Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

US politics long ago became the tussle of two fundamental themes: government’s intervention in the economy and government’s intervention into its citizens’ moral liberties. The dichotomy is surprising, because one party believes in individual liberties and the other in economic liberties. Democrats support individual liberties such as a women’s right to choose or terminate a pregnancy and the right of anyone to choose sexual partners including same sex marriage, but they want the government to play a bigger role in the economy and the distribution of wealth between rich and poor. Republicans are disgusted by individual liberties. They want the government to intervene in deciding what is moral and acceptable and what is not. But they don’t like the government intervening in the economy. They want to leave that job to the markets in order to increase productivity and economic growth. However, it was Abraham Lincoln, a republican, who fought for freeing the slaves. It is difficult to reconcile these political ideologies, except if you consider slaves as a production factor, and, from the free market point of view, we justify this kind of individual freedom. It would be preferable to have a party that likes free markets and individual liberties and another party that likes government direction and regulation. But since economic and moral values are so intertwined, annoyed and confused voters lean towards fear as the selection criteria. It shouldn’t surprise us that contradictory coalitions lead us to a 50/50 vote, except in circumstances of severe fear. That isn’t necessarily bad because it contributes to the diversification of power.

After such a long and controversial war like the one in Iraq, and the market difficulties of the past 12 months, President Bush’s approval rating is lower than that of a tyrant with no control over votes. Obama, the democratic candidate, is a first class orator. McCain, the republican, Vietnam hero, promises to reform government’s abuses and straighten congress’ and administration’s manipulation by lobbyists. He promises to better educate children, and rehire adults that have lost their jobs, because the Hindi, Chinese and Brazilians are more productive and complain less than the North American labor unions. At present, McCain more than Obama opposes the bail out of the financial actors that have abused cheap and abundant credit and grown recklessly.

The democrats protect the privileges of the teacher and worker unions, and don’t want education reform or international competition. A democratic victory would present a more human and universal façade in the hands of the inspiring and charming Obama, but could be condemned to restrict trade with Latin America. The promised spike in taxes to cover the fiscal deficit would lead to a loss of competitiveness, production and jobs, and probably more restriction on Latin American immigration. A republican victory, in the hands of McCain the reformer, would maintain North America’s military supremacy, with everything the rest of the world hates about that supremacy; he would have some hope of reducing the size of the government, but less hope in reducing the fiscal deficit unless there is a major reduction in public spending. Reductions in public spending are harder to carry out than successful, lasting diets, particularly when the country is facing a real recession!

None of the candidates want to increase long term personal savings. None is offering what they should offer, which is a long term tax exemption for saving and investing. So, North Americans will continue to consume more than they get paid, until they start dying off of old age in the next 10 years. Long term needs have become the enemy of short term wants and vice-versa.

I want to see a candidate that promotes savings, morality as a personal choice, pay for merit and free trade. I am going to have to vote for the Colombian and Chilean candidates, if they let me. It is unfortunate that people in democracies have to vote for people. Better to vote for a selected list of ideas, and the candidates put the ideas to work or they are fired. It must be that experience also teaches us that ideas have less credibility than candidates.