Is it better for the Republican Party if Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wins? An increasing amount of evidence suggests that it may just be.
Presidential nominee John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin epitomize mediocrity in the Republican Party. Both are highly inarticulate, personality-driven politicians. The former is the GOP's least-forceful defender of capitalist principles since, well, President Bush, while the latter is simply an embarrassment.
McCain-Palin would represent a profound shift to the left for the Republican Party. The party of classical liberal principles - meritocracy, achievement and individualism - has taken quite a sharp turn toward populism under this ticket, and the left has successfully branded McCain's brand as legitimate conservatism. But an absolute wipeout this November would keep McCain away from the presidency, eliminate Palin's 2012 chances and clear the way for up-and-coming articulate, capitalist politicians such as Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and others to re-brand the GOP.
Furthermore, at the end of the day, the government cannot reverse the financial situation that we're in. The public is seemingly incapable of grasping this fact, but there's no substitute for the boom-bust cycle. When the public perceives the economy as poor while a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress preside over it - with no more President Bush to blame - will it be willing to re-elect them? History suggests that Obama may be headed for a 2012 wipeout. It did, after all, take a Jimmy Carter to give this country a Ronald Reagan.
And yet, I find myself forced to both support and vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. An Obama presidency, I concede, is almost certainly what we're facing and would bring shame to this country and set disturbing precedents. It is depressing to think that a man could occupy the White House whose pastor and self-asserted spiritual mentor has been quoted as saying that he believes the United States had the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks coming and that the government concocted AIDS in a plot to kill black men. It is total farce to pretend Obama had no idea what his pastor was saying; Oprah Winfrey left the church out of disgust years earlier.
Obama is a man with a profound deficit of character. Lie after lie escapes his lips with no remorse. In two prominent examples, he lied about his associations with Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. While in fact, according to The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Obama's career launched in Ayers' house.
Of course, that sort of manipulation is "what politicians do." I accept that and factor it into my equation. But the premise of Obama's campaign is that he's not just another politician; his character and judgment are superior and he is therefore qualified for high office. He certainly can't boast of any significant achievement that qualifies him.
Finally, the deification of Obama and the collective back patting that will occur because of how America finally elected a black president (or, worse, should McCain win, the collective shaming over rejecting the black candidate for the white one) will prove that we have not moved beyond race. We will have finally moved beyond race when we don't have to pat ourselves on the back for electing a black man, but instead speak only of his character, issue positions and political record. Examined from that standpoint, Obama is a pretty poor politician indeed and is surely setting himself up for failure. The Republicans' prospects for 2012 look strong.
Alex Knepper is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and a conservative columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
