June 7, 2012

  • Elections - Obama and Romney 2012

    Well, the choice ends up being Romney vs. Obama, round 2.  

    Last election, it had been interesting up until McCain picked Palin.  While Palin has evolved into a formidable (though largely unelectable) political force/pundit, her appearance and behavior on the ticket made McCain an impossibility in my mind.  What had been his key quality - his indomitable independent way of doing things - became subsumed in a consensus platform of views that highlighted his worst qualities and eclipsed his strengths.  Obama had a walkover, running on the promise of better government, more government, and a new way of government.

    One cycle later, after a particularly grueling series of primary battles, Romney is the de facto Republican candidate.  

    An unlikely candidate at that...  Despite the noisy far right parts of the Republican caucus, the typically dominant voices in protestant churches, and the groups that focus on abortions, gay marriage and the like, Romney was the last one standing.

    As a rather conservative person religiously, libertarian governmentally, and a believer in a federalist, republican form of government, I find myself strongly in support of Romney, especially given the options.  I'm going to address this topic from 2 perspectives - one from faith, and the other from economics.

    For the easy one.  As a person who believes in the inspired nature of the Bible, and a person who's credo agrees with the Apostle's Creed, and is Calvinist theologically, I don't hold much truck with LDS church's Christology and understanding of Deity.  On the other hand, the general life-choices that the LDS church encourages are objectively in agreement with what I agree with (despite hypocrisy on my or others' part).  I agree strongly with the Separation of Church and State.  Government exists to create a framework within which private citizens interact - not to control their behavior, in either a liberal or conservative fashion, but more on that later.

    Insomuch as we elect officers for such a government, our key obligation as an electorate is not to find persons that parrot our conceptions, but rather rule fairly and reasonably.  I am strongly of the opinion that morality cannot be legislated - so attempts to do so by either conservatives or liberals are to be opposed.  Acts may be illegal and immoral, or illegal and moral or legal yet immoral.  Laws, at best, create a framework that approximates a moral system, but do not provide for the inner, philosophical workings that lead to consistent thinking and action that really breathes life into a population.  

    Governments do not create great citizens - but they can get out of the way so that people can grow up to be mature, contributing members of society.

    The main point:

    Our most pressing problem in this country is our debt and our economic productivity.  We could borrow more, and gamble that, by doubling down with the "house's" money, we can get a blackjack and come out even - or even ahead.  It might work with more neo-Keynesian stimulus - borrowing more, and hoping that the liquidity allows entrepreneurs to grow more jobs and businesses.  To my mind, it is more likely good money after bad.  We borrow to fund an economic ecosystem that isn't performing as well as it ought, and we're more likely to simply end up in more debt.  Moreover, increased prices on equities doesn't ultimately mean a better economy - the USD value of the economy might increase, but the excess liquidity also continues to fuel inflationary pressures.  Net effect may not be so efficacious for the private citizen.

    Yes, to my mind, we're merely delaying the inevitable calling to account that happens when governments and societies borrow too much, and cannot change their lifestyles in keeping with fiscal realities.  Governments and societies take longer to "fail" but fail they will when mismanaged.

    Romney strikes me a man who believes in building stuff.  Yeah, people can call VCs vultures, but the reality is that the model is neither good nor evil - it's just an approach.  Helping good business ideas become profitable is the way that capitalism evolves - and killing off bad models is good as well.  The best case scenario is when you have a whole ecosystem of businesses growing and replacing and killing off one another keeping growth and development reasonably smooth over an economy.  But having completely chaotic regulatory and tax environments is really a bad way to grow businesses.

    If Romney just wanted money, he should've stayed at Bain.  If he wants to be a big name, just become a pundit.  Getting into politics when you're already influential and rich is either complete arrogance or ... reflects a real zeal to help society.  He strikes me as someone who wants to help and build society.  Whether that's misguided is a completely different question.

    To this end, one must ask, what does he bring to the table?  Doesn't he have big business' interest in mind?  Well, businesses provide the vast majority of jobs, and pay the majority of wages in the US.  And thus, the US tax base is essentially contingent on an economy of businesses.  Kill the businesses and everyone suffers.  A good business can take care of its employees - companies that did this are well regarded - though not always maximally profitable on a quarter to quarter basis.  Understanding the ecology in which businesses function is essential to encouraging growth and getting out of the way effectively (and intervening when necessary as well.)

    There's no one better than a business veteran coming into try to fix the milieu - perhaps bringing in some unpleasantness, but also creating a pro-growth environment.  Companies do need regulation - but appropriately.  Regulation should be scalpel like- accurate, and effective, but not clumsy and heavy.  Regulation shouldn't burden industries such that they do more paperwork than their actual work.  Taxes need to be structured with fewer loopholes and incentives.  It's just possible that Romney can work towards this end.  I wouldn't be surprised if he did, given the chance.

    Yep, I do think that if elected, he'll be a very pleasant surprise.  Right now, we need a person with fewer cloudy dreams - and more grit.  Someone who will work hard to build an ecosystem favorable to businesses - and particularly businesses that have long term growth and, thus, have a long term interest in the welfare of their employees.

    I didn't know whether to expect much from the Obama presidency, but I can say that I don't think his policies have been very savvy.  Unless something drastic changes, I think I know who's got my vote.

    Can't vote for Ron Paul - but I do hope some of his ideas make it to the White House.  Quantitative Easing won't work.  We need to stop QE, and start paring back government, government handouts, and structures that increase inefficiency.  Can we free up our citizens to take care of one another and work productive jobs?  

Comments (1)

  • hmm....so that LDS really doesn't make that large of an impact on your election choice? unlike other christian sects though most consider lds a cult, lds has a strong authority ladder. their business practices are the direct result their strong commitment to their authority and belief systems.

    what is wrong with ron paul? also, let's continue to remember president obama is a practicing mainstream christian, a misguided one, but still a christian.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment