A conservative dilemma

The Image really has not much to do with this post but I liked it. Now down to four candidates for President. (Assuming that you do not think that the Hucksterbee is actually viable and that Ron Paul is not going to be in the final mix.) Start with at least 10 premises. #1 - The economic policies of the last couple of decades (which with some exception for the Clinton years) have been generally positive those have included an expanded attention to the benefits of decreasing impediments to widened trade; #2 A lot of political actors talk too much about rights - there is not a right to health care or affordable housing or avoiding crazed chipmunks - and by being too loose about the definition of a right we lose their essential character; #3 - Some understanding that high tax rates and complexity can inhibit economic growth; #4 - A recognition that the ability of government to successfully solve problems in many areas is quite limited and that many definitions in government are so loose as to be unusable - thus making it often impossible to judge successes and failures; #5 - A recognition that in one area, noticeably responding to the threat of radical Islam, we need to be proactive in our policies; #6 - An understanding that sound conservation policy should not include radical regulatory policies to "protect" the environment but that we need to be concerned about how we use resources; #7 - An understanding that the "immigration" problem will not be solved either by completely open borders nor by building a fence; #8 - A recognition that opportunities in society should be offered to the broadest range of people, but that goal is thwarted by quotas and other numeric policies; #9 - An understanding that an educated population is an asset but that many policies of the government including No Child Left Behind and even some higher education policies are not contributing to improving the educational levels of our population and finally #10 - that politicians often act only in their self interest. Those set me up as a conservative.

But as I look at the remaining candidates each has both some possibilities and some major flaws. I am not into the debate on the GOP side about RINOs (Republican in Name Only) and wonder why there is not a similar debate on the Democrat side (DINOs).

Clinton is, IMHO, is a strange mix. There are several issues that bother me. In her most recent set of ads she claims "35 years of experience." That claim is an example of her willingness to do or say anything to get elected. As I have noted in a previous post a lot of her experience came about not because of her individual merit but because who she was married to. Some of it was downright lousy experience - the way she ran the health task force or the travel office firings suggests an inability to listen well. But equally troubling is her claim. She graduated from Yale Law School sometime in 1973, presumably that would make her claim about 35 years a bit dubious - but the long number is to compare herself to Obama's relatively short national exposure. The Clintons, regardless of whether you support them or not, have a pretty clear record of some very questionable behavior and a willingness to stretch the truth in Arkansas and Washington. Obama has both some good ideas and some very bad ones - for example I think his Iraq proposal would be a disaster but his health one is more thoughtful than Clinton's. His dogmatic reliance on stuffing more taxes on the "rich" ignores the negative potential effects both in terms of revenue generated and in the potential hit to economic activity. His legislative experience, counting his time in the Illinois legislature and the Senate, is actually longer than Clintons - although I am not convinced that either gives us a clear understanding of his abilities to lead on an executive level. I am worried about having a Carteresque reflux although he (Obama) is a good to great speaker. The last rookie we had as president was a disaster.

On the GOP side, a simple comparison of those ten premises would argue that I would prefer either candidate to either democrat. But I am concerned about Romney's glibness. I listen to him talk and wonder what he might say to a different audience. His changes from his role as a governor and his role as a candidate bother me. But McCain is equally troubling. Two things especially concern me. McCain seems to have a rigid streak where he prefers to lecture his opponents - his dogmatic support for his campaign finance law (which has done nothing but increase complexity and allow independent groups free reign) and stances like his opposition to drilling in ANWR under any circumstances suggest an aversion to pragmatism. I can understand, although I am not sure I agree with, his joining the Gang of 14 on judicial nominations. That move may prove positive if the dems increase their fraction in the senate and either Obama or Clinton wins in November. McCain's propensity to lapse into populist twaddle also concerns me. His attack on Romney's role in the debate is good rhetoric for a populist but lousy economics. Romney who seems to have legitimate executive experience was characterized by Senator McCain as a corporate raider in language that would have made Edwards absolutely giddy.

Surprisingly, as noted in an earlier post, depending on what happens over the next couple of months, I could vote for Clinton or McCain. But at this point I still suffer from electile dysfunction - I cannot get excited about any candidate.