Conviction, Charisma and the Dilemma of Positions

Last Saturday, Rick Warren, pastor of the megachurch, Saddleback, held a conversational forum between the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama.  By now, this event is practically old news with the announcement of Joseph Biden as Obama’s running mate yesterday.  But, what a great event the Saddleback forum was in American politics!  I was partial to this forum because it’s intent was very similar to the intent of this website, that is to have civil discussions on the hot topics and great issues of the day.  It’s okay to disagree, but lets do it civilly, like adults, and resist the heavy temptation to get emotional.  I admire the courage of Barrack Obama to appear before a venue that was likely a little out of his comfort zone (I imagine John McCain agreeing to meet at an ACLU venue would be equally discomforting).  However, tactfully and confidently stating your positions, even if they disagree with the audience, is the mark of a good leader.  What this event exposed was not only the difference between the two candidates’ views on major issues, but also the degree of confidence with which they each held their convictions.  Senator Obama’s answers were more nuanced and less precise – and thus came across as less confident - than McCain’s succinct and clear responses.  In case you missed the event, check it out at cnn, or youtube.  

The specific responses I want to draw attention to come from three of Rick Warren’s questions:  

1.  “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

2.  “Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

3.  “Define rich?” 

Obama answered the first question with the now infamous, “…above my paygrade” comment.  This answer is telling in that it indicates Obama’s willingness to recuse himself of making a moral/ethical decision by giving that responsibility to a higher power.  Thus, he comes across as not confident in his own moral/ethical judgment on the issue.  If this is true, why then does Obama support legislation that seeks to ‘play god’ with the unborn when the moral/ethical issue is admittedly not his to decide?  The audience heard this lack of conviction on the abortion issue loud and clear.  In contrast, John McCain answered with “at conception”.  Fortunately for McCain, he has a voting record to back up a strong pro-life position, which is sure to sit well with social conservatives who up to this point have not been sure on his stance.  I know that for me, McCain’s position made me more comfortable with him as a candidate; his views on the rights of the unborn are compatible with mine.  

Obama made another comment in his response that further exposes his positional dilemma.  He indicated that he would have voted for an Illinois-state ban on partial birth abortion if it contained similar language as a federal bill, presumably to protect the health of the mother.  John McCain went after this response in his most recent radio address:  ”At Saddleback, he [Obama] assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, “lying” about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn’t withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama’s campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.”  In my view, this vote against a state ban on partial birth abortion is indicative of his moral position on the rights of the unborn, or in this case, the ‘partial’ born.  So he takes a moral and ethical position in his voting record but recuses himself of that responsibility when answering a direct question. 

Obama’s answer to the second question above, “Does evil exist…” is also telling.  In his answer, Obama stated that we should confront evil “…with humility”.  I understand where Obama was heading with his answer and though it didn’t indicate a lack of conviction, it indicated a degree of ignorance.  He was trying to promote the concept that evil often comes from us as much as from others and that we don’t have to look very far to find it.  The famous Bible verse from Luke 6:41 is representative of this thinking, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”  Interestingly, Bush has quoted this scripture several times throughout the years in interviews and press conferences.  In this sense, I understand where Obama was coming from and agree with him.  But, when contrasting this answer with McCain’s “Defeat it!” we see a difference in approach.  One of my biggest concerns is that Obama’s approach to evil will leave him paralyzed in dealing with large national security threats like radical extremism and Russian, North Korean, and Iranian aggression.  Humility can paralyze if allowed to be the dominant factor in international relations.  As an Iraq War veteran, I have seen evil first hand and completely agree with McCain’s succinct response.  Though we do see evil here at home, in our streets, we do not have much of a conception of the evil that exists elsewhere.  Radical extremism is evil and cannot be handled with humility no matter how good the intentions.  We must defeat it.  I would have preferred Obama to answer the same way as McCain.

Obama’s answer to the rich question also exposes the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on taxes.  In his response, Obama stated that he wanted to make the income tax code “more fair” by adjusting the percentage of the various income brackets.  But confidence and conviction in an arbitrary system, like the progressive tax code, contains a fundamental credibility problem.  What is fair?  Why is one arbitrary number more fair than another?  Is it fair that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of the income taxes?  Or that the top 5% pay 60%?  Or that the top 1% pay 40%?  These figures come from the recent press release from the US Department of Treasury along with this quote: “The individual income tax is highly progressive.”  I’ll admit that these statistics would be stronger if they included the demographic information on what percentage of workers make up the brackets of income earners (ie what percentage of workers make up the top 50%, etc).  But, why is it fair that the more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to taxes?  This arbitrary progressive system makes it more difficult to defend with conviction.  To me, the only two ways to achieve an AGREED upon “fair” system is through a flat tax, as promoted by presidential candidate, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, or the “Fair Tax” as advocated in the books of the same name (see our previous posts on the Fair Tax).  How is changing the arbitrary progressive tax any solution to perceived fairness?

For the above reasons, I am more comfortable in supporting John McCain for president.  Though I have been skeptical of his middle of the road centrism, I believe he is correct on the issues that matter most to me: abortion, national security, and taxes.  In the interest of full disclosure I’ve been impressed with Obama’s momentum and charisma to date.  He does have a unique gift to inspire those around him.  He’s even inspired me.  But talk is cheap.  And inspiration without conviction and substance is cheaper.  The Saddleback forum brought out a side of him that is not often seen, a side that is less confident and charismatic in his positions.  I’m very interested to see how the future debates play out when the candidates actually go head to head.  I can’t wait!!

–Joel