Undecided

Like a state senator voting "Present" rather than "Aye" or "Nay," I am in the "undecided" category.

In defense of Mr. Obama, because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote and is an easy way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure they oppose without going on record as against it. (Gonzalez, WSJ Online, Feb. 14, 2007)

Mr. Obama says he cast votes 4000 times in the Illinois Senate, and used "present" votes 130 times to protest bills he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. (The Left Coaster, Dec. 20, 2007)

"Present" is not an option on the public ballot; I can register my indecision on November 4th only by my absence, and thus join ranks with 78 million lethargic fellow citizens who, though eligible, will fail to vote for President in 2008.

Labeling myself "undecided," today, forty-five days before the election, will undoubtedly surprise, shock, and sadden many of my friends, family members, and faithful readers, who would be justified in assuming my staunch support of the Democratic ticket -- although it will certainly delight my wayward brother, now a fanatic McCain acolyte. After all, I have one cousin who was a Democratic state senator for sixteen years and another who served as Governor Mark Warner's Secretary of Commerce. I have regularly contributed to Democratic candidates at all levels of government. Except for a couple of protest votes for third-party candidates (Ross Perot is a household name, but does anyone remember John Anderson?) and in cases where a Republican was running unopposed, I have always voted blue. And although I am not a card-carrying (nor dues-paying) member of the Democratic Party, most of my acquaintances would surmise that relationship, based on my liberal views on constitutional, economic, and social issues.

But this has been an unprecedented and historic election year, now featuring a bizarre collection of finalists: the first African-American Presidential nominee, whose explosive rise from relative obscurity to "pseudo-messianism," which enabled him to snatch the prize from its heavily-favored heiress, the first presumptive female nominee, still strains credibility; a scarred seventy-two-year-old political and POW survivor, who, in a few short months, was miraculously transformed from his party's rebellious outcast into the object of its affection when the dubious "surge" strategy he staked his Presidential aspirations on proved to be a surprising success; the first female Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, the eye-pleasing, gun-slinging, moose-hunting, hockey mom turned Governor of Alaska, who, when lightning struck, ignited the Party's social conservative base, captured the attention of millions of celebrity watchers hungry for a new star, and became almost too hot for her opponents to handle; and a loquacious, tiresome, Senatorial journeyman, whose own Oval Office ambitions were suddenly resurrected when his youthful compatriot shunned his former rival and her eighteen million disciples and rescued him from the dustbin of primary also-rans.

And, even more strange, this year my lonesome vote might mean something. The see-sawing Virginia polls now show McCain holding a slim two-point lead (with six percent, including me, undecided), this in a state Democratic Presidential candidates have all but conceded -- and lost -- since LBJ carried it in 1964. But with Democrats now controlling the State Senate, the Governor's Mansion, and one U.S. Senate seat, and with Mark Warner poised to seize the second, the Old Dominion, proud possessor of thirteen crucial electoral votes, has a new moniker: swing state.

While it's nice to be courted and to bask in the glow of an Obamian visitation to one's fair city, there is a drawback to finding oneself in the electoral crosshairs. Television viewers will be inundated by a cacophonous barrage of political commercials, replete with savage accusations, gross misrepresentations, and shameless self-righteousness -- all of which usurp valuable air time from regular advertisers like me, fuel a growing disenchantment with a perverse system, and lead one to the depressing conclusion that "undecided" is most rational choice of all.

Hurdling these obstacles and dragging myself to the voting booth demand a daunting leap of faith. On both sides of the aisle, in the corridors of Congress and state legislatures, I see officeholders (and seekers) corrupted by a lust for power and the bucketfuls of cash tossed their way by influence peddlers. I see them appealing to the basest instincts of their constituencies by simplifying complex issues into flatulent sound bites, demonizing their opponents, and distorting facts to conform to their version of the truth. I see them pandering to voters of every ilk by making vacuous promises they have little intention -- and less chance -- of fulfilling. In the face of such sound and fury signifying nothing, who would not retire to the sidelines?

Yet vote we must, lest we forfeit our right to complain.

The rising tide of dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration -- whose approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in the history of this statistic -- has burst through the Democratic retaining wall and swamped many Independents and some Republicans. The laundry list of indictments is by now familiar: a seven-year war, the longest in U.S. history, the unintended consequence of a personal vendetta, misguided ideology, or oil imperialism (or some combination of the three), sold to the American public on bogus intelligence and mismanaged to the tune of one trillion dollars and four thousand lives; myopic tax cuts, which, while they may have generated economic growth and created new jobs (mostly in the health care sector), have deepened the divide between rich and poor, lined the pockets of Bush's crony capitalists, stagnated the real income of the middle class, doubled the national debt, and crushed the value of the dollar; a ruthless implementation of reactionary internal security measures, often by government fiat, resulting in an infringement of civil liberties and an invasion of privacy rights; and a collapsing housing market and soaring gas prices, which, while they are free market phenomena, occurred on Bush's watch and reflect a failure to regulate aggressive mortgage lending and securitization practices and to initiate a strategic energy policy.

Like a determined parent dressing up a recalcitrant child, Obama persists in draping this weighty cloak of incumbency over McCain's cockeyed shoulders, only to have the latter protest the fit, shrug it off, and introduce his own more fashionable -- and original -- trousseau, sporting high heels, rimless glasses, makeup, and lipstick. In fact, the odd couple's convention lovefest bounced them into a slight (and short-lived) lead over their opponents, who, by all rights should be winning this race going away.

Instead, it's a dead heat. Because, while I reject the ripples of anti-Obama rhetoric coursing through the airwaves and blogosphere as patently false (his Muslim religion), irrelevant (his shadowy Chicago connections), or racially tinged ("community organizer" slurs), like others hungry for change, I harbor doubts about an Obama Presidency.

Despite his two-year quest for the White House and intense (and adoring) media attention, Obama darts along the campaign trail from stump to stage like an elusive butterfly, hard to pin down, an unknown quantity. Boasting a resume as insubstantial and evanescent as a vapor stream, he rocketed into prominence on the wings of oratory, prayers for change, and the audacity of hope, garnering eighteen million votes and vanquishing not only Hillary Clinton, but also the burden of inexperience; he staked his claim to legitimacy on superior judgment and a fresh approach to governing.

After securing the nomination, however, Obama has struggled to project himself as a strong leader. Surprised and distracted by the Palin nomination, nonplused by the success of the McCain "surge" and the decline of violence in Iraq, flummoxed by his opponents' crafty appropriation of his reformist message, backtracking on issues like campaign financing, wiretapping, immigration, and taxation, and missing his teleprompter, he has sounded more tongue-tied than confident. His natural demeanor -- composed, deliberate, refined, professional, the antithesis of the stereotypical black politician -- has exposed him to charges of intellectualism and elitism -- in spite of his self-documented humble beginnings -- which he is at pains to refute as he courts the white, middle class votes he needs for victory.

The body politic yearns for a President with the superhuman powers each contender purports to possess -- the wisdom and strength to keep it safe from internal danger and external attack, to monitor and resolve volatile international situations, to manage a 2.4 trillion dollar budget and an economy five times greater, to balance competing political, economic, and social interests for the general good, and to keep the American dream of prosperity, success, and upward mobility alive for every citizen -- yet with feet of clay, grounded in the soil of the common man. The enduring genius of Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and, yes, Bill Clinton was their unique ability to project themselves as captains firmly in control in every perfect storm, while exuding the warmth and charm of a friend we would like to invite over for a fireside chat.

If Obama's meteoric ascent was, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, based not on issues but on "narrative, eloquence, and charisma," he and his handlers realized, during the summer doldrums, that his celebrity-ness -- deprived of oxygen, lampooned by some clever McCain commercials, superseded by the new girl on the block --was not sustainable. Their charge became to bring him down to earth, to tear away his masque of otherworldliness, to reach out to all the brown-baggers whose taxes he is proposing to cut. Krauthammer describes his acceptance speech as "deliberately pedestrian, state-of-the-unionish, programmatic," and a stark contrast to the lavish Invesco Field setting where he delivered it -- and probably wishes he hadn't. Obama's feisty makeover was in full bloom in his "lipstick on a pig" remark and in his lively interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Although McCain has lamely followed in his footsteps, Obama rode his own surge to the nomination by branding himself as a new breed of politician, who could implement meaningful reform, change the culture of Washington, take on special interest groups, and prevail over destructive partisanship -- to employ the platitudes now spewing from the mouths of both candidates. In truth, Obama resonated as a mythical symbol of the promise of America: a black man legitimately contending for the nation's highest office, proof that it had finally come to terms with its racial identity.

But even if one could reject the premise that any Chief Executive -- no matter how transcendent, now matter how committed to the task, no matter how great his mandate from the people -- is powerless to crack the impenetrable, monolithic, self-serving, self-perpetuating apparatus that dominates and permeates the Washington, D.C., landscape, Obama is a problematic agent. I hate to be bearer of bad tidings, but here is a man who vaulted into the U.S. Senate on the springboard of, by many accounts, a corrupt Chicago machine, a man who has "never challenged his party's base on any matter of substance," a man whose lone act of bipartisanship was backed by every legislator on both sides of the aisle. (Butler, Financial Times Online)

An Obama victory will establish a Democratic hegemony on Capitol Hill and in the White House -- a harrowing prospect for that segment of the electorate who, like me, prefer -- either consciously or instinctively -- a divided government as least harmful to the citizenry. Our Founding Fathers' Grand Design was a system of checks and balances in which the excesses of each branch of government would be restrained by the other two; what they failed to forsee was how the rise of political parties would foil their brilliant conception. The ill-advised, poorly-crafted, politically motivated Prescription Drug Law passed by Congress in 2003, which created a new, massive, unfunded entitlement and granted lucrative favors to drug companies, is the most recent egregious example of unleashed partisanship.

John McCain's emergence as the darling of the Republican Party is no less mystifying than Obama's coup against Hillary Clinton. Eight years ago, the Bush-Rovian smear machine, jarred into action by McCain's stunning victory in the New Hampshire Primary, let loose its social conservative dogs of war, dragged him through the South Carolina mud, and effectively ended his Presidential hopes -- for a time. The red meat was the accusation that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby and the insinuation that his pow experience had rendered him too mentally unstable to serve as President. Now, his heroic service, his unwavering support of the surge strategy, and his rugged individualism are stoking the fires of his campaign redux.

The McCain phenomenon is curious to behold. Although one could argue that a crowded primary field splintered the vote, the fact is that when the GOP voters spoke, they were repudiating the tough anti-terrorist (Guliani), the Christian evangelist (Huckabee), the traditional Republican (Thompson), and the capitalist wizard (Romney) -- and the elements of Party dogma each one represented: secure borders, the right to life without exception, offshore drilling, and tax cuts for the wealthy -- in favor of the candidate who was "none of the above." And now, McCain, the embodiment of all those principles he was once so proud to declare his independence from, can best be characterized as "all of the above."

Whereas most Presidential candidates move to the vital center after securing their party's nomination, McCain has moved to the right -- and into territory that makes me uncomfortable.

I have no desire to see the deleterious policies of the Bush Administration perpetuated. I loathe the thought of neocons and supply-side economists repopulating the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet. I am suspicious of the judges and administrators McCain and his advisors will appoint upon his assuming office. For thirty-five years McCain in Congress has been his own man; the question now is whether he has abdicated the rights to that title.

His detractors are convinced he has. They point first to the mean-spirited tone of his campaign, his embrace of the same vicious, inflammatory tactics which victimized him and which he so sanctimoniously denounced and forswore.

I am not one to bemoan negative political television and radio commercials. Both sides use them. They must work, although I like to believe that there are intelligent, informed voters in the audience who, like me, are dismayed and disgusted by these mind-numbing attacks and who question the credibility of presumptive leaders who stoop to conquer, who wade through the swamp and throw mud in order to earn our trust and respect. My view is that the Republicans were first out of the gate in this race to the gutter -- although the Democrats were close upon their heels -- and that McCain, champion of decency, honor, and reform, is being disingenuous, if not hypocritical, when he approves their messages.

While McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate was smart politics (at least for the past month), it also signals McCain's final capitulation: to the hard-right ideologues who want to retain control of the Republican party and his Presidential agenda. Apparently, they convinced him that, without her, his bridge to the White House would end up nowhere, and, indeed, the plucky ingenue may the first Vice-Presidential candidate to swing an election since LBJ in 1960. The pertinent question is, when this shotgun wedding is consummated, how much will McCain owe the the bridal party if he rides her skirt-tails to victory?

Eight years ago, when John McCain was sixty-four -- and before he walked in the shadow of George W. Bush -- I would have voted for him. I hate to be guilty of age discrimination, but is it not just a little unsettling that a man well past the accepted retirement age in this country, a man who has had four bouts with skin cancer, should take on the most demanding job in the world--although, admittedly, some recent deciders have slumbered through their terms in suspended animation, delegating most of the heavy lifting to surrogates and never allowing the exigencies of government to interfere with their vacation schedules.

Am I the only pundit brazen enough to mention the unmentionable: the nightmarish scenarios of illness, incapacitation, death? I realize that many people enjoy vigorous and productive activity well into their eighties, that hereditary monarchs and dictators have no term limits, that ageless leadership cliques have governed Israel and ruled China for years. I advocate raising the retirement age to seventy, not only because it would restore solvency to Social Security and Medicare, but also because the workplace needs our senior citizens' skills and experience. With that said, no public corporation in this country would think of hiring a seventy-two-year-old CEO -- and giving him a four-year contract. It's just too risky.

Like siblings arguing over a new toy, our two contenders are locked in conflict over who shall claim rightful ownership of the ineluctable force bearing down on Washington (or so they say): change. Although a twenty-year veteran of the Senate, McCain makes a plausible case. On occasion, he bolted his Party caucus, staked out a path of independence, and reached across the aisle to work with Democrats. His vote against the Bush tax cuts and his co-sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002 are prime examples.

On the other hand, his ties to lobbyists -- including dozens working on his campaign staff -- and their bottomless pocketbooks have not escaped the attention of Obama or the media. As for those devilish earmarks, for which he has never sold his soul, mastering the federal budget by vetoing them is like calling the fire department to extinguish a match; while $18 billion in earmarks is no small number, it makes up a mere three-quarters of one percent of the $2.4 trillion in total expenditures and less than twenty-five percent of the amount ponied up by the Treasury to bail out one faltering insurance company, AIG. Granted, any fiscal responsibility demonstrated by President McCain will be an improvement over the profligacy of George Bush, who learned to spell "veto" only after the Democrats took control of Congress -- further evidence that "gridlock" has its benefits.

While studies show that voters are most influenced by their perceptions of a candidate's values, authenticity, and trustworthiness, chipping away each one's shiny veneer and exposing his raw imperfections have only reinforced my indecision; I am now compelled to resort to what all the players in this ongoing drama so assiduously avoid: a serious examination of the issues.

Fear is a great motivator of human behavior, and the Republican/Conservative propaganda generator has seized upon the public's overwrought fear of high -- and higher -- gas prices to manufacture its newest incendiary wedge issue, brilliantly dumbed-down to the oily epigram: "Drill here, drill now, pay less." Anyone opposed to this slick formula for rescuing our American way of life from our OPEC tormentors is immediately stigmatized as an animal-loving, tree-hugging, obstructionist radical wacko. In the face of this onslaught, McCain has changed his position on off-shore drilling, and even Obama, in lockstep with his own Party's tentative concessions, has thrown out the white flag.

I am not convinced that this country will ever be able economically to extract enough oil from its supposed reserves to impact the world market price. I believe that domestic drilling will further strengthen the hand of the avaricious oil companies and inflate their already obscene profits, and that the only way to break their -- and OPEC's -- stranglehold on our thirst for fossil fuel is for us to pursue alternative sources of energy. Although Obama continues to spurn the nuclear option, I believe he would be more aggressive in promoting a progressive, strategic, multi-faceted energy policy.

Both candidates' web sites address the twin issues of rising health care costs and the forty-seven million persons who lack health insurance -- with page after page of promises which, in my humble opinion, they have no reasonable chance of fulfilling, or only at an astronomical unfunded cost. Reducing health care costs is a noble objective, and very appealing to employers like me who spend almost twelve percent of our payrolls on our employees' health insurance. While both pieces of boilerplate identify opportunities for improving efficiency and eliminating waste, I doubt that meaningful savings can be wrung out of a system bloated by Medicare and Medicaid cost-shifting and by the public's insatiable appetite for medical services and sophisticated technology, which hospitals and physicians are only too happy to indulge.

I see no way of funding many aspects of Obama's plan -- including the subsidies he will remit to low-income families and individuals to enroll in his national health program. For those not eligible for a subsidy, I see no incentive for them to enroll. McCain offers a refundable tax credit of up to $5000 to enable uninsured families to purchase insurance, which makes sense to me, as long as it is available to low and middle income families who pay no income taxes, who are most likely to be uninsured, and who otherwise would lack the incentive and wherewithal to enroll in a plan.

Neither agenda demonstrates the bold, innovative, collaborative thinking that will be required to solve our country's health care crisis. I give McCain's the edge as being more fiscally responsible.

The whole discussion may be moot, however, shoved off the table by the government's one trillion dollar bailout of sinking financial institutions.

I have always been skeptical of supply-siders' contention that changes in marginal tax rates materially affect people's behavior. What ambitious (greedy) entrepreneur is going to work less because he has to pay three percent more in taxes? Whether or not the boom was attributable to the dot-com proliferation, the economy thrived when Bill Clinton raised taxes and reduced the deficit. Whether or not the current bust should be blamed on the excesses of unrestrained capitalism, the Bush tax cuts have not inoculated the economy against cyclical downturns.

In a former life, McCain objected to those tax cuts as favoring the wealthy; he now sees them through a different lens, and proposes to make them permanent, increase the personal exemption for individual filers, and unfetter the job (and) profit producing power of corporate America by reducing its tax rate by ten percentage points. Obama wants to raise the tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and individuals earning $250,000, and the threshold on payroll taxes, none of which I am opposed to, if these increases were to be used to reduce the federal deficit, last clocked at $400 billion, and rising rapidly. By most calculations, however, Obama's ambitious new spending programs, which include refunds or credits for millions of low and middle income earners, will consume far more than his additional tax revenue.

In just one week, the economic and financial situation in this country has altered dramatically. The federal government (or the taxpayer) has assumed tremendous obligations. Tax cuts and refunds may earn applause on the campaign trail, but sooner or later, when the cheering stops, Presidents and Congressmen will have to face the reality that they don't have enough money to buy all the votes they want, and that someone is going to have to make some hard decisions. From what I have heard so far, and, as Peggy Noonan wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, I have deep reservations if either McCain or Obama is up to the task.

Which leaves me still undecided.