Election provides no choices

by Jim Allard

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 00:00

Voting involves choice, and choice requires distinction. Is there a choice this election? Are the candidates distinguishable? In part this depends on how narrowly or broadly one evaluates the candidates.

At a certain level McCain and Obama differ on almost every issue. McCain wants to provide tax “incentives” to certain groups, promising to make up the revenue somewhere else. Obama favors taxing different groups and different sources of revenue.

McCain wants to finish the “mission” of bringing democracy to Iraq even if it takes “100 years,” while Obama wants to “promote and spread freedom … dignity and opportunity” throughout the world starting in Afghanistan.

McCain promises to “battle” big-oil, impose cap-and-trade rationing and limit the amount of energy companies are allowed to produce. Obama wants to raise taxes and barriers on oil production while pumping taxpayer money into “alternative,” non-productive energies.

Superficially these positions are different, but fundamentally they amount to the same thing. In terms of their ultimate goals and visions of government, the candidates are in profound agreement.

According to McCain, “The first role of government is to help people who are in crisis or need. That’s why we have government.” Obama too believes government exists to fulfill needs: “Ours is a promise that says government … should … protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”

Despite differing views on narrow policy issues, both McCain and Obama agree in principle. They agree that government should provide for the needy, redistribute wealth, regulate the economy, manipulate behavior through various tax policies and bring freedom and democracy to the world.

Contrast their view of government with that of a former president who declared all men have “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

In fundamental terms, McCain and Obama are united in their opposition to the rights-protecting American system of government and instead favor a welfare state, interventionist government. Why? The answer can be found in another fundamental that both candidates agree on: morality.

Both candidates enshrine sacrifice and service as virtuous, and self-interest as a vice. Living for others is the good, while living for yourself is, at best, an amoral necessity.

Obama says, “We may disagree as Americans on certain issues and positions, but I believe we can be unified in service to a greater good. I intend to make it a cause of my presidency.” McCain agrees, saying, we “must devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests” and that “glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself.”

If you’re looking to government to protect your ability to pursue your own interests and happiness, you won’t find it among these candidates. It’s not your freedom these candidates are pursuing; it’s your sacrifices. And there’s an endless stream of causes ready for you to serve, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

“Every place there’s a hungry child, there’s a cause. Every place there’s a senior without life-saving prescription drugs, there’s a cause. Everywhere there’s a child without education, there’s a cause. Everywhere in the world where there’s ethnic, tribal or age-old hatreds, there’s a cause,” says McCain. Recognize the “call to sacrifice,” Obama declares, and “reaffirm that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.”

The call to service is fundamental to these candidates. We have “obligations toward one another,” Obama says. “I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service. … This will be a cause of my presidency.”

Yes, there are differences between the candidates in how they want to control business, who they want to tax, which sectors of the economy they want to grant special favors to and which warring tribes they will send our soldiers to pacify. But these differences are mere details in comparison to what unites them.

In terms of fundamentals, they are soul mates, dedicated not to individual freedom, but to service and sacrifice to a “higher cause.” Both candidates champion government as a provider and savior, and you as a selfless servant and keeper of every brother and sister here or around the globe.

This election, instead of laboring over which candidate is the lesser of two evils, I encourage everyone to discover the basic ideas animating our politics. Put your effort into learning and promoting the right ideas. Ultimately voting is irrelevant — it’s ideas that move the world.

Jim Allard (jeallard@wisc.edu) is a graduate student studying biological sciences.