After eight years of perhaps the most secretive administration in history (Richard Nixon wasn't in office that long), I just do.This country needs it. This country deserves it.
John McCain had the opportunity to provide that kind of leadership and at times has met the challenge. His support of campaign finance reform was an example of trying to reform a system that rewarded undue monetary influence. The Republican leadership fought him every step of the way and the bill that eventually emerged did little to provide a meaningful impact. His opposition to special interest legislation has been largely ineffective as opposition from both parties blocked the way.
Why do I believe that Barack Obama will be more effective in providing a more ethical administration?
To fully understand my answer, I encourage all of you (those who support John McCain and those who support Barack Obama) to read his book, The Audacity of Hope. I am truly surprised and disappointed at how many political junkies have not read the biographies of either of the two major candidates running for President of the United States. I have read both of John McCain's books and nearly two years ago read Barack Obama's, Audacity of Hope. For those of you who are only peripherally interested in Presidential politics, I've got news for you. You wouldn't be reading my blog if that were true. So why not be more fully informed about the men who may be the next President of the United States.
Anyway, I was enthralled by Barack Obama's book. Just as his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention could have been delivered at the Republican convention, the book outlined a philosophy for the country that broke through partisan rhetoric. It was a broad-based statement of goals for the future of this country. Obama has recognized the complexity of many of the difficult issues that have separated the people in our country, while laying out a framework for us to move forward together in reaching a workable consensus. The harsh and divisive rhetoric of race, faith, and equal opportunity are replaced with thoughtful terminology most Americans can agree on.
As a State Senator in Illinois, Barack Obama helped pass ethics reform legislation and one of the first bills he introduced as a US Senator was ethics legislation patterned after that same ethics legislation. Although that bill did not pass, Senator Obama helped the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote.
Certainly, it is easy to question the extent of the track record Barack Obama has when it comes to ethics in government. But his attempts during the campaign and Presidential debates to lower the volume of the partisan rhetoric are a welcome relief. I was also impressed by the speech given by a former government official, Dennis Ross, who has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, that Barack Obama is the first politician he has seen who so quickly grasps the nuances of foreign and domestic policies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqMpHOLxvYc. Like Ronald Reagan he has the ability to gain the trust of those he meets in a very short period oftime.
With all that is going on in the world today, trust is an important asset.
On the issue of ethics in government, I choose Barack Obama .
Principle #1 - Balanced Budgets and Deficits
Not too long ago the Republican Party philosophically stood for balanced budgets and the underlying principle that the Government should "live within its means". Now even this principle has been abandoned.The last eight years of the Bush Administration has seen a redefinition of what economic conservatism is all about. Under the Bush Doctrine, as long as we don't raise taxes, we are practicing economic conservatism. It no longer matters if we balance the budget and live within our means as long as taxes are not raised.This is wrong from a number of different perspectives. First of all, it has given credibility to many long time political observers who have questioned whether Republicans ever really believed in balanced budgets. Their assertion is that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is what they wanted to spend taxpayers money on. Democrats wanted to increase social spending, while Republican wanted to increase defense spending. Neither really was interested in balancing the budget.
Secondly, in recent years, the Democrats have been more effective in actually balancing budgets. When you compare the total number of years of balanced budgets, more have occurred during Democratic than Republican administrations.
Third, no other President in history has gone to war while not asking the American people to help finance that effort. If the people are not willing to make a financial sacrifice to finance the cost of going to war, perhaps it says something about their support for that effort.
Principle #2 - The Free Market System
The basis for the Republican argument for supporting the free market system is that markets will correct all excesses on their own. Their is no need for government intervention.
What they forget from their Economics 101 classes is that in order for that theory to apply there must be free entry and access to the economic markets. That never has, nor probably never will, apply to the real world. It is a theory that only works in textbooks.
So Republicans have abandoned their support for small business and set out on a campaign to eliminate all government regulation. The result - Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossings*, Tyco, HealthSouth, Adelphia, et. al. were the first wave. Now we have Countrywide, AIG, Smith Barney Lehman Brothers, and the possible collapse of the entire financial system.
Does that mean that all regulation is good? Of course, not. But when we deregulate industries that need to be regulated and abandon sane principles of external oversight, we end up with a system that alternates between too little and too much regulation.
Why did we get Sarbanes -Oxley? Because we lost all sense of reasonable regulation. Was Sarbanes-Oxley overkill? You bet, but that is the result of policies (and a philosophy) which says that no regulation is the right amount of regulation.
Now Congress just passed a recovery bill (a/k/a The Bailout) which includes hundreds of provisions that have nothing at all to do with the problem they were supposedly trying to fix.Extreme problems result in bad law.With the economic problems now facing the country, we need leadership that will seek to restore confidence in our economic system and who are not a part of the problems from the past. John McCain was a member of the "Keating 5" who tried to influence regulation of the Savings and Loan industry. He said at that time that he had learned his lesson and would never again put himself in a position where his integrity would be questioned. Yet, as chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee of the US Senate, John McCain received more campaign contributions from *Global Crossings (a company that was directly affected by his subcommittee) then any other Congressman or Senator. Although he later returned all of the donations, it lends itself to the questions on whether he has really learned from those past mistakes or whether his judgment is right for the office of President.
