I've written little about politics - more about economics and policy. The last time I posted about the political goings-on was during the Obama vs. McCain campaign, before Palin was selected as McCain's number 2. At that point, I would have voted for either, and both had my respect. Palin, for all her photogenecity, and some of her ability to act as a lightning rod for conservative ideas, was not the sort of person I wanted as VP. Her selection took McCain off the table, and made him unelectable in my eyes.
The current crop of Republican would-be contenders are an interesting lot. Of the group that started the race, I liked Huntsman best, and Paul/Romney in a tie for second for different reasons. I would have happily voted for Huntsman based on his grasp of issues, willingness to work with both parties, and his understanding of the most significant FP relationship that the US has at present (bias acknowledged), China.
Paul has amazing ideas, and I really wish he were more electable. I think the public, while resonating with his ideas, would be too worried about what he'd actually do if elected. As Popper puts it (paraphrasing) social change is best done incrementally. The revolutionary is arrogant when he thinks he can create a whole new functional system en masse/en bloc.
Romney has a number of problems, but chief among them is his lack of passion. He's technocratic and doesn't connect - he's made too much money for some to stomach - yet I believe that he's the best of the current crop of candidates, bar none, to reform finance laws. Only an idiot in finance would fail to make money from the system. The system is there, if you don't take advantage of it, you're daft. After all, it's legal.
Who then, best to reform such a system than one that used it? I think many wealthy actually understand that the system is broken - but the people that are in place to change it, don't understand it, and stand to benefit by leaving it in place. Politicians that have the most to gain for leaving it in place are the corrupt, and are the ones likely to be given contributions by corrupt/unscrupulous financiers.
It's hard to say whether Romney was squeeky clean as an investor, but he strikes me as cleaner.
The religious issue is an issue - but given that many of our executives may or may not be sincere in their expressions of faith, I'd rather have a competent governor that disagrees with me theologically, than a theologically sound governor that doesn't know what he's doing - or worse, is simply corrupt and malignant.
Which brings me to Gingrich.
With three marriages, a tempestuous temper, overweening arrogance, a penchant for bending the truth, and a farcically selective memory, it boggles my mind why he's gotten any votes at all. Yes, he's more interesting than Romney, but how on earth can you trust Gingrich to run a country? He can't even run his own life...
If the Republican party selects Gingrich, I will yet again, be unable to vote for the Republican candidate.
I'm center-right, policy wise, with libertarian instincts when it comes to individual liberties, and fiscal policy. I do believe gov't regulation is needed to hold in check surging power groups, corporations included. It's sad, when the supposed center right party cannot get a center right politician. That is, of course, the problem with the US these days. Maybe, multiparty is better? Get a fringe party for extremists, leaving moderates on the left and right in a much more tenable political position.
Recent Comments