I had a chat with my conservative brother. The thing about my brother is, while he has a good head on his shoulders -- very smart, web developer, high IQ... His beliefs in the "conservative core principles" are rock-solid and unwavering.
I wanted to know why...
See, for the life of me, I personally cannot fathom as to why ANYBODY who is a) paying attention and b) has greater than a room-temperature IQ, would ever want to vote for a McCain/Palin ticket after the past 8 years of failed Bush policies. I just don't understand it.
My brother and I share the same temperament -- we keep out cool, and try to be open-minded to the other person's point of view. Yet, we both take pride in our opinions and how they tie into our current suite of knowledge. Debating politics is a form of pleasure for both of us, and between us, it never lends itself to hostility.
I know my brother listens to talk-radio on his hour-long commute every day -- talking heads such as Rush, Hannity and Savage. Basically one-sided 3-hour hit pieces on the opposing party and the regurgitation of your party's talking points. If anything will rot your brain, talk radio in its current form is it.
As such, we dived straight into the meat and potatoes: Obama's character.
1) He brought up Jeremiah Wright. He argued that a) Jeremiah Wright's radicalism must have been known and shared by Obama for him to attend that church for so long, b) if Obama really WAS oblivious to Wright's radicalism, he's a poor judge of character, and c) Obama's denouncement of Wright was purely for political reasons.
This is a tough argument for me to repel, just because I got sick of the Wright fiasco long ago. However, I did my best, and argued that people in positions of respect are very good at hiding their more sinister ideas from the public domain. Obama was a friend and confidant of Jeremiah Wright, but Wright really showed his true colors when he went in front of the press, took a position of radicalism, and demeaned Obama's character in the limelight. A man seeking his 15 minutes of fame, and he got it.
2) He brought up Obama's experience. He argued that a) Obama lacks 'executive' experience of Palin, b) Obama served for a very short period of time in the Senate, c) he belitted Obama's experience as a 'Community Organizer,' and d) acknowledge Palin's lack of experience, but that she's 'not running for President, Obama is, and Palin has about the same experience as Obama'
I responded by pointing out that McCain lacks the same aforementioned 'executive experience'; additionally, Obama's resume trounces Palin's resume in almost every regard -- a small town mayor (turned 2-year Governor) versus Illinois State State Senate (turned 4-year Senator) is a stark contrast in regards to attacking real issues. As a mayor, Palin also lacks a host of National Security experience. Additionally, I acknowledge that McCain has more "experience" than Obama, but lacks the judgment that I personally weigh heavier than experience. Lapses in his judgment can go from supporting the War in Iraq to picking Palin as his VP.
Lastly, his 'Community Organizing' is an extremely unselfish thing that he did in his life, for three long hard years, before even graduating from Harvard Law School -- helping to organize people in his community to make a difference in others' lives.
3) He brought up Obama's "shadier" ties, including Ayers, part of the Weathermen underground that 'wanted to bomb' the pentagon and other federal buildings in the sixties, and came out on 9/11 to 'wish he hadn't done more'
I argued that a) Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was part of the Weathermen, b) Ayers never actually bombed anything -- he turned himself in and was never convicted, c) the article that 'came out on 9/11' was merely 'published on 9/11,' when those statements were made, 9/11 hadn't happened yet, and d) the only 'connection' between Ayers and Obama is that they served on the eight-person Woods Fund Board and a $200 contribution by Ayers; Ayers is a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. 'Guilt by association' lends itself to exaggeration and grasping at straws.
Then, we delved straight into the issues:
1) My brother believes that a) Government = bureaucratic, inefficient, loophole-ridden, and wasteful, b) Corporations = lean, efficient, create innovation through competition.
I argued that government programs are only as good as its leadership; while it's true that many government programs suffer from bloat and inefficiency, those things CAN be fixed and CAN be reformed. I argued that education and health care should NOT be a privilege for the wealthy; that basic humans services should be working FOR the people, not merely competing for the most profit.
He retorted, claiming that innovation (ie: our pharmaceutical industry) was the trademark of our current health-care system -- which, by the way, is the envy of the world... And that drugs that are so cheap from Canada are so cheap because they simply use drugs developed in America and don't give the proper royalties and patent-rights to American companies.
I counter-retorted, arguing that the health care system in its current state is broken; drug money goes to innovation, yes, but also to advertising -- taxing the current system by creating a 'demand' for drugs by trying to make people think they're suffering from everything under the sun. "Ask your doctor for..." is the problem, not the solution. If we put the money that is currently being invested by pharmaceutical companies to create necessary drugs to save lives (ie: NOT Viagra), couldn't we then achieve the same rate of innovation, if not higher? The only difference, the research would be done by universities -- by students, at a much cheaper cost.
He, again, counter-counter-retorted, arguing that competition for health insurance keeps the price-tag low and the quality of care high. He pointed out that, by opening up state lines and allowing people to 'shop' for cheaper medical care from other states would drastically lower costs -- that government, in this case, is the problem because it imposed such draconian restrictions
I counter-counter-counter-retorted, pointing out that insurance companies have to follow laws for the state they practice in. Some states offer protection from higher premiums to those who have pre-existing conditions, for example, making it much cheaper for them -- raising the price of insurance for everyone a little to provide coverage to more people that actually need it. I think that's a good thing, as a human being, in helping those less fortunate than yourself.
Pure capitalism lends itself to a further division of the poor and the rich. Pure socialism lends itself to closing the gap between the poor and the rich -- neither in their extremes are good for the country. However, basic human services should be governed so that human needs are not exploited for profit, bringing our society down a notch by not caring for those who he truly need help.
There was more to the debate, but my fingers are getting tired. I honestly think that, some day, I'll be able to break through to my brother... He's a victim of bias in the media; the recipient of conservative talk-show propaganda for more than a decade. He's a very intelligent guy, and that's scary how smart people can be taken down by, in my opinion, almost criminal misinformation.
Thanks for reading.