Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee for president, likes to say that he was a "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution. So was I, working out of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. But, unlike McCain, a good man and a true American hero, I don't intend to vote Republican this November. I am voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Meritocracy is at the core of US conservative beliefs. So let's face it: George W. Bush has been the worst US president in memory. His administration has been inept, corrupt and without accomplishment. After this performance, why give the Republicans another turn at the helm?
Let's give the other party a chance, even if its policies are not exactly what conservatives may like. In the US, we call it "throwing the bums out."
When meritocracy is downgraded, as it has been during the Bush years, bad things happen. Worst of all, racism has flourished, because productivity and social utility have become less effective in protecting targets of discrimination.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the current debate over illegal immigration. It is not so much the illegality of their entrance into the US that riles many conservative Republicans; it's the migrants themselves, especially Hispanics who can't speak English. Never mind that Hispanic migrants are among the hardest-working people in the US.
It is a bitter irony that John McCain, war hero, is considered a traitor by the conservative wing of his party because he has a compassionate attitude toward undocumented immigrants.
Sadly, the Republican Party has been hijacked during the Bush years by sloganeers using code phrases like "illegal immigration" and "protecting the middle class" to mask their racism, and "economic incentive effects" to justify tax policies that are blatantly tilted to the rich.
Responding to this politics of hate, Obama likes to call himself a "hopemonger," not a "hatemonger." It's a great line and it applies.
Hope always sells well in the US. Reagan understood that, and it is one of the reasons he was a great and beloved president, even if some of his policies were flawed. As Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama's rapidly fading rival for the Democratic nomination, is finding out to her dismay, policies can be an overrated commodity in presidential elections that really matter.
The hope that Obama is holding out for Americans is one of reconciliation -- racial, political, between the wealthy and the poor, and between the US and its allies. This is powerful stuff, and dwarfs the narrow technocratic instincts of Clinton, whose schoolgirl approach to the campaign has justly earned her defeat after defeat in the primaries.
Just as former US president Ronald Reagan had his "Reagan Democrats" who were attracted by his message of hope after the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years, Obama will have his "Obama Republicans," attracted by the hope of national reconciliation and healing.
Non-Americans must understand that there is yet another revolution brewing in the US, and that senators Clinton and McCain are both likely to be swept away by it. When conservative Republicans support liberal Democrats (Obama has been rated the most liberal member of the US Senate), "the times they are a-changin'," as Bob Dylan wrote 45 years ago.
Moreover, a crucial difference today is that the generational conflict that so characterized the 1960s -- "Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command," as Bob Dylan put it -- is absent. The young may be taking the lead -- what Obama calls "a revolution from the bottom up" -- but there is little opposition from today's parents.
Indeed, I personally know a successful US hedge fund manager who is quite conservative and consistently votes Republican, but who is thinking of supporting Obama. His daughter dates an African-American and, to his credit, he believes in racial reconciliation. True, an Obama victory would certainly increase his taxes, but some things -- for example, the promise of a multicultural America -- are simply more important.
There appear to be many Republicans and independents who feel the same way. Obama can lose these people, however, if he forgets that he is a reconciler, not a class warrior, and goes from tilting toward the poor to soaking the rich.
In any case, the country's allies should feel relieved by how the presidential election is shaping up. The US needs Obama, but McCain is a reasonable alternative. He is no Bush, and conservative Republican hatred of him is his badge of honor. He would stand up to the haters at home -- including those in his own party -- and to the terrorists abroad. That's a lot better than what we have today.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS