|
|
|
Last Updated: Nov 14, 2008 - 12:49:26 PM |
Greatly as I enjoy spending time with friends, on summer weekends – what with gardening, yardwork, and other chores – I don’t get out much.
The past weekend came as a delightful exception. Friday evening, after rehearsal, I joined my director and several cast members for pint of Harp at Penny Lane. The next morning, I attended my book club, where we discussed John McCain’s Faith of My Fathers. (Next month: Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father.) That afternoon, I attended a wake for the father of an old UVA crony.
All three events were rather jolly. The cast is feeling good about our Hamlet. Book club is always a treat – even when we passionately disagree.
And the wake was surprisingly cheerful. My friend’s father died in midsummer, so the first shock of grief had passed. And since many of us hadn’t seen each other in decades, the wake evolved into a reunion.
However, it being election season, none of these events was free from politics. At all three, I found myself trying to explain to liberal friends why I – an outspoken liberal myself – so ardently support Senator McCain.
Which isn’t easy. I’ve always liked McCain. Having just read his book, I like him even better. On the other hand, the more I see of Barack Obama, the more uncomfortable I am with him as a man.
This is hard to articulate. My life’s experiences have furnished me with instincts that – rightly or wrongly – influence my judgment of political men. I could say, “Trust me. I’ve known men like him. He’s unfinished, untested, and not nearly as together as he comes across. He might do well – but he might come apart under pressure.”
But, even as I say it, I understand that no one will listen. Personal instincts – however rooted in relevant experience – are not rational arguments.
In the end, I’m forced to fall back on arguments that rely upon a knowledge of history. Even then – since most of my friends aren’t lifelong students of history – I find myself arguing from assumptions they don’t share.
For example, I place almost no reliance on what candidates say they will do during a campaign. Looking at history, such proposals and promises almost never correlate with what a president actually does.
Consider these examples:
In 1860, Lincoln’s slogan was “Vote Yourself a Farm!” He ran on the Homestead Act – not winning a civil war or freeing the slaves.
In 1901, TR, assuming office after McKinley’s assassination, pledged to pursue his predecessor’s conservative policies. Fat chance.
In 1932, FDR promised to cut taxes and balance the budget – not create the New Deal.
Running for a third term in 1940, he promised to keep us out of war – as had Wilson in 1916.
And these, mind, were among our greatest presidents.
If you want to find a president who kept nearly all his campaign promises, you must go all the way back to James K. Polk (1845 – 1849). Our eleventh president, Polk made five promises: to annex Texas; to acquire the Southwest; to annex the Oregon Territory to the 54˚ 40’ line; to establish an independent Treasury; and to serve only one term.
As things turned out, outgoing President John Tyler – wishing to claim the credit – kept Polk’s first promise for him. To gain Britain’s neutrality as he maneuvered to seize a big chunk of Mexico (including California), Polk agreed to partition the Oregon Territory at the 49th parallel.
Still, of his five promises, Polk essentially kept four-and-half. No president since has come close.
Based on history, no rational citizen would pay much attention to what a presidential candidate says he will do. Presidents don’t keep their campaign promises.
For the most part, they can’t.
For over a century, no president has entered office faced with accord and prosperity at home; peace abroad; an overflowing Treasury; and no looming, ugly surprises to spoil his first term. Every modern president has had to deal with a legacy of problems bequeathed by his predecessor – and a host of new challenges that start cropping up before the last Inaugural Ball.
Our next president will be no different.
Actually, I take great comfort in this, as I don’t think much of either candidate’s platform.
McCain’s positions are largely based on the discredited, anti-government, anti-tax ideology that has led to the present economic crisis. Obama’s reflect essentially the same big-government, big-deficit, anti-trade, give-peace-a-chance nonsense Americans rightly rejected when they elected Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Neither candidate offers much in the way of new ideas or actual change. If I thought the winner could actually keep his promises, I’d apply for Canadian citizenship.
But that won’t happen. Events will drive the choices confronting our next president. Character will determine how he responds.
Which brings me back to the thing I can’t seem to convey – a gut feeling about the two men, informed by a lifetime of experience and study, but ultimately impossible to put into persuasive words.
Even among friends.
© Copyright by Village Publishing
Top of Page Comment
on This Article
The
Village News office is located at 4607 West Hundred Road Chester
Mailing address is PO Box 2397 Chester, VA 23831
Phone: 751-0421 Fax: 751-9155
Office hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday - Friday call ahead for
other hours.
Statement
of Journalistic Ethics
|
|
|
Village News:
Read right 'round the world.
|
|
