It was a beautiful sight; that of the West End of the United States Capitol and along the National Mall on the morning of January 20th. 2 million cheering Americans, a black man inaugurated as the President of the United States, the possibility of a new beginning. And while I suspect that I am significantly  to the right on the political spectrum of most of the 2 million spectators, it was one of those rare moments in United States history which make your hair stand on end no matter where you are on the spectrum because January 20th was, in a way John F Kennedy could have imagined when he intoned those words in 1961, a “celebration of freedom.” 

I would have preferred that it was John Sidney McCain III, a man I have the utmost respect for, the Obama that Chief Justice Roberts swore in, but posterity will record that it was Barack Hussein Obama who was sworn in as President of the United States and it will be the former Barry Soetoro who will be the Commander-in-Chief of a country I both love and revere. I don’t think he was the right choice; above all, I have my doubts over his political courage although his cabinet picks have given me some pause at least. But I cannot claim to love a country and then denounce the choice of a majority of its voting electorate. In 1933 while the Great Depression was ravaging through the United States, the minority leader Betrand Snell said to his fellow Republicans, “the house is burning down and the President of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire.” It is in that same spirit that while I’m not going to join the “Yes We Can” brigade just yet, that I can say that I’m supporting the President of the United States. 

So it is then, as I always thought it would be although I daren’t admit it; Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States and for the first time since Bill Clinton’s inaugural in 1992, America will see the Democrats control two out of the three arms of government. To say I’m gutted would be an understatement, although right now, more than a full week on, I feel more for Senator John McCain- a man who has given everything to his country only to see the insane left savage him and his nation reject him by a greater majority than George W Bush earned in 2004- than anything else. To underscore this, it took me until today before I could watch Obama’s “change is coming” speech but beyond the moping, the only thing the GOP can do now is to rebuild. Off the top of my head, here are 3 things that really need to be done.

1.) A revival of compassionate conservatism
George W. Bush ran on the platform of compassionate conservatism in 2000 and the subsequent failure of his administration has led to the phrase becoming taboo- on the left for warped governance and on the right for embracing big government- but the only way the GOP can capture the White House in 2012 and both Houses of Congress before that would be by making itself relevant to Main Street again. This does not mean embracing the big government ethos of Dubya (see the 2003 Medicare Drug Bill- the largest expansion of federal government since the Great Society) but making sure the principles of conservative government- individual liberty and responsibility- sound and relevant once more. The Republican party will always be the party of business but that needn’t be a disadvantage- as Calvin Coolidge once quipped “the business of America is business.”

2.) A more moderate and inclusive conservatism
The Republican Convention in September, massive success as it was, cannot be said to be a microcosm of the United States of America. The paucity of minority races was resonating by their absence alone and more than anything, the GOP today is identified with Southern rednecks and Christian right nutheads. This needn’t be the case. And although John McCain failed to win the White House and floundered miserably in the Hispanic vote despite his brave championship of immigration reform, his choice of Sarah Palin might be his greatest legacy yet in this area. Although the liberal MSM won’t tell you, with his pick McCain has elevated an entire generation of young Republicans over the heads of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney to be next in line to the nomination- from Charlie Crist of Florida, to Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (my personal favorite) and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and of course, America’s Hockey Mom- the list goes on. But what is unique amongst these young reformers that makes them distinct is their reluctance to use issues such as abortion and gay marriage as wedge issues. Although The Economist will tell you (with some justification) that the pick of Palin was to shore up the base and use the above-mentioned issues as dividers, the truth was that this GOP Convention was the first since 1992 when Pat Buchanan gave his famous “culture war” speech, where gay bashing wasn’t an issue. As governor of Alaska, Palin vetoed an anti-gay rights bill as unconstitutional, something that once more the liberal MSM barely harped on. This doesn’t mean abandoning our traditional protection of a baby’s right to live or family values, but reflects an ability to talk about issues intelligently without smearing the other side as “babykillers”. The growing Hispanic immigrant population in the United States will change its demographics entirely- they also happen to be socially and entrepreneurially conservative. If the GOP can seize this, the permanent governing majority that was hailed with Dubya’s second victory might come into fruition.

3.) Paying more attention to the image of conservatism
The GOP scoffed when Obama drew 200,000 to the streets of Berlin and complaints about the unfairness of the liberal MSM have been around as long as since Nixon was running for the Vice Presidency with Eisenhower and both grouses are just. But conservatives haven’t done much about their image. It always stuns me at how self-insulating the conservative media powerhouses of FOX News and The Weekly Standard are. You can watch hours of FOX and not be aware that there is a world outside of the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and occasionally France. As above, this doesn’t mean giving up the GOP belief in American exceptionalism but embracing the fact that in different ways, the world can be remade to some extent in America’s image. With regards to the media, it could mean either combating the likes of MSNBC and The New York Times in their own field (the GOP is the party of business after all…) or speaking above their heads as Reagan did so effectively.

This list is by no means exhaustive but whether we embrace the above principles or not, could see whether Obama’s victory translates into one ala FDR’s in 1932 or more reminiscent of Johnson in ‘64 and Clinton in ‘92. In the words of Britain’s Iron Lady after the Conservative Party’s defeat in 1997, “the fightback starts now.”

Election day tomorrow and if you haven’t made up your mind already, this might help.

On November 4th, America will have the unique opportunity of electing an All-American war hero who has for his entire life put his country first into the Oval Office. That man is Senator John McCain of Arizona and Americans should seize what will probably turn out to be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to place who has arguably been one of the greatest Senators in modern history where he belongs.

John McCain’s life-story is an American story (this is not to say that Obama’s cosmopolitan upbringing makes him any less American). His redemption from a petulant flyboy in the US Navy Academy into a Commander of one of the US Navy’s top squadrons, as well as his comeback from being a 2000 Republican has-been into 2008’s nominee is emblemic of the transformative quality of America- how you can be whoever or whatever you want to be as long as you put your mind to it. Senator McCain’s refusal for early release due to his father’s admiral status is also symbolic of the self-sacrificial nature of Americans. Barack Obama was right in 2004 when he said that “I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper”; where he erred was in his belief that it was the Federal government’s duty to enforce it. The tale of how he turned down the opportunity to come home out of respect for his fellow prisoners of war and a refusal to humiliate his country is tear-jerking but more importantly, as Governor Palin rightly noted, shows how in this very election he is the only one who has truly fought for America.

The question however lies not just in personality politics but how Senator McCain will confront the challenges that face America. Is he a Cold Warrior or a man capable of adapting to the new obstacles in the 21st century? With the financial crisis unfolding on Wall Street coupled with the success of the January 2007 surge of troops into Iraq, foreign policy has taken a backburner in this election. From an electoral perspective, that is a pity for Senator McCain but Americans need to think beyond the here and now. Just because the Dow fluctuates 500 points in a day does not mean that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and Kim Jong-Ils of the world take a vacation from being a threat to America and the world at large. The foreign policy lesson of the Great Depression is that the negative isms- fascism and communism- thrive in times of economic difficulty. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is (rightly) ranked as one of the greatest Presidents in American history but one of the blotches on his record is surely how Adolf Hitler came to power and millions became enslaved by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin during his time in the West Wing.

With John McCain around, that will not happen. This is a man who will not sacrifice American values and let the likes of Medvedev and Kim Jong-Il muck around in defiance of democratic norms. His record speaks of prescience in loud volumes, from opposing President Reagan’s ill-fated deployment of troops to Beirut in 1982 to his support for David Petraeus and the surge in Iraq, Americans know that when push comes to shove, John McCain is the right man, the only man to lead America in the quest to defeat Al-Qaeda and redeem its reputation in the world.

What then about bread and butter matters, an area where Senator Obama is supposed to be advantaged as the Democratic Party’s nominee? McCain’s strong suit is not economics but with the economy being an impossible concept to grasp, the more important and telling question is really, what is the President’s world view? Senator McCain believes in the free trade that has seen increases in employment in the United States and the tax cuts that will see the federal government take less and the Joe the Plumbers of America keep more of the money they earn. Joe Wurzelbacher’s conversation was Obama was telling because it brought to light the income redistribution ideology that lies behind the junior Senator from Illinois. As the Wall Street Journal has explained numerous times in its op-ed pages, the 95% tax cut (when 40% if Americans don’t pay income taxes) is really Robin Hoodian redistribution under a facade.

The problem here however is that America did not become great by “spreading the wealth around.” From its earliest days when the settlers shifted westward in pursuit of their Manifest Destiny, America became the richest, most prosperous nation in the world not by sharing the pot but by increasing it. While it is no doubt tempting to be offered something for nothing in a time for great fiscal difficulty, the American ethos that has served the country so well is that there is no such thing as a free lunch and sensible Americans know that.

Conservatives has spent the years since 1988 looking for a new Ronald Reagan, a “Great Communicator” capable of ensuring the thriving of conservatism in the United States. But as Reagan himself said, he was only Teflon Ron because he was “communicating great things.” In John Sidney McCain III, Americans have a man in a similar mould to Reagan in that he believes to a fault that America is a “shining city on a hill”, the greatest nation on Earth built on an unshakeable belief in the democratic capitalism that made America great.

That is why this blog endorses the senior Senator from Arizona’s bid for the White House.

Given that John McCain has spent his entire career as a moderate Republican who has dared to reach across the line (for all of the Democratic Party’s stupid and frankly outright false and offensive bid to caricature him as McSame/ McBush- try harder with Mitt Romney next time), it’s hardly surprising that with the exception of Senator McCain’s reference at Friday evening’s debate to Barack Obama’s record as 2007’s most liberal senator, this debate has been largely absent of the conservative v. liberal partisan cultural war that has existed covertly since the times of Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” but was only dragged out into the light at Pat Buchanan’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention in 1992.

All well and good perhaps that the tone of this election has been, policy wise more congenial, as even The New Republic’s James Kirchick has noted, especially with regards to gay rights. But without the more vicious trappings of a culture war, we’ve been left without a thorough examination of the political philosophies (related but somewhat distinct from policies) of both candidates- in particular that of Senator Obama, who after all has spent less than a full term in the United States Senate. That has at least contributed to the party I used to support nominating, at Fred Thompson intoned at his opening address some weeks ago “the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President.”

The danger here then lies in the fact that even many of Obama’s exuberant supporters don’t really know what he stands for outside of tokenistic placeholders like “hope” and “change”. America knew what she was getting into when Bill Clinton ran as a New Democrat in 1992; his philosophy (however loosely defined it was) was that of the Third Way movement that would draw left-leaning parties into the centre, with the epitome of it being manifested by the signing and ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement during his Administration. It was the same as when George W. Bush ran for office in 2000 in the mould of a “compassionate conservative”, with the implicit assumption behind the first part of the term that he would expand federal government- in some ways we could have expected and in others we didn’t.

Obamabots will no doubt try to defend their candidate as a pragmatist and lambast conservatives for being unable or unwilling to recognize their candidate as a centrist (who voted with Nancy Pelosi 96% of the time- yeah right), capable of shedding his cloak of political ideology to adjust according to reality. The problem with centrism, especially of such a vacuous kind that is not really rooted in anything at all, is that when push comes to shove, you don’t really know where your Commander-in-Chief stands. But from what we do know of Obama, the prognosis is far worse than that.

But what do we know about John McCain? His political philosophy, honed by the battlefields of Vietnam in terms of foreign policy and under the tutelage of individuals like his mentor John Tower and alongside the friendship of work-along-the-aisle politicians like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, might not be of the small government variety that has characterized the Republican Party since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 that was successfully carried out by Ronald Reagan, but it is still of a limited government kind at home, and of a Theodore Roosevelt-esque American greatness nationalism abroad.

This translates into a willingness to use the fist of the federal government at home, but in limited (albeit greater than the restrictions called for by staid conservatism) circumstances. His voting record is testimony to this- a refusal to support Dubya’s 2004 prescription drug benefits plan (the largest expansion of federal government since Lyndon Johnson), a refusal to endorse ethanol subsidies for rich farmers in Iowa, yet a willingness for example, to pay for the high start-up costs of nuclear power. When it comes to affairs away from home, he is characterized by the belief that has stemmed from Jefferson through both Roosevelts and Reagan, that American values are not exclusive to her nor the West and Japan, but inalienable rights that all of mankind should enjoy- witness the support for interventions in Kosovo in the 1990s, the Second Gulf War and the like. This is tempered with realism having emerged from the forests of Vietnam when realpolitik was being practiced with Nixon & Kissinger in the White House and Creighton Abrams in charge of the war to never engage in conflict with insufficient troops or a mandate- see his calls for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld louder than almost anyone else.

So although the Obama-Biden camp refuses to admit it and paleocons won’t like it, we know what the Grand Old Party’s nominee stands for. It turns out that Obama’s political philosophy is not as ambiguous after all and herein is where it’s dangerous because it’s rooted fundamentally in collectivism. It stems from Obama’s much-vaunted days as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a community organizer- even though I fail to understand how it qualifies as suitable executive experience (more on that another time)- but its roots lie in collectivism- others being responsible for you. As expected the Obama-Biden camapaign has talked up community organizing as being bottom-up action to respond to out of touch politicians (like John McCain, they insinuate) but Obama’s work was for taxpayer-funded, left-leaning organizations.

An examination of his already thin voting record only reinforces the belief that this man could be the most leftist (note not even liberal, but leftist) candidate that the party of Jefferson and Clinton has put up on the ballot since George McGovern in 1972 (and we all know how that turned out). Obama is not “change we can believe in”, but a throwback to old school Democratic politics that has led to only 2 of the last Presidents in the last 4 decades hailing from that party. Even then, both of them- Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992- came into office running outside of the machinery. In Chicago, the candidate of change didn’t speak out against the excesses of the Daley machine. In the Illinois State legislature, the candidate who claims to straddle the divide voted against giving healthcare to babies who survived botched abortions- a stand so far to the left that it doesn’t appear even appear in mainstream Democratic circles. What ever happened to Bill Clinton’s “tragic choice”?

His record in the United States Senate (and also his run for the Presidency, given how he essentially began preparing for running the moment he took the oath of office) shores up the charges of collectivization and old school Chicago Democratic politics as his root philosophy once again. The candidate who claims to speak for middle America voted this year for the ethanol subsidies package that Senator McCain opposed that would have aided the richest farmers in America (including interestingly Iowa- the first Caucus state) with their farm produce at the expense of the poor at home and abroad. The candidate who argues that he represents “change we can believe in”, stood mute as John McCain charged that he would expand the federal government in a time of financial tumult to the tune of $800 billion. When asked by Jim Lehrer in last Friday’s debate what programmes he would cut, the Senator from Illinois instead talked about the federal programmes he would expand. He doesn’t even pass the litmus test for being a pro-growth Democrat, wanting to “re-negotiate” NAFTA despite it being clear that the policy has driven growth in trade for the 3 North American nations, while providing jobs at home as well. For those clutching on to the belief that Barack is a realist capable of responding to real world situations, explain his willingness to lose in Iraq given all the gains since the surge began in early 2007. This is a man wedded to blind left-leaning ideology.

FA Hayek gave warning in the 1940s that when the face of collectivism reared its ugly head, it would do so with a pretty face. Barack Obama is that face. The liberal mainstream media won’t tell you this, but this is not the change we need.

Given how the CNN-Youtube debate during the Republican Primaries last year led to me deciding to support the then-floundering campaign of candidate John McCain, I looked forward with some aplomb to this morning’s showdown between Barry Soetoro and the Senator from Arizona.

McCain entered the debate in Ole Miss with greater need than Senator Obama for a victory, with his post-convention bounce having been turned to the negatives, with the financial meltdown on Wall Street doing the GOP not much good (funny how in times of a crisis caused by the government, people look to more government- but more on that later). I don’t think Sen. McCain achieved a resounding win over the most liberal member of the United States Senate, but I think given the less time he had to prepare due to his later-revised decision to suspend his campaign in midweek and the addition of some economics issues to the debate, he still managed to do pretty well and come out with his nose out front.

People like to talk about how Barack Hussein Obama is in the legion of great communicators alongside Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Clinton but in interviews and his spars with Senator Clinton, it’s quite evident that he comes across a lot less smooth without the teleprompter and he got showed up this morning. Obama came across as sufficiently knowledgeable but he sounded more like a college professor- disinvested from the issues at hand. Perhaps style wise McCain has the advantage partially because of lower expectations but a bad day in the office for John McCain in that department is rarely that terrible, simply because his speaking style is conversational rather than the heart thumping “we are the ones we have been waiting for” rhetoric that you expect from Soetoro. But what I believe gave McCain the advantage was that he appeared more invested about the issues- for him the success of the surge is a matter of honour fostered from the battlefields of Vietnam, for Obama it’s a political problem. It seemed somewhat similar with Georgia, with McCain’s friendship with President Saakashvili leading him to care more about Russia rearing an aggressive head in that particular region.

Obama also appeared to lost frame control in the 90 minute session moderated by PBS’ Jim Lehrer. The Democratic advantage on the financial crisis turned out to be watered away when McCain managed to successfully turn the issue into one of spending. Obama’s record of requesting almost US$1 million for every day he’s spent in the Senate, left him needing to respond to that rather than reinforce his advantage. He came across looking like a follower with his 7 or 8s “I think John is right” and his copy-cat reference to how he wore an army bracelet was cringe-worthy. John McCain can play the veteran card because of his war hero status, Barry Soetoro looks like a tool when he talks about how he nearly signed up for the United States military.

Of course McCain let Obama get away with populist rhetoric numerous times, notably on oil companies and taxes and the polls will still probably put Barry Soetoro ahead but with a strong-ish performance last night, the faux Presidential seal still looks like a faux pas.

Well first it was the Presidential seal, then the Bono-esque trip to Berlin, and finally the Greek Deity-like temple last Thursday. Now, they’ve begun attacking Sarah Palin for her lack of foreign policy credentials and experience.

Here’s Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) at a rally in Pensylvannia:

“John McCain chooses someone who is a mayor of a town of 7,000 people, then was elected governor, has been governor of a state for 18 months, a governor of a state that has half the population of Franklin County and yet she is going to be a heartbeat away from president.”

and here’s Obama spokesman Bill Burton immediately after the pick of Palin, a statement Barack Hussein Obama later tried to disassociate himself with:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.

The first thing that the Dems need to decide on is what exactly is the population of Wasilla, Alaska. A simple Google search (which the party of the candidate who wants to mock Sen. McCain for being old and out of touch can’t seem to get right) will give you the City of Wasilla’s website which lists it at 6,715. Secondly, can anyone blame me if I think this sounds like typical East Coast liberal snobbery against the supposedly gun and religion toting rural working class America that both Obama and Senator McCain need so desperately to win on November 4th?

I also can’t help thinking that attacking Palin for her experience, or lack thereof in BHO’s surrogate’s views, is semi-suicidal. First of, the McCain caveat with experience has always been that experience matters- but good judgement within that experience as well. In her two years as Governor, Sarah Palin has spoken out against corruption, broken away with her State GOP and worked across the aisle. Obama’s supporters tote, as perhaps his most notable effort, work on a nuclear disarmament bill. I’m sorry but I hardly see that as political courage- on the sliding scale, it probably ranks a bit harder than passing a bill declaring Apple Pie an American cultural good.

More importantly however, each time the pundits go on a roll about experience (by the way Palin has 200% more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined) they remind the voters that Barack Obama has barely that many more years than Palin. Significantly, Obama’s heading the ticket, the Alaskan governor isn’t. Of course, the Obama campaign can keep insinuating that McCain is an old man, but that too keeps in the picture, Obama’s youth and inexperience.

On a final note, it’s fascinating how their constant line of attack at the Denver Convention was how John McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time. First of all, that doesn’t tell the whole story- does a vote dedicating a stadium to a winning football team really mean anything? On numerous major issues- immigration, global warming, campaign finance reform- John McCain has shown tremendous courage in defying his party to do what he believes is right. But then, let’s give the Dems the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does matter. Well here’s something, for you- Barack Obama (he who talks about a “post-partisan future”) is not only the Senator with the most liberal voting record in 2007, but is also the 11th most partisan Senator in the US Congress, voting with Nancy Pelosi (who leads a Congress with half the approval ratings of the President by the way) an astonishing (gasp) 96% of the time! His running mate Joe Biden (he who lives in Washington but supposedly hasn’t been transformed by it) is (oh the shit shock horror!) the 6th most partisan Senator, going the way of Edward M. Kennedy and Harry Reid 96.6% of the time. When the McCain campaign gets US$84 million later this week, they really need to run an advert tying Sen. Obama to Speaker Pelosi. Maybe the Obama campaign can try again. Oh wait, the candidate who promises an end to “politics as usual” will probably be too busy attending another fundraiser with Jennifer Aniston and Eddie Murphy.