Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Most of the political news of the last two days has been about the battle between John McCain and Mitt Romney to win the Michigan Republican primary. A typical example is this Fox News story:
"Rival Economic Policies, Personal Outlooks Distinguish GOP Michigan Race", FoxNews.com, 1/14/08
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/romney-pledges-to-help-michiganders-survive-one-state-recession/

While I realize I'm somewhat biased, being a Giuliani supporter, I'm really a supporter of good government, of classical liberal free-market principles, and of liberty (including keeping religion and government quite separate). I'm also an ardent opponent of junk science (especially when it is used as a tool to extract higher taxes from us) and of government "investment" in science, particularly the types of science that can be done well by private enterprise and would be done privately even without the government redistribution from taxpayers to those companies.

So, Michigan is a tale of two fairly bad candidates for me. (Or three if you include Huckabee who I believe was fairly accurately described by Richard Viguerie as a "Christian socialist".)

John McCain was recently asked how he would get more evangelicals to support him and he answered that evangelicals were coming around to his view on the imminent danger posed by global warming and their religious duty to protect the planet.

In this answer, McCain violates my problems with mixing government and religion as well as using junk science to pander for votes and eventually for our money...meanwhile, we're probably closer to going into the next ice age than having the planet seriously damaged by warmth.

I already have put McCain in the "unforgivable" category for the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act or, as Newt Gingrich calls it, the Citizenship Suppression Act.

And although I don't think McCain will get the nomination, he's not nearly as dead as I (and everyone else) had thought a couple of months ago. This leaves me wondering whom I would vote for if the election were between McCain and Clinton (or any Democrat, since I find the current crop all about equally repellent.) While I'd like to think I'd vote against Clinton, I truly don't think I could in good conscience vote for McCain.

And other than his impressive steadfast views on cutting spending and on the "surge" in Iraq, his answers aren't getting any better. Indeed, I asked him about McCain-Feingold in person several weeks ago and he was absolutely unapologetic; he simply believes there should be further restrictions put in place to plug the law's unintended consequences (such as 527s).

I've approved somewhat more of Mitt Romney since his entrance into the race, although I didn't think he was as likely to get the nomination as many of my friends thought. But as time goes on, I like him less and less as well.

He seems increasingly slick, packaged, willing and able to say just about anything, including the boneheaded claim to have seen his father march with Martin Luther King Jr.

But beyond that, I don't believe he has a real fundamental grounding in and understanding of classical liberal principles. I'm a fan of business...big or small...and of anybody who can become very successful without cheating. But business, especially Romney's sort of business, is substantially about playing the game of politics, manipulating systems, etc. And I don't blame them for doing what they can. But it doesn't mean he necessarily bleeds laissez-faire.

In almost every debate, he's talked about "tax relief for the middle class". This is language fit for a Democrat, not a fiscal conservative. What exactly is the middle class? Who draws the line? And does Romney have any idea what a small percentage of tax revenue is paid by the people that most of us consider to be "middle class"? Instead of using subtle class envy language, Romney and any other candidate who claims to be a fiscal conservative should be emphasizing that every cut in marginal income tax rates has resulted in a more progressive tax system. To be very clear, I hate the word "progressive" as penalizing success doesn't really seem like progress to me.

As mentioned the article I noted above, Romney also called for "increasing funding five-fold — from $4 billion dollars to $20 billion dollars — in national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology." With the massive boom in the price of alternative energy stocks, including some that are not yet profitable and may never be, why would taxpayer money be spent on such things when clearly there are billions of private dollars willing and able to fund energy research? Don't forget, today's $20 billion "investment" will inevitably mean a $200 billion commitment a decade later.

In another politically popular bit of pandering, Romney calls for higher pay for teachers...as if teacher pay is a real factor in our country's educational problems. No, we have a more than adequate supply of teachers. The problems come from not being able to fire bad teachers and from (mostly minority urban) parents not taking enough interest in their children's educations or not having enough education themselves to be able to help.

I'm all for merit pay for teachers...supported by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats because it would tend to slightly reduce the wealth of teachers' unions. But simply saying teachers don't make enough belies basic market economics. If teachers didn't make enough, we wouldn't have enough of them, yet we do have enough. If you dig further into the issue, you must keep in mind how many weeks or months a year teachers have off as well as the big benefits, pensions, and job security. If you include total compensation as well as assigning some value to intangibles, teachers are highly paid indeed.

So, Michigan comes down to a race between candidates who are very shaky on what should be fundamental principles of government and economics.

This is part of the reason I think, and I hope, that Rudy's campaign strategy will in two weeks end up looking much smarter than many currently believe, especially with recent news reports of the campaign being short on cash despite having spent relatively little on early primaries. While I have concern about the "baggage" from Rudy's personal life, I get more convinced with each passing week that the only candidates who have a sound philosophical basis for most of their positions are Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I'd prefer Rudy. Also, I believe he's more electable and could put some blue states in play...very important in the next election. Still, if Thompson could someone gain a burst of speed much as McCain did, and eventually win the nomination, that would be fine with me.

If Huckabee became the GOP nominee, I'd vote for the Democrat. If McCain is the nominee, I'll probably vote Libertarian. I'll vote for any of the other Republicans, including Romney, but I hope the GOP doesn't give me a candidate I have to hold my nose to support.