A Pilgrim’s Digression

In the interest of changing the subject from my personal problems, I want to express a few random opinions about the 2008 Presidential race, which seemed to have begun sometime around December 2004. Politics has been the least of the many things weighing on my mind, of late, and I haven’t the energy or the time to source the kind of lengthy political op-eds I used to write. But I have been listening to the Newshour podcasts (mainly for Brooks and Shields), and I have been listening to the Washington Week podcast, and I have been listening to various NPR podcasts, as well.

Funny how all the political podcasts I listen to seem to be public television or radio-produced. I used to listen to the Powerline Blog podcast, but I listen to enough conservative talk radio in the car while driving. I don’t need more of that on my iPod.

The 2008 candidates seem to be lining up more or less as expected: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the Republicans, and Clinton, Obama, Edwards for the Democrats. There are others who may or may not close the gap between themselves and the leaders, but in general, the six candidates listed above have a shot at their party’s nomination. The others, such as Joe Biden, do not.

I am hesitant to even include Romney among the serious contenders because I do not believe a Mormon can ever be elected President.  This is not the same as the Catholic issue was for John Kennedy; I believe there is a stronger prejudice against Mormons in this country than people realize, mainly because the vast majority of Christians, particularly Evangelicals, believe Mormonism to be a false religion.  Protestants may hold a prejudice against Catholics due to what they see as an over-emphasis on ritual or the Saints or the Mother of God, but at heart, Protestants and Catholics believe in the same fundamentals.  There is no such unity between Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons.  Issues such as whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, or whether or not Jesus Christ came to America to spread the gospel following his Ascension, will always stand between any compromise between mainstream Christians and Mormons.

Thus I do not believe Romney stands a chance of being elected.

McCain, on the other hand, is still a favorite of mine. I voted for him in 2000, and I might vote for him again next year. I admit to being repelled by his embrace of George Bush. I think he was a fool for supporting the invasion in Iraq–but then, there were a lot of fools in this country who supported the invasion, myself being one of them. McCain, at least, has remained resolute in calling for more troops, and an increased, last-ditch effort to win in Iraq. He hasn’t changed his mind on that subject, and I respect him for it.

In my opinion, he hasn’t gone far enough. The problem with this war is that we’ve always been trying to fight it on the cheap, with as few troops and as minimal a commitment of the American people as necessary. For such a long and bloody engagement as we’ve had in Iraq, we really needed a draft. Conscription may sound antithetical to the ideals of a free country, but many European countries have mandatory service requirements for their young people. It seems to work pretty well for England that even Prince Harry has to do a stint in the Army; he was sent to Afghanistan just recently, I believe. I’ve always said, I’ll bet Jen and Barbara Bush would look fantastic in desert camo.

Final point: the strain on our armed forces would have been much less over the past four years with a steady influx of new conscripts into the ranks. At the very least, we would not be hearing stories of men and women killed on their third or fourth tour of duty in Iraq.

Anyway, the attraction of McCain, for me, is that he always stands out from the crowd of Republican candidates lining up to lick the boots of pro-lifers and capitalists. And frankly, any Republican so reviled by Rush Limbaugh and his horde of imitators is alright, in my book.

Guiliani is someone I might possibly vote for as well. He is handicapped by his pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage beliefs, but that is really only a handicap in getting the vote of people who have an ideological litmus test for their candidates. Most people don’t vote single issues; hell, most people vote based on no issues whatsoever.

I do find it fascinating how Giuliani seems to be emerging as the favorite of conservative talk radio, however. Hannity and Limbaugh have both all but came out in support of him. When I listen to them discuss Guiliani with conservative callers who are disturbed by his “liberalism,” both Limbaugh and Hannity preach restraint in judging him too harshly and encourage the person to give him a chance. “A Ronald Reagan only comes about once in a generation,” Hannity is fond of saying, apparently implying that Guiliani is no Reagan, but should not be written off for that shortcoming.

In yesterday’s Washington Post George Will also encouraged conservatives to set aside their devotion to ideology and give libs like Rudy Giuliani a chance. Almost in answer to Hannity’s comment about Reagan, Will cites numerous actions Reagan took as governor of California which, today, would be cited as examples of apostasy by conservatives.

Conservatives ought to remember, however, that in 2000, they were told much the same thing about George Bush. Conservatives were told that as long as he appointed conservative judges, nothing else mattered. Conservatives were told they should not insist on ideological purity. “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” to use Will’s formulation. George Bush was, supposedly, a “good” candidate.

I wonder how conservatives feel about that choice, now? Do they feel at all misled by their intellectual lights who told them Bush would be adequate, especially with a strong conservative like Dick Cheney at his side?

On the left, much the same is happening. The idealogical left is being told to set aside their beliefs and vote for the person who can win, in this case (supposedly) Hillary. Never mind her vociferous support of the war, when most on the left are strongly anti-war. She will be adequate, even if not ideologically pure of heart.

I don’t have space here to go into all the reasons I think Hillary is the worst candidate the Democrats could choose to be their nominee. Nor do I have time to defend my support of other candidates, such as John Edwards. I may write another post on the Democrats, at some future date.

Suffice it to say, I do not support Hillary at this point. As I see it, unless the race comes down to Clinton v. Romney, I vote for the not-Hillary person. Especially if that not-Hillary person is McCain or Giuliani. I like both men.

If the Democrats choose someone other than Hillary, such as Edwards or Obama, then things get interesting. I am likely to vote for either one of those Democrats, rather than McCain or Giuliani, but I still would not rule out a Republican vote on my part, in 2008.