No matter who wins the election, we lose.
By John Tait
Many people consider the 2008 Presidential election transformational. Americans, they say, will choose between old versus new and past against future. A change in imagery is obvious. A change in substance, however, is fictional. Both major party candidates share nearly identical philosophies on all relevant issues – taxes, spending, immigration, border security (or lack thereof), and foreign policy – that it is difficult to distinguish between the two.
Regarding the last issue mentioned, foreign policy, many would argue that a significant difference does exist. Perhaps a discrepancy is evident regarding their particular passions. However, they do not translate into policy initiatives as candidates for President of the United States. An Obama campaign television commercial called the “90 Percent” ad, criticizes McCain for excessive spending in Iraq. The ad states, “$10 Billion a month in Iraq while our own economy struggles,” which refers to McCain’s plan to prolong the war. However, the Obama campaign also calls for increased spending and intervention overseas. After analyzing the candidate’s platforms, it is clear that either will spend money abroad despite tough times at home.
With over a $1 trillion debt, rising food costs, and countless layoffs, why are we continuing such policy? Some consider it our duty to the world. What about government’s duty to its citizens?
Both candidates are committed to foreign aid to the world and a large military presence throughout the world. A difference exists not in their stated goals as President, but in regard to their particular passions which they are most comfortable addressing. McCain prefers to address military engagements while Obama would rather discuss monetary support. Despite unending tension in the Middle East, Obama focuses on aid packages as opposed to military involvement.
According to his campaigns website, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.”
Obama’s support for Israel is not a product of affection, but necessity. As a congregant of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for two decades, Obama heard many anti-Israeli words spoken from its pulpits. In order to obtain the Presidency, Obama understood the importance of hiding his true feelings and placate the most powerful lobby in America – AIPAC. While defense of Israel is necessitated by his desire to win election, a focus on African aid is a product of his heritage. According to his campaigns website, “Obama and Joe Biden will double our annual investment in foreign assistance from $25 billion in 2008 to $50 billion by the end of his first term and make the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, America’s goals. They will fully fund debt cancellation for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries in order to provide sustainable debt relief and invest at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including our fair share of the Global Fund.”
Why are we increasing aid, purchasing food, and funding debt cancellation for African nations while individual Americans and our country collectively remain troubled by decreasing revenue for expenditures, food, and debt? Obama is asking Americans to look out for Africans before ourselves. In addition to fighting African poverty, the Democratic ticket promises to ensure prosperity on that impoverished continent across the Atlantic. Their website states, “Obama and Biden will expand prosperity by establishing an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative, creating a fund that will extend seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises, and reforming the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They will also strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African producers can access the U.S. market and will encourage more American companies to invest on the continent.”
What is the cost of creating, reforming, and strengthening such programs? The Democratic nominee wisely leaves such a considerable number for our own imaginations. Regardless of cost, large or small, it is hypocritical for Obama to criticize McCain for spending money overseas “while our own economy struggles.”
McCain focuses on his military past to distance himself from Obama in terms of leadership and ability to serve as Commander and Chief. “The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists.”
With his campaign’s emphasis on national security, McCain ties in foreign aid handouts and increased safety at home. During a New Hampshire town hall meeting he stated, “It really needs to eliminate many of the breeding grounds for extremism, which is poverty, which is HIV/AIDS, which is all of those terrible conditions that make people totally dissatisfied and then look to extremism, particularly Islamic extremism.”
He correctly recognizes that poverty in the Middle East can cause Muslim hatred directed towards the United States. Why has he constantly called for sanctions against Iran throughout his campaign? Sanctions, whether on imports or exports, have a negative impact on any economy. According to his logic, McCain is calling for a policy which would “breed Islamic extremism.”
Unfortunately, McCain failed to learn the lessons from the men who played a major role in creating the office he hopes to obtain. Even before George Washington warned our young nation to avoid “entangling alliances” during his Farewell Address, Benjamin Franklin put the aforementioned idea into practice when dealing with France at the close of the Revolutionary War. He knew, despite such potential, entering unnecessary wars could be the death of our fragile nation. Although they played a crucial role in our victory during the Revolutionary War, Franklin resisted calls to aid the French at our expense via a pact which would have proven counterproductive. Unfortunately, those days of a common sense approach to foreign policy have since passed.
A closer examination of our government’s purpose is necessary if the situation is to improve. Giving money for AIDS medicine or developmental assistance to Africa are both terrible ways to give away the peoples’ money because we do not benefit. The Iraq War, however, is much worse. Our biggest problem is no longer the government taking money from us in order to help others. It is not even the government risking the well-being of Americans to assist other people and nations. Our government now puts American lives in jeopardy while impeding the interests of foreign citizens and nations.
Is it our government’s purpose to take from us in order to build hospitals, schools, and government buildings in Iraq? Is it in the interest of the American people to overthrow heads of state they view as evil? How can one justify forcing democracy on a country as being in our best interest despite the loss of thousands of American lives and several hundred billion dollars without experiencing any benefits at home? The idea of taking from the American people and “giving” to the world has become routine practice from Washington. However, it is not supposed to be this way.
Precedence exists, established by our greatest generation, which runs contrary to current policy and supports the idea that each decision should be in the best interest of the American people. As early as our nation’s original document, Thomas Jefferson stated that a government should be created which will allow for the most happiness.
John Adams echoed that sentiment in the Massachusetts Constitution when he stated, “And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.” As President, Adams kept us out of an unneeded war with France during the XYZ Affair despite opposition from some of the most powerful men within his own party.
Our government, therefore, does not have an obligation to perform most of its current functions. In fact, it has forgotten its duty to protect the people and has actually begun to perform the opposite role from which it was originally intended by making us more susceptible to danger which results from bad policy.
Over the past few years, McCain has been vague regarding the length of time necessary to achieve “victory” in Iraq; even mentioning the prospect of another century. According to the National Priorities Project, the cost of obtaining that difficult, yet futile goal is $341.4 million per day. McCain is asking our military to defend Iraq while America is left wide open.
For nearly seven times less money, the Border Fence Project has proposed completing a double layer fence along our entire 1,952 mile border with Mexico. The less expensive constitutional duty is ignored while a costly, destructive war is approaching its sixth year.
Whereas Obama’s foreign aid proposals show a lack of respect for the American taxpayer, Senator McCain’s commitment to significant worldwide troop presence is outright dangerous. Men possess a natural desire to feel that they are protecting the women and children in their respective societies. This is certainly true in such relationships as father and child and husband and wife. When foreign troops enter the scene through force, male adults are likely to feel a sense of embarrassment, failure, and frustration which can lead to a disdain or even a strong hatred for the foreign troops. Such embarrassment is one of terrorism’s main breeders. He has set an objective to terminate what his own policies produce.
These policies would not even be wise during favorable economic times. Why must we continue to insist upon them during economic turmoil?
The outcome of this election remains irrelevant as commitment to current policy exceeds the importance regarding their particular areas of “expertise.” Both candidates vow to maintain and expand extravagant foreign aid programs while committing our troops to remain in over 100 foreign nations. Like most politicians in the age of artificial disparity, candidates are left to criticize their opponents for making strikingly similar promises. No matter who wins the election, we lose.
John Tait is a freelance writer from Glenview, Illinois. He recently published his first book, Plain Truth.