin: he supports a federal ban on concealed weapons. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, he’s on record as saying “I am not in favor of concealed weapons… I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” But with intelligent policy and strict licensing procedures, it makes more sense to empower our trustworthy citizens than deny them the ability to fight back, at least until non-lethal technologies offer something with comperable stopping power, range, rapid fire ability and ease of operation. McCain gets only a C+ rating from the NRA, and given how extreme they can be, that’s probably just about right. Impressively though, according to CNN, both candidates “voted for a 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency.” That’s a good sign for both, but the edge goes to McCain. The gun lobby will likely keep either candidate in check, so this issue is only moderately important.

Economy: advantage ?—Though I’m slated to study macroeconomics within the next year, I won’t pretend to know which candidate is better suited to guide us out of the recession. Closer to the bottom than the top of the economic spectrum, from a purely self-interested position I think Obama would be better, but maybe McCain’s low tax trickle down approach is more sound long term. But I don’t know—I’m a political philosopher—research elsewhere for economic advice. This is of course HUGELY important. Too bad I don’t know more about it!

A few general things to consider:

  • Intelligence: advantage Obama (former president of the Harvard Law Review, taught Constitutional law at Chicago University, obviously thoughtful in answering most questions)
  • Fear Factor: advantage McCain (puttin’ the fear in bad men for decades)
  • Potential: advantage Obama (younger, more vigorous)
  • Stability: advantage McCain (sometimes more of the same is a good thing)

In the end, just who should you vote for? That, my friend, I leave to you. (No, “my friend” isn’t an implicit endorsement of McCain.) Though I’ve made up my own mind, it would run contrary to the mission of SocratesVotes to do your reasoning for you, though I’m more than happy to reason with you in the comments section. If you’re honest about their strengths and weaknesses, you have to admit it’s a fairly tough choice. So don’t feel bad if you’re still undecided—be proud.

—Matt Deaton—

5 Comments leave one →
2008 October 29

here are some of my uneducated opinions.

i think obama has more in the area of foreign policy than people give him credit for. he has a passport! haha. ok, but seriously, he’s willing to be diplomatic and i think that’s important. we aren’t getting anything accomplished by locking ourselves in our room and not talking to the bad guys.

the gop does not want mccain to talk about immigration. if i remember correctly, it was a “big problem” for him during the primaries. it might even bring up the fact that mccain was a key speaker at an immigration reform rally – sponsored by acorn – in 2006. obama doesn’t want to talk about it because some people might catch on that these farmers are here working our farms because they lost their land in the nafta deal – and that’s at the feet of clinton (even though obama opposes it, or at least he confronted hillary about it in the primaries, it was a dem that passed it and that could mean trouble for him?).

i agree that i don’t think gun rights are in any real danger even under obama.

i don’t think that trickle down economics really works. i have nothing to back that up, just sort of common sense. the people making the big money like to keep as much of it as they can.

i would also argue the stability point. i think mccain has been acting all kinds of erratic lately.

i’ve already decided, but you’ve presented a good summary.

2008 October 29
Matt permalink

Great points, Calamitylil! Those positions sound pretty educated to me. Thanks for contributing, despite the glaring omission on abortion ;)

McCain’s foreign policy advantage is his meanness. Opening communication can be good, but I’m afraid Obama comes off as too weak—might embolden bad guys. Team America—World Police has a great analogy that explains all, one I won’t repeat here. (You know the one—Ds, Ps, and As.) The way the polls are looking, hopefully he’ll surprise me though. JFK came off as a softie too, and he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis quite well. In fact, a hot head would have been exactly the wrong person for that job. Maybe a more reasonable leader is what we need at this dangerous time. We’ll see.

That explains much. I was wondering why both sides have ignored immigration…

And not only have I decided, I went ahead and early voted just this evening. Feels good to have that out of the way—like when I finally make a big electronics purchase after WEEKS of research!

—Matt—

2008 October 30
Matteson permalink

Well, as I’ve said before, I think your stance on PBA is too strong and that his position is reasonable. (Anyone who is curious can look back at our previous convo on that topic.) McCain is way on the pro-life side. If I remember correctly he said in the last debate that Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I seriously doubt that either of them would do anything on that front anyway.

One thing I might add (though you’ve already cast your vote) is that Phil Graham is (according to Forbes) McCain’s financial and economic advisor. As we’ll see this week he is one of the major sources of the deregulation that led to our current financial crisis. I’m not sure we want him to be in a position of power in the economic realm at all.

I’m voting tonight, but I don’t think my D-vote will count for more than a “statement of opposition” in this state.

[Also, what's this big electronics purchase? Don't you still have a PS2?]

2008 October 30

i am familiar with the movie you speak of. :)

i did leave out the abortion argument because, as you said, it is a very emotional one and one that probably matters little if obama wins because we do have a strong pba ban (even though i believe that partial birth abortion isn’t even a real medical term).
i do wonder what he’s done to have, in your opinion, a peculiar stance on pba. if you are referring to his “no” vote on SB 230, you might find more info here.
i don’t find his stance peculiar, but logical , trusting doctors and patients to make the correct decisions on these issues. then, obviously, i am pro-choice, so when i’m looking at the abortion issue, obama has the advantage.
if mccain wins, i do think that choice might be in danger, but because his conservative running mate and cabinet members and federal court appointees would almost assuredly be more dangerous than he is. you are correct the he is fairly pro-choice as far as republicans go. read more about his record <a href=”“>here.
i didn’t want to get too far into this because it’s a blurry line. i don’t want to attack a personal belief, just the argument for it and i don’t really know where they separate.

2008 October 30
Matt permalink

Eh, maybe I was out of line prodding you. If you don’t want to discuss an issue, don’t—my bad.

I say his stance on PBA (d & x) is peculiar because he opposes the federal ban, and voted against a state ban, because the laws don’t make exceptions for the (potential) mother’s “health”. I’ve criticized this specific language because “health” is so vague a concept, it could be used by unscrupulous doctors to justify the procedure for frivolous reasons. However, if Obama instead demanded exceptions when the (potential) mother faced “serious physical debilitating harm,” that might be articulated explicitly enough to prevent abuse (which implies such harm might justify the procedure). This is all based on the assumption that the burden is extremely high when someone wants to abort a completely viable baby, which is what PBA does. (The moral restrictions are more lax earlier in pregnancy, though always serious.) “Health” just doesn’t cut it, but “serious debilitating physical harm” probably could. (Exceptions for when the mother’s “life” is in danger are already in place.)

So by only demanding the vague “health” provision, Obama, a very intelligent man, could be trying to strip the ban of its force. If he has a stronger standard in mind, I have no beef. But all he’s demanded as far as I’ve found is “health”, leaving open his moral judgment and/or sincerity.

You can read all about that in an earlier post here. The discussion with Matteson is especially helpful (smart guy).

And last, don’t ever be shy on this website to think through any issue aloud. Anyone who can’t reason like an adult without getting their panties in a bunch can go elsewhere. (I suspect the readership will remain small, but high quality, which is what I’m after.) It’s OK to be passionate, but I hope to encourage an atmosphere where the pursuit of truth overrides the typical “I win, you lose; I’m right, you’re wrong; I’m saved, you’re going to hell” nonsense. C’mon folks—let’s reason together :)

Where do you separate personal beliefs from arguments? Mere opinion from reasoned position? Opinions are hollow, lacking any logical basis whatsoever. “I believe a fetus gains strong moral status at conception, end of story or because my mom told me so or because a warm fuzzy feeling tells me so” is a mere opinion. “I believe a fetus gains strong moral status at conception because that’s the point at which it becomes a distinct individual with the potential to become a fully functioning person, possessing the same moral capacities that grant the rest of us moral worth” is an argument. On inspection we may decide that it’s a bad argument, but it’s an argument nonetheless.

And just because you don’t currently have an argument to support your intuitions doesn’t mean you can’t build one. (Maybe reason really is a slave to the passions…) Our gut is the best guide we’ve got, but sometimes it leads us astray. That’s where ethics comes in, helping us bring our moral convictions into line with one another—guided by instinct but disciplined by reason—where intuition and logic converge. Hot damn, I’m a poet tonight!

—Matt—

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

*