Chicago Tribune
Voice of the People
re: “Too young for the No. 1 job?” by Steven G. Calabresi
Dear Voice of the People:
Mr. Calabresi makes a valiant effort to slam Obama’s youth, but it is a weak argument. For all their youth, the three youngest Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, all had highly successful Presidencies. The argument that they made errors due to inexperience must be examined by comparing whether older Presidents were error-free. No one would make that argument – it is absurd. Let’s consider the oldest previous President, Ronald Reagan. Reagan was admired by many, but his main legacy was transforming the Republican Party from fiscal conservatism to the Party of reckless spending and borrowing to produce record deficits. During his second term, the aging Reagan was sadly afflicted with Alzheimer’s, had to be coached by his wife like a puppet, and became simply an impotent figurehead, with policy being made behind the scenes by unnamed puppeteers.
Calabresi makes a few other, even weaker arguments; “A hallmark of youthfulness, as all parents know, can be falling in with the wrong sort of friends.” Let’s examine the friends of that experienced candidate, John McCain. To start with, his economic advisor Phil Gramm, who was fired when he incautiously revealed McCain’s economic philosophy (that unemployed Americans whose homes were foreclosed on are simply whiners), was also the chief engineer of the deregulation that caused the mortgage crisis and skyrocketing gas prices (due to energy speculation that once was illegal). McCain called Gramm “the smartest economist and political strategist he knows.” McCain’s campaign is staffed with dozens of lobbyists, only a few of the most scandalous of whom have been fired to date.
“Another hallmark of youthfulness is not keeping your promises,” says Calabresi. One need only look at the issues that McCain has flip-flopped on since he switched from being a so-called maverick to becoming a GW Bush clone when he decided to run for President. He switched from (1) pro-choice to anti-choice, (2) criticizing Jerry Falwell to snuggling up to him, (3) opposing Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy to thinking they are great, (4) opposing torture to shockingly thinking torture is a fine tool for Americans to use, (5) McCain took contributions from Enron crook Charles Keating, then supported campaign finance reform, then switched back again, (6) FISA, the second amendment, gay marriage, Iran, Iraq, welfare reform, NAFTA, etc.
The most telling argument in this debate is simply this. McCain (like Clinton, when she was still in the race) keeps adopting Obama’s political positions when he sees how popular they are with the American people. Obama was the candidate of “change” so McCain (a 30-year entrenched DC politician) also became the candidate of change! In McCain’s case, this could only mean that he keeps changing his position! Obama supports energy independence and renewable energy, so McCain (despite voting 95% of the time for Bush’s anti-environmental policies) suddenly turns green (in his case, from envy). Obama makes a speech about the importance of fighting terrorism where the terrorists are, in Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, where they never were. Suddenly McCain wants to send three divisions into Afghanistan! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and McCain evidently agrees that Obama is better equipped to be President.
