The recent discovery of a singularity in the financial markets is still very much on people’s minds these days. In addition to trying to assign blame to their political opponents, the favorite pastime seems to be trying to figure out, like, what to a…

Decide for yourself how that's been working out.

CStanley — the real problem I have is that neither party matches my ideology: fiscally conservative, socially liberal — and I'm not on an extreme edge w/ either of those. If there was a party for me, I'm sure I'd take the same approach as you do — or anyone else does who has a political home.

I know that I'm late on this post… but I had to add my 'AMEN' to CStanley's comment.

http://thepajamapundit.com/

We are opposites, though. I'm a social conservative, who is economically eclectic. That's left me voting Republican as a rule. But this time the price was too high — and Obama somehow made it easier to think about voting Democratic. Like you, I have never thought he was a progressive; but rather more pragmatic. And I continue to read him really as not being fiscally liberal in the classic sense. The tax policy is about undoing the redistribution towards the wealthy that has occured partly due to Republican tax policies and partly due to the effects globalization has had on our income distribution. Although I'm no egalitarian, I do think societies can only tolerate so much inequality before things go wonky; and I'm not averse to the idea that we might be getting there. (Our bubbly economy seems to me to be symptomatic of a society where the chasing of wealth at the high end has gotten at least a bit off-kilter). In any case, his tax proposals don't call for a radical shifting of income. And I do believe him when he says that this should be essentially self-contained. The closed corporate loopholes, and higher taxes on the highest brackets offset the lower taxes elsewhere in the system. He claims that the other programs are all to be implemented only to the extent that savings elsewhere can pay for them. In short, he's always sounded averse to raising the deficit. What he's not super-hawkish on is the proposition that we should be working to lower the deficit. Normally that would be troublesome, but for a faltering economy it's not obvious that the best remedy is to go after the deficit. It's a bit old-fashioned to think that deficit cutting at the onset of what could be a serious recession is counter-productive, but there are enough parallels between now and 1929 for me to think that this might be the one case where old-fashioned economic policies actually make more sense. Obama's got a good mix of economic advisors, and himself seems to have learned from his stay at the University of Chicago to respect markets more than an old-fashioned liberal would, but without becoming beholding to a free-market ideology that is perhaps not best suited to the moment.

Dang, didn't mean to ramble. But all of this is to say that his thinking on the subject doesn't fall neatly into old categories. In the late 1970's the economy was strained in part because it had been run by old liberal ideas. That's what made the country ripe for the Reagan revolution, which offered a salutary correction for the excesses of the old regime. I don't know if Obama will turn out to be Reagan-esque. But I do think we are at about the same point now that we were back then: the economy is strained in part because it has been run too long on old conservative ideas. Since I'm a pragmatist, I think it's to be expected that any ideology that is in power too long is going to tend to make things go wonky. Obama's tilt to the left doesn't bother me — since I read it as a pragmatic shift, rather than an ideological one.

But no, he's not always candid about what he's about. He's pandered pretty hard on Nafta, for example. And although he's always said “pay as you go”, he's always said it sotto voce. And yes that's misleading. Deliberately so. But I'm not sure any politician can be purely honest and have a prayer of getting elected. He's also very cautious — and I worry that this can be a liability. He hasn't risked telling people hard truths. My idealistic self wishes he would. My pragmatic self thinks that people who tell hard truths are rarely elected. In any case, I am voting *for* him — but not as though he's some sort of ideal politician.

I've always felt bad, and depressed after doing this. But, not as bad as I would have felt if I had defiled the concept and promise of democracy by lying in the booth, just as the candidates had lied to me during the campaign.

LINK

If I'd seen that story earlier, I'd have added my GREAT desire to hear Obama's opinion on adding car debt to the “troubled assets”.

If he is a captive of his party, then divided government is critical. If he's not, then I really need him to show that. (Hence, this post.)

What a great way to put it.

As for the rest, well, I guess any excessive bellicosity on McCain's part strikes me as posturing for the hawkish base. He's certainly more of a hawk than Obama but from my perspective, Obama's overly conciliatory foreign policy statements are problematic too. Neither extreme would be my preference, but I'm hoping that both men are playing it up to fire up their respective base voters.

On Roe v. Wade, I can see what you mean in the short term, but as a prolifer it's hard to find that so troubling because if one does consider abortion to be murder than there's nothing that really trumps that. And in the longer run, it just seems to me that the status quo now is more out of whack with what people really want (we have de facto abortion on demand, which isn't what the polling data shows to be the real majority preference) than any changes will be after the dust settles.

But you asked a great question. Which of my ideologies is currently ascendant? I don't know if I can answer in just a comment, but I'll try.

Something went off-kilter late in the Democratic primaries. After the FISA vote, and when the expected shift to center began, Obama was coming under such fire from the party's base that it seems to me he began hewing closer to the traditional ideologies. But this is not a time for bigger government. (I'd have said it would be hard to get bigger than it is now, but recent events are proving that a lie). It's time to tighten belts and clean house.

If he is a captive of his party, then divided government is critical. If he's not, then I really need him to show that. (Hence, this post.)

Meanwhile, John McCain has also made some shifts, and I've found myself questioning recently if he's even sane. So while I have concerns on the domestic front about fiscal policy, I'm also concerned about bellicosity in the White House during these very volatile times. Even if I thought McCain was going to suddenly reincarnate the fiscal conservatism the GOP once claimed to stand for, his foreign policy would still worry me greatly.

Finally — I have to disagree with you about what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned. There are a number of states (including mine) that have anti-abortion legislation still on the books. Yes, some of those would be re-written, but there'd be mighty battles and unrest in those states. And then there are the states that have been passing poison-pill legislation — rigid anti-abortion laws that are set to trigger the instant Roe goes down. I can't even fathom the chaos that would ensue.

Would John McCain really push for that, as he's promised to do for years? You're right that he's not especially religious — but the constitutional arguments against Roe don't require religious zealotry. And even if he didn't push for it, I'm truly concerned about whether he'll remain healthy for a full term. Which brings Palin into play. As long as she's not answering questions about her view of religion and policy (or much of anything else, for that matter), she's a wild card in my eyes.

So — as I said, concerns all around. On foreign policy and social issues, Obama is my guy (so to speak). On fiscal policy, though? I just dunno.

Do you consider your fiscal conservatism or your social liberalism to be more important at this time? I would think that would be the only way to puzzle this out, along with the point others have mentioned about divided government.

And as far as social issues go, are there really any grave concerns with McCain/Palin? I know that a lot of social liberals would say Roe v. Wade, but you strike me as a thinking individual who would recognize that EVEN in the event of R v W being overturned (which certainly might not happen anyway), the states would still probably enact laws that were in keeping with the general spirit with which that decision was handed down (the trimester construct, viability, etc.)

Since McCain has never been a religious rightie, we're not talking about anything too controversial coming out of his administration unless you are pretty hard left, I would think. Palin certainly has personal views that are a lot more socially conservative, but despite the overheated criticisms most people agree that she hasn't attempted to push those views as law.

George, I don't know if this helps (and Polimom, feel free to correct me if I have it wrong) but I think that Polimom might be generally as cynical as I am about candidates from either party (you know they're lying because their lips are moving) but if I understand her, she wanted to believe the hype that Obama was different. It's not that she's giving McCain a pass, just that she apparently holds him to the general standard that most of us have to apply to all politicians in order to even be able to vote- but she did hold Obama to a higher standard because those particular virtues of being postpartisan, pragmatic, and honest were the very reasons that she was supporting him.

Am I close, PM?

I'm sorry too.

Republicans were once the party of fiscal responsibility, but their current dogma, articulated by none other than Dick Cheney, is “Deficits don't matter.”

A great deal of Republican success at the ballot box has been based on the famous No-Tax Pledge they sign.

Meanwhile, under Republican leadership we've had two expensive (and poorly managed) wars and the largest new entitlement program since the 1960's. So when Republicans say things like they're going to cut taxes no matter what else is going on, I'm really pretty inclined to believe them. It's when they say something different–for example, something fiscally responsible–that I'd be dubious.

Not that it's going to happen–Republicans saying something fiscally responsible, I mean. It wouldn't surprise me if the McCain plan for economic recovery would be to promise everyone in America a pony.

He'd win.

Plus, Obama has a funny last name.

And his middle name? Oh, Polimom, don't even get me started!!!

Maybe you have a good reason to hold John McCain to a lower standard. But I can't think what it would be. So, sorry if I missed the point of your post.

But for me, voting against somebody has really gotten pretty danged tiresome. I really really want to cast a vote — just once — FOR somebody.

So… yes, Obama did in fact say the magic words one day after he said something different. The proximity is the problem… but if he comes in strong behind his most recent statement, and continues to give people the real information, then for me, this will be a much different ballgame.

Given that, I'm probably more forgiving of Obama. He's not crossed the line. He doesn't hit the highs I could wish, but he does seem to me to do better than most. If you listen. He's always said his program was “pay as you go” — so I've always heard his list as a set of priorities he'd pursue *if* budgetary exigencies work out (e.g. that tax revenues don't sag if he hit a major recession). So that he finally admits on Monday that this crisis is severe enough to suggest that the overall budgetary picture will be grimmer than he expected doesn't bother me. I think it's taken a while for the seriousness of this problem to sink in with all of us.

Not quite sure why McCain gets a pass in your book on this. But we all of our way of looking at things.

That's not the only issue here. With this bailout, obviously the psychological floodgates for the willing are wide open now, but just where is Obama going to get the money to pay for all his spending programs? Or will he just add more debt, GOP-style? If he insists on income tax reductions for households or individuals under $250,000, he's already lost from the start, given what the income distribution happens to be in this country. The only way to raise a substantially larger amount of revenue to pay for his grandiose spending plans from the federal income tax is to increase taxes on those far below $250,000 annually. (And as I've already asked elsewhere, earlier — what about other taxes? The Clinton gang thought about a VAT _without_ abolishing the income tax; why not might Obama think of the same thing, for health care, for example, as was thought of for health care earlier? And, of course, there are always vast new motor vehicle fuel taxes to bring us up to the much higher levels found in Europe, even if that will cripple motorists and promptly cause expected revenues to diminish greatly.)

Also, where in the link that you provided does it say anything about nationalizing the auto industry? I see an article about providing low cost loans to an American business sector. While the utility and justification for the legislation are certainly debatable, the legislation doesn't say what you say it says. Also, it does clearly say that Obama and McCain have both endorsed one of the loan programs involved.

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/...