Why I Voted for Obama

At the risk of alienating some of my readers, I'm just going to take a minute and let you look inside my thought process regarding my choice for President. Please be assured that we can still be friends if you don't agree with me. I just thought that some of you would be gratified to know that my views are similar to yours; the others might at least be able to see that I do have rational reasons for my political views even as they pray for my soul.

I'll just start out by saying that I'm ripping off the format of this post from a fellow blogger (you know who you are!).

Q: I am against abortion. Why should I vote for Obama when he's pro-choice?

A: Even though it is true that Obama is firmly pro-choice, and even though the next president may have some effect on abortion law in the U.S., abortion restrictions are generally made at the state level through the legislative process, not by the Executive Branch. Even if the next president does have the chance to appoint Supreme Court justices, that's still several steps away from making abortion illegal or changing the current constitutional law on the subject. Imagine the scenario: the next president would have to appoint at least one or two "conservative" justices, the Court would have to agree to review Roe v. Wade, decide to overturn it, and even then, for abortion to become illegal, your state would have to vote to ban it. I believe that overall public opinion in most states (but of course, not all) would keep abortion legal, which is unfortunate, but the reality we have in 2008. Also remember that Supreme Court appointees' political views do not always correspond in the long run to the president who appointed them: Justices Stevens and Souter were both appointed by conservative presidents, but often vote with the liberal bloc of the Court, and Justice Kennedy, often the deciding swing vote, was also appointed by a Republican. So the point I'm trying to make is that while abortion is an issue in a presidential race, it is not the most important or relevant one.

Q: Isn't Obama weak on foreign policy and national security issues?

A: It depends on what you mean by "weak." Obama has very little personal experience in these areas, but has chosen a running mate, Joe Biden, who has quite a bit of experience in this area from his participation as Chairman on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Obama is committed to diplomacy, yes, but talking isn't the only tactic he's proposed in the war on terror. He has repeatedly stated that he considers the use of force an option when all other avenues have been exhausted. Personally, as someone who values life, I would really like to try diplomacy and defensive tactics rather than offensive ones as long as possible. I believe the war in Iraq was unnecessary, and while you can debate that 'til the cows come home, no one can debate the fact that tens of thousands of civilian lives have been lost in that conflict, not to mention the lives of thousands of American and coalition soldiers (and contractors, etc.). So I'd like the next president to not be so eager to rush to war.

Q: Obama seems to be very popular around the world, but isn't that irrelevant to us? We shouldn't be making a decision based on what foreigners think of us - what about our sovereignty?

A: Sovereignty is important, and I agree that we shouldn't relinquish it where it counts. I would be against tying our hands in national security issues just to placate some international organization, even though it makes sense to cooperate with other nations where possible. But I firmly believe that what the rest of the world thinks of America - and our President - IS important to our national security. Terrorists who try to attack America and our allies do so in part because they believe we're insular, selfish, and hypocritical. The improvement of our image around the world could only help the war on terror. Not convinced yet? Forget terrorists - we still live in a global society, whether we like it or not. We depend on good relationships with other countries to get things done - like fighting the war in Afghanistan. So it does matter what others think of our pick for the top job.

Q: The liberal media has been horrible to Sarah Palin. Doesn't she have more executive experience than Obama, though, and comparable experience overall? Besides, she's just the V.P. candidate. McCain is the one running for President.

A: I really don't care about experience nearly as much as most people seem to. What I care about is values and judgment. I think that McCain showed a serious lapse in judgment in picking Palin as a running mate, not because of her experience (or lack thereof), but because of what seems a fundamental lack of curiosity in her nature and her seeming disregard for the rule of law and propriety. Her tenures as Mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska have been riddled with abuses of power and her alienating anyone who disagreed with her. Even if McCain lived through his full term as president (which, considering his age and health, you have to admit, is iffy), he has said that Palin will play a large role in his administration, including energy policy and some sort of task force on special needs children. Personally, I don't think I'd like her energy policy - I think she's too anti-environment, pro-big oil, and not concerned enough about climate change.

Q: But isn't Obama going to raise taxes and redistribute wealth? Isn't he a (gasp) SOCIALIST?

A: Obama is proposing to raise taxes - on the top 5% of earners. This puts you, me, and most people we know on the "tax cut" (or tax credit) side of his proposal. I have to admit, though, that even I am not sure about how this will work out. I'm not certain that a recession is the time to raise taxes on anyone, even though Obama's proposed tax "increase" is just a return to pre-Bush tax cut figures. And McCain isn't proposing that we completely overhaul the tax system - his proposals are progressive, too, just not to the extent that Obama's are. We have a government set up to redistribute wealth - and it's been that way for decades. Obama's proposals are not as radical as some would try make you think. And although McCain criticizes "tax-and-spend" mentalities, I'd prefer "tax and spend" to "not tax and spend," which has been the policy for the past eight years and landed us in record budget deficits and national debt.

As for the S-word, I would rather that people talk about proposals, issues, and policies, and not throw around words that have more fear than substance attached to them. I just don't think it's helpful to use these talismanic words, because they tend to mean something different (and usually emotional instead of rational) to different people.

Okay, that was a lot longer than I intended it to be. In closing, I'd just like to say that I hope that whomever is elected President, we can all get behind him in the sense of being good citizens and trying to build unity in our homes and communities. Really, we're all in this together.