Topic: Barack Obama
Is Barack That Bad? I noticed there were no Liberal articles listed about Barack Obama. I figure I should give a few reasons why I support him.by Cincinnatus Cain
(Centrist Libertarian)
Friday, September 5, 2008
Barack Obama has indeed had an audacious campaign so far. Indubitably, the criticisms levied by the general public can sometimes seem ignorant. Many of them are certainly false - "secret Muslim" and "in league with Farrakhan/Weathermen" or "name sounds like Osama" are liabilities of Obama as a candidate but not realistic concerns that the American Public will ever be harmed by.
There are more realistic concerns, however, that are expressed more often by his actual opponents and by conservative or Republican columnists than by the Mainstream Media or in frightened emails. Some of these concerns do not frighten me in the least because they, too, are false, while somewhat more realistic. For example, McCain and Palin have been claiming that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes for all Americans. According to their respective campaigns, Obama's tax plan entails raising taxes for the very top of the upper and middle classes. However, for the vast majority - 98 percent or so - of Americans, taxes are lowered. Most of the middle class is completely unaffected. In fact, Obama would lower taxes more than even McCain for most people not in the upper-middle class. The amount of money he takes from the upper class is substantial but by no means threatening to economy or livelihood. Of course, fiscally motivated individuals who earn enough to be taxed more might have good reason to vote against Obama. But everyone making less than 600K a year - and that's a lot of people - is being decieved if they allow the rich to use this as a factor to consider in Obama's election.
Ok, so a lot of people making less money than that might have other reasons to vote against Obama. Values, his plan on the war, and countless other gaps between Liberal Democrat and other worldviews. It's legitimate to say that, barring a debate on the inherent issues, someone with moral opposition to gay marriage or abortion might not vote for Obama or any other Democrat. I won't argue these entirely different issues, but it's safe to say that these voters would have fallen in the "conservative" spectrum anyway, and probably aren't the key constituency Obama needs to win this election anyway.
Other "values" though, I think can be debated. Perhaps not rationally on all sides - as many as 10 percent of voters in some states such as Pennsylvania said during the primaries that race is a motivating factor for them during elections. Obviously, this throws a loop in any election of Obama. But is it a reason that he's not a good candidate? Unless you can legitimately justify racism, it's hardly a reason to dislike his stance on issues. True, there's the question "will he be assassinated or trusted?" But this question is on the lines of "will McCain die leaving us with Palin for President?" It's a true concern, hypothetically, but by no means a voting issue.
A major concern for a lot of voters is not policy as much as identity. The Republican campaign has reflected this deeply. In fact, the campaign has consisted mostly of establishing an identity for McCain and Palin as exceptional, but largely typical American citizens. There are a few problems with this rhetoric, however. While it may rein in casual conservatives and value voters, it should by no means be a factor that a discerning Libertarian, fiscal conservative, or anyone else concerned with their rights should allow to pass as policy. Passing along the observation that anti-intellectualism and nationalism are characteristics of fascism, the statements along these lines are threatening on other levels. For example, why would any citizen want their country to be run by someone average or typical or similar to themselves? If anything, such a result simply cements the need to redefine and weaken government in general. And while national pride is dear to many people, we won't have much to be proud of if we keep fighting wars and making enemies.
Of course, this only begins to address McCain's campaign - the other key factor that I've noticed in watching the Convention speeches is the penchant for outright lies. I know that McCain is a war hero, and I'm not impugning his legacy except to seek the best outcome for my nation: many of the things he said simply were not true, or were inherent contradictions of previous statements. McCain's criticisms of Barack Obama stood out as blatant lies in many cases, and misrepresentations in most. Obama himself has commented on this, and FactCheck.org has a constant influx of observations on McCain and Palin's statements. There are also internal contradictions, at least in spirit. McCain or Palin will support various types of oil drilling and then say that we need to repair the environment. They may claim that there is no human cause to global warming. Again, I'm not going to distract in this column by debating the science of Global Warming. However, with such a large amount of scientists sharing the opinion that American government can do something to alleviate environmental problems, it seems prudent that they consider the environment as they consider any other factor that affects the public. Also, on that particular issue, it's important to note that America has always benefitted world wide when developing new technology. If we allow corporations to dominate and innovations stagnate, we will lose out in the end to the mass-production of countries like China or to the trade strategies of Europe or the speculated "BRIC alliance." And then finally, there's the matter of McCain's contradiction itself. Can we trust someone who can't keep a story straight even briefly?
Of course, Obama is not a perfect candidate by any means. But he does offer several benefits and fewer harms than McCain:
Electing Barack Obama buys the United States a lot of global bargaining power. Obama has a very well respected status in the vast majority of countries. Notably, Israel does not see him as well, because they think he will be soft on Iran. However, our alliance with Israel is clear and would not be threatened by new leadership - Israel would by no means give up such a valuable ally and benefactor.
This bargaining power does, contrary to McCain's assertions, allow us to use democracy and preserve our money and more importantly, American lives, to use only in the direst of circumstances. While Obama has always been opposed to Iraq, he has stated from the speech that made him famous that he is "not opposed to all wars" and that Iraq is a case of a war fought for the wrong reasons. There is no reason to believe that he would simply sit back if war were truly the only option.
Obama's tax plan would benefit most Americans. While it's true that rich people stimulate the economy greatly, those with a lot of money can only buy so much before the reach the point of total excess. On the other hand, giving the middle class and the poor more money allows every family and individual in America the ability to buy a diverse number of various goods. This stimulates multiple markets instead of just the hottest commodities and offers a considerable alternative to the stagnation of America's economy today.
The taxes he takes in from the upper class, however, will help the government to rise out of debt and pay for the services Americans actually use. This will not only secure a better worldwide stance, but will also ensure that in domestic emergencies and from day to day, people don't get shunted out of the things they actually need from government. Libertarians will argue that governments are too big as it is. Ok, that's true. However, until we find a way to truly weaken the hold of Federal government on society, the best alternative is to actually get services that are of use. Paranoia of government inefficiency aside, services like health care, management of homeless and unemployed people, and well funded cities and schools will benefit America in the long term - far more than stimulus packages or tax cuts.
Obama's policy concerning the War is visibly better than McCain's. While America may indeed be at threat from terrorists, it is ridiculous to sacrifice 4000 American lives to avenge fewer than that. Civilian deaths in the countries we occupy, Afghanistan and Iraq, are also tragedies that should be avoided. And McCain wants to stay until we win. Some conservatives say that Obama won't "acknowledge we're winning." However, even if we somehow can defeat loosely organized, volatile groups in Iraq, what will the cost of victory amount to on that distant day? Of course, the spinners say "Obama wants terrorists to have rights," when he raises the topic of Gitmo or habeas corpus denial. Remember, the terrorists will still be punished - once we find out which ones they are. Would you allow an innocent American to stay in prison indefinitely simply because they were suspected of, but not guilty of, a crime?
Finally, electing Obama not only secures these benefits but also provides a powerful statement about America's maturity regarding race. Adding further to a better global stance and also quelling tension at home, the election of Obama sends a great message - America is a land where everyone is created equal and where you can rise to the top. Of course, the message alone is no reason to vote for him, but it doesn't come with many strings attached. There's no evidence that Obama will have bad policy - other than the specific criticisms about the War and about how diplomacy is somehow bad, and the accusation that he doesn't have experience, his opponents and the Media cannot offer reasons that he would harm the country. There would be minor setbacks for some - his taxing policies or his stances on values like abortion might feel threatening to certain groups. But on the whole his policies would be beneficial. Compounded with the chance he gives America to "prove itself," he's a very smart pick.
I value individual rights a lot, and I realize that Obama can't preserve every issue that every single voter in America cares about. But he really does capture most of them, and as I've contended in this article, he "does less damage" than John McCain ever would - to everyone, and to individuals and individual groups as well.
Many people have a high standard for their vote - and rightly so. But since third party candidates are a pipe dream at this point and since voting for no-one won't influence the potential dangers of this election, I beg you, McCain supporters and independents, to reconsider your views on this election if not for any subsequent one. For this election, it may be imperative that voters consider not "the perfect choice" but the better choice. I know that every election, voters are asked to just vote for the lesser of two evils. Obama may not, then, have presented the change he promised. And he might not be playing hard-ball against smears like John Kerry also failed to do.
But this election is critical. A McCain win could do untold damage to the nation. An Obama win can start to build it back. Throw your fears aside and do as Obama has asked (but not because he asked it!) - have hope for America, because it's not that far out of site. It may be a gradual process, but we can rebuild our country's great legacy and reclaim our rights as citizens. We just have to take the first step and give Obama our vote of confidence that, as skeptical as we may be, he truly is the most stellar choice for President now, and probably in the last several decades.
If you plan on responding to this article, would you please state in your response whether or not you would allow me to respond to you in a later column? Pursuant to this websites terms of service, you can be sure that I will give credit where it is due and refrain from ad hominem attacks so that these ideas can be continued with multiple perspectives.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 34 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Cincinnatus Cain only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Cincinnatus Cain is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thus far, Obama has one clear advantage over McSame. Two words: network neutrality. Per the campaign rhetoric, Obama would preserve the internet, and McCain would let the telecom companies have free rein to tilt the playing field against the little guys on the 'net. If you were a single-issue voter, caring only about net neutrality, you'd be voting for Obama over McSame.
Good point John. I was so excited about all the ways that Obama is superior on the "big issues" that the Mainstream Media and candidates talk about that I forgot about Net Neutrality, an issue which is the essential reflection of how the 1st amendment must stay relevant and powerful moving into the 21st century.
So what is worse? Violating the rights of "enemy combatants" or confiscating the weath of Americans to be redistributed?
Are you really suggesting that we support Obama to show the world we are mature enough to elect a black?
If sacrificing 4,000 for this nation is too many, I would be curious as to your opinion on the Civil War, and the perception that Abrahan Lincoln was our greatest President.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Presidential Candidate that is willing to protect the entire constituency, and not just the ones he needs to win election?
For the wealthy in America, I guess you are just a little less equal because we will take from you by force your assets, right?
If a candidate can publically cross that line, promote it, and not think twice, you better fear what else that candidate will to to install his vision of America on the rest of us. And when his tax plan has the opposite effect of his intentions, just what do you think he will do? We have not even had a recession yet, and we are already going to go after corporations and the rich. Welcome to the New America.
I think my opinions here were already clear, but here are some responses to your questions in order.
Violating the rights of enemy constituents is worse. If our government is agressive about enforcing laws towards one group, there is no reason to believe it won't do the same towards other groups. The government is not "redistributing wealth" in any but the most paranoid views. Government has always been, even under the most classical libertarian theories of John Locke, about a social contract between people and government where the people create a government to moderate their conflicts. Of course, our government does many services beyond this, but by no means are they Marxist in origin. Another driving factor may have been the philosophy of Rousseau, another favorite of the Framers who argued that a Government should protect rights that people don't quite have yet (like the right to medicine or education) as well as protecting rights that others might take away. Our government's not perfect, but as will be a recurring theme, Obama's policies on this matter are better than McCain's.
Yes, I am suggesting that we elect Obama for this reason among many others. He's the superior candidate in the first place, and this is an added "perk."
Frankly, in my opinion the Civil War was indeed inevitable because of the economic opinions of the North. I think that if not Lincoln, a future president would have desired power enough to "reclaim" the South. However, since that war claimed more lives than any other American war, and since Lincoln was ruthless in some ways (such as suspending Habeas Corpus) I can make the case that yes, the Northern States might have been better off leaving the Southern States alone. The Union's view on the Confederacy would be no different than its view on the many other countries that violate human rights and that it doesn't help, and without the backlash of racist politics in the south, the North might have finally moved away from racism entirely. But knowing American policy, I simply can't think of a narrative in which the two "countries" would actually leave each other alone. Of course, in the end the Civil War was a costly war but a war that served some legitimate purposes. Having it then rather than later might have even saved lives (what if the Union had waited until it had sophisticated bombs to test before it tried to take back its agrarial neighbor?) and was certainly less avoidable than our fiasco in Iraq.
It'd be great to have a Candidate who would protect the entire constituency. This one is protecting the established rights of 95 percent of people, in respect to property, speech, and freedoms. The only things he doesn't "protect" are the "values" - abortion and gay marriage. The first can be justified from a legal/equal protection standpoint as something that should be prohibited (if a fetus is indeed a person, than the 14th amendment would stand. Again, I don't want to have this full debate here). The second, gay marriage, is a clear case of groups of people trying to make others behave a certain way - no matter how much silly rhetoric you apply, or special words you use, banning gay marriage is not a protection of anyone's "rights." The only other group that actually suffers is the very upper class. Look, I know that this is America and that people are self made. That's great. But they wouldn't get there without everyone else. There is absolutely no democratic justification for an aristocracy, and that's what we'll have if we don't protect the poor as well as the rich. I would love to have a candidate that somehow could protect every last person, but that's hardly feasible. Obama, at least, claims to try his best. For a politician, that's better than McCain (whose positions are threatening to many groups: internet users, people labelled as combatants, the unemployed or homeless, gays, rape victims, and those unable to afford health insurance to name a few).
That's what government is. See, the justification for a "progressive tax" is that as much money as someone like Obama proposes to take away from the rich, they're still FAR richer than everyone else. They easily have enough money to buy any necessary service and virtually all of the unnecessary ones. Unless you can justify "greed" as the foundation of the right of property, there is no reason that poor people should live in worse conditions than is deemed acceptable simply so that the incredibly rich can have ridiculously unnecessary amounts of money. In fact, the rationale for property rights is often credited to John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Well, in this same document, he notes that all of his observations are in a hypothetical world with infinite resources - enough for the rich to be rich and the poor to still have enough. He later admitted that in the real world, the rules are somewhat different. See, the right to property implies that you can have property as long as you're not forcefully removing it from someone else. In a world where wealth begets more wealth, to be so ludicrously rich is also to harm everyone below you. This is a violation of their property rights, and it's what Government exists to remedy as established by social contract.
Well, Obama may have radical plans. If he betrays his constituents, I will be among the first to join the revolution. But his "new America" is absolutely certain - yes, I'm positive about this - to be better than McCain's regressive America.
Sorry, CC, but since this is the United States which is supposed to get it's power from the citizens, our rights should and must always come first.
I suggest you review the legislation Mr. Obama authored and co-authored over the last two years. Claiming to try your best isn't good enough. I doubt you would pick a surgeon that way. Let's not pick a President that way.
McCain may have positions that threaten groups. But are those groups entitled under the Constitution for what they are asking?
My money? No
Health Insurance? No
Unemployed? No
I am not worried about John Locke. I am concerned that you and others believe you are entitled to my hard earned or saved assets because you do not have as much. I am concerned that you do not define greed as those that do not have something feeling it is ok to take it from me.
Let's stick to the Constitution, and let's make sure everyone pulls up their own bootstraps before you take my assets by force.
This country is not about radical plans. It should be about sticking to the basics. That starts with the Constitution. Reading the bills Obama has submitted, I am not even sure he has read it.
Let's leave the radical plans to the rest of the world. When they surpass us(and none are even close), then we might have a chance to discuss radical change. I promise the discussion will include letting people keeping more of what they earn, and not less.
EJ, I am sorry to see that your priorities are focused on the literal meaning of a document and not the important ideals behind it, and upon your own wallet. This does indeed put you at a disadvantage when it comes to choosing politicians in the US.
Go ahead and vote Ron Paul or Bob Barr - it's a symbolic statement, I suppose. Just please look to what I've said and to the facts (not the lies) and don't vote for John McCain. Face it, he will take away more of your rights if not more of your money, and he'll also be worse for everyone else in terms of property. There is no possible argument under the Constitution that depriving one group of money without compensation through services is justified as compared to another group. If you're going to tax the poor and cut the rich's taxes, you need to make up for it with some kind of service (health, education, etc). You cannot argue that under any given tax plan, you should have less money taken and yet those who pay won't get any benefit from it. When the middle class and poor have their money taken and it goes to a war and subsidies and breaks for rich people and rich corporations, that too is a violation of rights.
Electing Barack Obama buys the United States a lot of global bargaining power. Obama has a very well respected status in the vast majority of countries. What would make him very well respected in other countries? He is not Bush? I do see him having any track record on international politics.
Obama "not opposed to all wars"I hate to use one political party but IMO the dems. have a track record of supporting "moral wars" or "moral intervention". I like Ron Paul see their international policies as the same. You say tomato I say tomato.
Obama's tax plan would benefit most Americans. While it's true that rich people stimulate the economy greatly, those with a lot of money can only buy so much before the reach the point of total excess. (Yes, but the rich make the vast majority of capital investments since, they already have enough material goods. Increasing the tax burden on them only serves to decrease future capital investments. A decrease in future investments lcoupled with inflation invaribly hurt the poor and middle class. Tax breaks on one group, do not and have not worked. Decreasing spending, while descreasing the tax burden would work.)On the other hand, giving the middle class and the poor more money allows every family and individual in America the ability to buy a diverse number of various goods. (As to my point, these families will not be making capital investments, which in time make everyone more prosperous, but will be buying consumer goods. This does nothing to increase people's future standard of living, it does the opposite it only works to further decrease it.)This stimulates multiple markets instead of just the hottest commodities and offers a considerable alternative to the stagnation of America's economy today.
The taxes he takes in from the upper class, however, will help the government to rise out of debt and pay for the services Americans actually use.Not if he doesn't cut spending it won't. The govenment will never rise out of debt until they bring in more than they spend.
Obama's policy concerning the War is visibly better than McCain'sI personally don't think their is much difference but at least Obama realizes prisioners should have rights.
Finally, electing Obama not only secures these benefits but also provides a powerful statement about America's maturity regarding race. Personally I think it would have little or negligible effect worldwide. As long as the military is spread throughout the world it kind of is a moot point.
It'd be great to have a Candidate who would protect the entire constituency. This one is protecting the established rights of 95 percent of people, in respect to property, speech, and freedoms. The only things he doesn't "protect" are the "values" - abortion and gay marriage.Has Obama said he would remove the Patriot Act? That would be a first step in protecting people's rights. Otherwise it's all talk.
That's what government is. Government is force. It creates nothing, it merely consumes the labor of the people. Please explain to me the justification for a "progressive" tax or income tax? I truly can not understand how anyone is ok with direct taxes on labor? The harder you work or more you make the more you pay? I just do not understand anyone who proposes this idea is morally ok? How can I be forced to do work for no pay? Is that not the definition of slavery? So taxing those that are more successful than you, is going to make you more prosperous beacuse you pay a few dollars less in taxes? Economics refutes the idea of middle and lower class cuts helping the middle and lower class. If you wanted to help people you could advocate less government spending and the repeal of the income tax.
Unless you can justify "greed" as the foundation of the right of property(Here is Madison's thoughts on the foundation onf property rights: The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. The "diversity in the faculities of men" Some people are always going to have more. If you have less and want more, work for it) , there is no reason that poor people should live in worse conditions than is deemed acceptable(Who deems how it is acceptable to live? I am sure a large percentage of the world lives as you would think is unacceptable. Does that make it not ok? Perhaps they could all come here and live off us taxing the rich?)simply so that the incredibly rich can have ridiculously unnecessary amounts of money. (How about the rich who earned their money without using government or special interests to further their company? Should they not keep the "fruits of their labor"?
the right to property implies that you can have property as long as you're not forcefully removing it from someone else. Exactly.
In a world where wealth begets more wealth, to be so ludicrously rich is also to harm everyone below you. This is a violation of their property rights. How can someone have a right in something they do not own?I never realized how harmed my life is from Bill Gates. He wrongs me everyday. He made it impossible for me to work 2 jobs to afford the house I own but I think he should have to buy people who don't want to work 2 jobs a house. They deserve it! Why should they have to rent? Healthcare and homes for all! Warren and Bill can foot the bill.
This is a violation of their property rights, and it's what Government exists to remedy as established by social contract. Did the inalienable rights include property rights? The government is the one who takes the land through emminent domain. I am sorry to inform you, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to divide land equally among the populace. That would be a form of socialism. The constitution set out to form a republic.
Barack Obama has polled very well in other nations. Every piece I've read suggests that Obama would be a godsend to our foreign relations.
Yeah... I wish the Democrats were opposed to more wars too, but a large portion of the audience I was addressing (conservatives as opposed to the more libertarian types) are worried that Obama would not go to war if it was necessary.
We can't rely entirely on the upper class. While McCain wants to buffer their wallets and thus capital investments, there is a breaking point. I don't know whether it will be McCain that would set it off, but you can't keep burdening the middle class - if there's not an underlying trade economy, an investment economy will be meaningless.
Similarly, I think this is a case of "lesser of two evils." Obama plans to raise spending and taxes, and McCain just plans to keep us at war. The war we're in spends more on a week to week basis than any other government program - getting us out of it will make up for health or education, while leaving us in it even while cutting programs like those will still take us further into deficit. I hate to just pull the "McCain is Bush" card, but Bush said the very same things getting elected - twice: "We'll cut taxes and cut spending." Spending has increased under Bush as compared to any Democrat.
Yeah. That's a major point, I think. Guantanamo is a threat to our own rights and it's believed that it's a major recruiting ground for new terrorists - the ones who were really innocent at first, but who were tortured until they hated the USA.
I'll have to look into the Patriot Act. I can say with confidence that he won't be adding to it like a conservative candidate might, but that would definitely be a major point to look into.
Government is a social contract where people in a culture agree to delegate the power to do various things. The common libertarian definition just includes adjudication. But arguably, if "the people" wanted health care, and education, and other things, and if they wanted to delegate that responsibility to a government and not a corporation... then that's what they should get. I guess this election might partially decide this. At any rate, government certainly needs to protect more people than just the rich. If the people want less spending and a more limited government, anyway, our path should be more direct - electing McCain is not the way to do this, and simply supporting Paul probably isn't enough either. Thomas Jefferson wanted full revolutions every 20 years or so. Obviously that hasn't happened. On the other hand, virtually all of the Framers of the Constitution agreed that Education was one part of government that should recieve funding - and so far as I know, that development might be what kept the USA ahead of the rest of the world starting with the 20th century.
As far as "what's acceptable" for living conditions... I think it is our duty to protect people who live in our society and contribute to it. People who were born here, and immigrants so long as they are hard working, do deserve to have some standard of living conditions. It's obviously not the USA's duty to go out and reform the whole world.
Bill Clinton and Warren Buffet are terrible examples of wealthy squalor that's actually harmful. Both of them are known to be very humanitarian. I don't know that the USA has yet reached the point where wealth directly harms the poor, but the wealth gap is increasing. Look to India - where plots of homes are razed for palaces even today - to see a frightening example of what might become of our society if the wealth gap and government favor for the rich continue to progress.
The Constitution set out to form a Republic indeed. In the definition the Founders looked to, a Republic went beyond "representational government" and included the notion that everyone should work for what makes their country best, and for the common good. I hear about these staunch "Republicans" who are afraid that Obama's a Muslim who will take their property rights - and they're the ones he'd help. The rich or the soon-to-be-rich might dislike Obama's taxing policy, but everyone needs to realize that a Republic is sustained by a genuine love of the country - a love perpetuated not through nationalist fervor but by actually looking out for eachother. The government has never been perfect, but hell, we can't just fearfully make it even less perfect every election by complaining about the candidate who wants to tax our bracket more.
Where McCain come out the bottom of his class, Obama come out a head in his. But, there will be people who still think his "name" holds some big secret.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2008-09-09 13:57:10
On the proposition that this election may determine whether the federal government is going to completely take over control of health care if enough people vote for Obama and elect him President, I say absolutely not! The delegation of power to the federal government is not decided by who wins elections, it must be a delegation of authority from the Constitution itself. Nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by the required 3/4s of the states, would be necessary to allow for this in a Constitutional Republic. If the elected and other officials and employees of the federal government would only obey the oath of office that they all took to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, we the people, would be so much better off than now, after nearly a century of usupations that have resulted in the federal government excerting control over nearly every aspect of our lives. Read your Constitution. The federal government is given no athority over education, health care, pensions, scientific research, housing, jobs, labor, business, etc. Dems tax and spend while Reps borrow and spend in their race to bankrupt the country. The solution will not come from either of those two parties but instead will only come from third party efforts. Make your vote count and vote for third party and independent candidates this year and every year, Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Send a message that you no longer support this warfare/welfare state, otherwise the members of the Incunbent Party will take your votes to mean they have your blessing to take even more of your wealth, rights and property.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
