The election of a president is an unusual decision in an American's life. Most important decisions are made regarding certain interests in the hopes of achieving some certain path?who we date, what career path we take, etc. And, further, we make these decisions as an individual with a great deal of autonomy. A presidential election is different. Each person's vote is one among millions. We have relatively little control over the outcome, and although the actual election is quickly determined, the consequences cannot be evaluated for decades. In short, the most American behavior is also the most speculative. My gut tells me to vote one way, but as Rob Gordon famously said in High Fidelity, "My guts have shit for brains." We cannot possibly know for whom we should vote.
So, how the hell do we vote? Good question. Many Americans vote along party lines. For a one-issue voter, party loyalty works; for others, it doesn't. The Republican Party of today, which has expanded the Executive significantly and practiced a wholly anti-isolationist foreign policy, looks nothing like it did even 20 years ago. Parties change, and party loyalty ultimately has little to do with liberal or conservative ideology. So, I will first suggest that if you vote entirely along party lines, do so by accident.
Next, I will contend that "issues" are also a problematic justification for a vote. Consider Al Gore. The 2000 champion of nation building has been an outspoken critic of the largest exercise of nation building ever. Candidates, like any person, have one position among friends, another in primaries, another during the campaign, and still another in office. Voting on the positions listed on a candidate's web site is not a great basis for deciding one's vote.
What we must do, instead, is consider what policies the candidates hold most deeply, because these will serve as the grounds for action while in office. Before a person expresses a view, unless he is terribly imprudent, he considers his audience. A person will be most candid when among friends and family. Accordingly, we ought to consider the home and social life of a candidate above all else when judging his actual beliefs.
Let's apply this rubric to the focal point of this election, Barack Obama. Obama's moments of candor are notably few and far between. He considers his audience. His books leave out whole years of his life, and they have a massive audience. It is difficult to consider his books as a genuine window into the man's soul. At the University of Chicago, Obama was notorious for not taking a strong position, for he is a prudent man indeed. In Hyde Park, Obama associated with members of the far left, attending meetings, dinner parties and banquets with various problematic figures. The McCain campaign has famously said that he "pals around with terrorists." I would hardly call these incidents "palling around." For such a prudent man, we can safely assume that Obama did not sit around making Molotov Cocktails with Bill Ayers.
What we can assume, however, is that Obama has some affinity for the far left. Obama clearly did not consider these men too radical, too distasteful, or too unreasonable. Perhaps he does not think they are radical at all. His whole adult life has been spent in the company of academics and far-left liberals (often a hazy distinction). He has sympathies for these views, which means he, at least in part, agrees with them.
We ought to consider statements about redistribution of wealth, statements about the value of making up for mistakes in Iraq, and loyalties to anti-American (Ayers, Wright) radicals quite seriously. The McCain campaign has failed miserably to show the relevance of these associations. But they are the most relevant source for judgment on Obama.
Having endured this evaluative procedure, I will offer just another voter's conclusions. Obama is not anti-American. Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright are. One can consider their ideologies without absorbing them, but sympathy for such extreme views makes less radical views seem reasonable, even true. A pro-American but still far left ideology can be bad for America, its future, and for the world. This writer's contention is that Obama, deep down, holds such views.
We could dismiss this argument if Obama had actively dissented from the out-of-touch and extreme liberalism of academia or these radical associates, but he hasn't. He is poised to become the most liberal American president with a wholly Democratic Congress. A serious evaluation of far left ideology is impossible here, but I will venture to say that it will be radical change; change is not in itself good, and this could become quite clear in the years to come. We should absolutely esteem Obama and honor his accomplishments... all while voting against him.
Ben Stern is a member of the Class of 2009.