Decision '08 Debate: Our Choice in Candidates is No Choice at All
Jason Lowder
Posted on: 10/1/08 Section: Opinion
A fascinating picture of the presidents of the College Democrats and College Republicans squaring off as if preparing to fight appeared in the Sept. 11 Courier.
The picture was fascinating because the grins sported by the two men revealed a truth in not only 'Decision 2008' but about the modern U.S. political landscape. Not only do the two factions of our one-party system like each other, there really is little difference between them.
Sure, there exist policy differences between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, but are they terribly noticeable? They are like soda cans: one is red, one is blue; one represents the choice of a new generation and the other is the old classic that won't let you down. But if you wade through the all the marketing and slogans and actually crack the can open, you'll find they taste remarkably similar.
Both candidates are gung-ho about escalating the war in Afghanistan, but for different reasons. Obama wants to shift troops from Iraq, "a dangerous distraction" in the so-called war on terror, and "take the fight to Al-Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he told the crowd at a recent campaign rally, according to CNN.
While Obama wants to escalate war in Afghanistan because we have lost the war in Iraq, McCain's reason for escalation is the diametric opposite. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan," McCain told a town hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M.
Economic policy is another area where the candidate's rhetoric would lead voters to believe McCain and Obama are on opposite ends of the corporate boardroom.
While the economy is facing its most challenging times since the Great Depression and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is calling for an overhaul of bank regulations, Obama has hired disciples of Milton Friedman from the University of Chicago as economic advisers to his campaign.
One of the foundations of the "Chicago Boys" theory is deregulation; exactly the policy that allowed banks to offer adjustable rate loans (liar loans) to people who clearly did not have the capacity to repay the interest, not to mention the principle.
The picture was fascinating because the grins sported by the two men revealed a truth in not only 'Decision 2008' but about the modern U.S. political landscape. Not only do the two factions of our one-party system like each other, there really is little difference between them.
Sure, there exist policy differences between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, but are they terribly noticeable? They are like soda cans: one is red, one is blue; one represents the choice of a new generation and the other is the old classic that won't let you down. But if you wade through the all the marketing and slogans and actually crack the can open, you'll find they taste remarkably similar.
Both candidates are gung-ho about escalating the war in Afghanistan, but for different reasons. Obama wants to shift troops from Iraq, "a dangerous distraction" in the so-called war on terror, and "take the fight to Al-Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he told the crowd at a recent campaign rally, according to CNN.
While Obama wants to escalate war in Afghanistan because we have lost the war in Iraq, McCain's reason for escalation is the diametric opposite. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan," McCain told a town hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M.
Economic policy is another area where the candidate's rhetoric would lead voters to believe McCain and Obama are on opposite ends of the corporate boardroom.
While the economy is facing its most challenging times since the Great Depression and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is calling for an overhaul of bank regulations, Obama has hired disciples of Milton Friedman from the University of Chicago as economic advisers to his campaign.
One of the foundations of the "Chicago Boys" theory is deregulation; exactly the policy that allowed banks to offer adjustable rate loans (liar loans) to people who clearly did not have the capacity to repay the interest, not to mention the principle.
Be the first to comment on this story