When America elects its next president come November, it will have to decide between two starkly different candidates—the seasoned John McCain, who believes in spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, but thinks twice about spending millions of dollars in education, or Barack Obama, who, in his charismatic speeches promises of a new direction for his country, for change we can believe in, but who many people believe does not have enough expertise to deliver his promises.
That is, in my opinion, perhaps the biggest dilemma voters face. Should they entrust the future of the world’s single largest superpower to a man who knows how to manage a country but in a wrong way, or to a young chap who promises radical change despite his short curriculum vitae?
What Obama says he can do
Barack, in his blueprint for change, promises reform in Washington. He promises to return the government to the American people, where it belongs. He promises that his administration will not be run by corporate lobbyists, and that the people’s voice won’t be drowned. Obama speaks of a more transparent government, so that taxpayers will know how their money is being spent.
The problem is, can Barack deliver these promises? Can he really lead an administration completely devoid of corporate participation? Can he really make the government transparent enough to earn the full trust of the people? At 47, Obama would be a very young—and relatively inexperienced—president. This is where most people get hesitant to put his name on their ballots. Can Barack really lead a world superpower with a resume that, as some people say, can be written on the back of his driver’s license, much less bring about the changes he promises?
What McCain says he will do
John McCain is an entirely different story. He’s 71 years old, at the other end of the chronological spectrum from where Obama is standing. First elected as a congressman for Arizona in 1982—more than a quarter of a century ago!—there is little doubt that he knows the inner workings of a government and, theoretically, would be a more-than-qualified president.
The problem people see with him is his policies. (Read this article from Blanca DeBree.) McCain infamously said a while back that he’d be perfectly fine for the troops to remain in Iraq for a hundred years. That means literally trillions of dollars more in taxpayers’ money better spent in healthcare and education, and thousands more lives better spent alive. He opposes tax cuts for farmers but is all for tax cuts for multi-billion dollar corporations.
McCain has participated in the Vietnam War, narrowly escaping death; he has served as congressman and senator, and would theoretically govern well. In terms of ability to govern, I have little doubt that John McCain is able. With regard to his policies, however, I have a lot to say. America’s been in Iraq for five years—five years too long, in my opinion. Many have voiced their fear that four years of John McCain would be like four years of George Bush, and that for the country to change, it needs a Democrat in the Oval Office.
That Democrat is the neophyte Barack Obama. The Republican: John McCain. It is a difficult choice to make. As for me, I would go with Obama. Why? Barack has been in the Senate, after all, and that has to count for something. He is an advocate of things the whole world wants to see, whereas McCain seems to want to satisfy only the wants of bigwig corporations. I’d rather a fairly good chance of radical and positive change than the certainty of failure and mismanagement.