It looks obvious

Alisa’s disagreement with my assessment about McCain is a good reason to look at the remaining candidates and start theorizing who is the leaser evil. We can assume, with high level of certainty that the major parties candidates will be Obama and McCain and that two additional recognize candidates will be Ralph Nader and Bob Barr for the LP. This is a rather depressing list of candidates for me, where even the presumed libertarian candidate is basically a social conservative, which prevent me from the luxury of ideological, or protest, vote. I will not support, nor vote, for any of the candidates this election because I came to conclusion that voting for the leaser evil is a waste of a vote. However, the question which of the two major candidates is potentially less offensive is still worth exploring.

McCain is a very interesting candidate. His ability to attract the anti-war votes in NH is still a mystery to me. He has a pretty solid record of voting for balanced budget, controlled spending and opposing tax increases which mark him on the side of fiscal conservatives. However, this should not confuse us with the illusion that McCain is a “small government” supporter. His record indicates that he, very much like Hillary Clinton, believes in efficient government rather than small government. His voting record, his public statements and the initiatives he took over the years are clear demonstration of increasing the role of the federal government and limiting individual liberties. The famous Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feinglod act, is a clear example of his willingness to limit the freedom of speech (and make it harder for political competition) in favor of regulating behavior. McCain willingness to expand the role of the federal government, regulate behavior and social interactions, such as professional sport, is a clear indication that McCain is not a pro-liberty candidate.

My major opposition to McCain foreign policy agenda isn’t his position on the war in Iraq, or even on the approach he advocate to fight terrorism. What truly worries me is that McCain genuinely believe that in national greatness and greater good. It is not a hockish, but realistic, approach for use of power to achieve national interest goals, which one can argue with, but rather an ideological approach for spreading Americas goodness that is scary. It is the true ideology driven, rather than sober cynical politician, that is more dangerous.

It is the core ideology of McCain, in which he genuinely believe and advocate for, which should make us worry. His believe that individual should subject their interest for some greater good. No, he is not a socialist but the subjecting individual freedom for the collective interest is bad policy regardless its tag name:

“serving a cause greater than self-interest.”

[…]

“We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,” Mr. McCain warned in a speech during his 2000 presidential campaign. He added that “cynicism threatens to become a ceiling on our greatness.”

Obama is in many ways an enigma. His public image heavily marketed by his campaign, and by his opponents, is misleading. Obama, unlike the annoying, yet effective, slogan of change and unlike the claim that he is the most liberal, which is to mean socialist, member of the house is actually a main stream politician. The list of issues and policies that makes Obama a non-starter for me is very long. But it is the fact that he is a mainstream politician, even more than his saner foreign policy, that makes him less alarming candidate.

McCain, very much like Clinton and Chaney, is goal driven and the process is subject to achieving those goals. Obama, on the other hand, made the process his campaign main issue. I wrote in the past about the importance of the rules of the game in maintaing liberal-democracy, Obama, the politician and the Presidential candidate, seems more likely to preserve them.