Early in the 2008 primary season, intangible ideas seem to be most important to voters -- change and hope rather than policy or experience. Abstract values are certainly important, but not to the exclusion of substantive policy; in fact, we can have both. There are a number of progressive Republican candidates speaking out to unite our country through this brand of leadership.
John McCain has been serving the country in the Navy, House of Representatives and Senate since before the newest Democratic frontrunner was born. There is a reason why he has been endorsed by independent newspapers across the country and even Democrats like Joe Lieberman. There is even speculation that, if nominated for the Republicans, McCain would choose Lieberman as his running mate. Imagine having a pragmatic president, one who is driven not by ideology, but rather the best interests of the country as a whole. Imagine a bipartisan president, one who will genuinely reach across the aisle, who has built goodwill for years. McCain stands for hope for a better future.
Similarly, Ron Paul advocates change to an even greater extent. Paul is the only candidate from either party to have voted against the war in Congress. He is the only candidate, including the Democrats, who has backed up his opposition to the war by voting against resolutions to extend funding.
Politicians attack him for not supporting the troops but Paul gets the most support -- in money and backers -- from active military servicemen and women. He wants to bring our government back to the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Paul, a Republican, also represents change for a better future.
Other GOP candidates also share this optimism for a new and better future. Romney plans to run Washington, D.C. like a business by making it more efficient and accountable to the public. Giuliani has the strength to unite the country in prosperity and peace as he did after 9/11. These are candidates with a plan for change -- not just a promise.
On the other side of the political spectrum are candidates that betoken decidedly less substance, rhetoric notwithstanding. John Edwards, for example, brings up the worst in America. He sees America as a battleground for class warfare, in which the working class must pit themselves against evil corporations and exploiting businessmen, while women are forced by the government to give up their profits and earnings. Meanwhile, Edwards has made millions suing businesses, hospitals and just about everybody else. Not an optimistic platform.
If Edwards helped to raise up the poor through charity, he would be inspiring. Instead Edwards is a testament to how much easier it is to tax others people's money rather than donating your own. It would be a message of hope to believe that Americans could be inspired to reach still further for those who are down. It is not a message of hope to think that government must force charity through taxation.
Other Democratic candidates indicate that more of the same is on the way. It is easy to talk about change and hope, but how about making it happen? Restarting the same healthcare program that failed in 1993 is not change. These candidates have no plan for Iraq. They do not have the will to oppose the war and end it (as Paul does) nor do they have the will to victory (as McCain does). Whether on income, gas, imports or death, taxing people into the ground, especially the working and middle class folks who Democrats claim to represent, is not good policy. And it is certainly not optimistic.
A vision of hope is critical in this election, but so is a reason for this hope. Having ideals is a crucial first step, but knowing what to do and how to do it is a necessary second.
A candidate like Barack Obama certainly speaks to hope and opportunity, but in this election I do not believe that we have to sacrifice idealism for efficacy. I believe that many of the Republican candidates uphold a powerful, inspiring vision, and have the will and ability to put it in to place. We need both a vision for national greatness and the right plan to make America great.
We must be mindful to elect a candidate who has both. A vision without a plan is hardly better than plans without vision. In 2008 I believe that we should, as in any election, elect a ticket of Hope and Change.
No matter the circumstances, we can always dream for better things, and always improve on what we have already done.
