How Not to Essentialize the Vote

In Craig Biddle's article from _The Objective Standard_ Vol. 3, No. 3. entitled "McBama vs. America", he claims that the major Presidential candidates are fundamentally the same. Biddle considers the candidates' respective positions on major issues of recent concern. While it is very obviously true that both Barack Obama and John McCain count on the philosophies of altruism, pragmatism, and Socialism to form their respective policies, there is more to consider. For example, are the concerns over general foreign policy or general medical care _absolutely_ fundamental?

While there can be some tangential benefits in noting how two (or more) candidates are similar, that tactic belies the greatest importance of each of the respective candidates' policies. For example, seeing what those candidates agree on can indicate what the wider culture considers important. (No doubt that Americans largely accept altruism as morally valid despite the overwhelming preponderance of how dangerous that philosophy is.) It is incumbent on voters to at least try to find essential differences in candidates. I don't want to focus on mechanics, but if readers are curious, then they can follow-up by researching Ayn Rand's "measurement omission" technique which is required for proper essentialization. Some indications are here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html

From _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, page 59, here's some of what Ayn Rand has to say about evaluating fundamental concepts:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

"Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others."

Certain issues _are_ more fundamental to any human than other issues. While personal context is always of major import to each voter, it would be utterly relativistic to figure that those personal concerns eliminate the interest in issues that are not only universal but are of sheer survival value. For example, American voter C may be particularly concerned about the growth of the welfare state while American voter D may be concerned about American military involvement in parts of Asia. Certainly, it can be argued that neither the welfare state should be allowed to grow unabated nor should military be funded to go anywhere and everywhere in the world when (noting AR's recognition of the rule of fundamentality again) certain countries pose greater foreign threats to Americans than others. (Today, the greatest foreign threat is still Iran of course. See Dr. Leonard Peikoff's writing on Islamic terrorism for more information on this subject.) The rights to self-protection and self-preservation are so wholly basic to human survival that any talk of other issues necessarily begs this question of fundamentality as Ayn Rand indicated.

Since _I_ am not willing to overlook them, I'm highlighting some of the differences on a fundamental issue of freedom that hits closer to a person than many other issues do...

Note the dates...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm

"Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)"
"Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)"
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"


http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

"Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)"
"Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)"
"Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)"

What this indicates is that while there may appear to be some common ground between the candidates even on the issue of abortion, the truth exists elsewhere: It is in the basic differences where a voter can begin to establish comparative value between McCain and Obama. Note that Obama has continued to affirm the individual woman's right to abortion. At the same time, McCain has a history of ignoring and even expressly attempting to violate that most basic right of an individual to control their body.

Also of relevance, it wasn't an Islamicist (or an atheist) that did the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm

"A doctor was shot to death outside his abortion clinic here today when a man who prayed for the physician's soul stepped forward from a group of antiabortion protesters and opened fire, according to police and witnesses..."

Skeptics might want to review what Ayn Rand said about abortion as a political issue (and in particular for elections.) Also, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan (and the Christian Coalition), America is at the cultural point which it is at today.

Of further note, here is an excerpt from an Ayn Rand interview: Again, note the date.....

The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_

"Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain?

A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens.

The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society...."

Ayn Rand died in 1982, so it's very likely that the interview I just excerpted is the last or certainly among the most recent interviews she ever gave. She gave that interview at the very time when American Christians were starting to engage politics in a more serious way. With the greater affluence of Americans in the 1970's and the follow-up of President Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, it's not so surprising that conservatives would think that the time was right for them to swing into action. That they did.......and Christianity is here in this country as a major factor _now_ still to this very day.

If anyone doubts this, then they can ask Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason weblog if abortion opponents strike him as rational. A few weeks ago, Provenzo discussed what he thought of Sarah Palin's attempts to elevate her raising of a disabled infant to the level of great moral virtue. The religious zealots came out in droves and not only scolded him for his position, several dozen of them went as far as offering Mr. Provenzo death threats. Did as many supposedly even-handed religious advocates come out to offer him sympathetic support for what their cohorts had done? As far as I can tell, hardly any of the supporters of Palin's rhetoric offered consideration for him. They also did not substantiate their arguments with reasonable premises though they certainly resorted to blind faith and emotionalism! My point here is that we are a long way from seeing religious Americans come across as believable when they supposedly advocate peaceful living.

Considering that Craig Biddle's essay notes the similarities between McCain and Obama while neglecting the differences, one would have to figure that he would expect us to figure that those similarities to be of greater (or even greatest) significance when it comes to comparative moral evaluation. Given that a mother who is prohibited from exercising her right to abortion will hardly be able to live the life she would have otherwise figured on, there is little reason to argue that she (or her significant romantic other) would consider other issues as being equal or even greater in value. If Biddle would have maintained proper context, then his argument would have at least come off as plausible. If he would have focused on how Americans are actually required to live their lives in terms of their respective hierarchy of values, then he would have been able to see that his warning is misdirected.

If he had shown contextual consideration for the ramifications of the very policy positions he did note, then he would have been able to offer a proper and more immediately identifiable perspective. As it is, it would seem that Craig Biddle needs to check _his_ premises. Let's get really practical here: In reality, there are actual women who have foreign policy concerns who are also facing the prospect of bearing and raising children. If someone is in the situation where she found out that she is pregnant and she wants to further her career, then will ANYTHING that a foreign politician says be of greater immediate concern to her over and above her attempt to reconcile her pregnancy? In reality, even under the most dire circumstances, if another nation threatens America, then it will have to engage in some long-term planning in attacking us. Meanwhile... that woman (and untold thousands of others) will have to deal with whether or not they are even allowed to utilize a perfectly moral and medically viable option for terminating pregnancy.

Shall we wait until things get even culturally worse? Given that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the current Republican President has gone farther than anyone to strong-arm legislators into supporting a massive bail-out which is of course an example of naked Socialism, are people still convinced that there are no _fundamental_ differences between the two major Presidential candidates and their respective parties in 2008?