Pundits have declared the results of last week’s Super Tuesday as inconclusive. And yet, it has produced a surprisingly clear verdict as to which two candidates should run in the general election. With Mitt Romney’s Death of a Salesman- like departure after Tuesday’s disappointments, the Republican nominee will almost surely be John McCain. With a stellar performance in many swing states, Barack Obama has shown that he is capable of being the Democratic frontman.
A contest between McCain and Obama would be the best for America, as it would result in a winner worthy of the American electorate. Both men possess impressive records when it comes to qualities lacking in their close competitors: integrity and honesty, which facilitate the public to trust their leader, necessary if the U.S. chooses to wage the war on terror successfully. Courage motivates the future president to do what is best, making tough decisions in spite of tough poll numbers.
Time and time again, McCain has challenged his own party when it has betrayed its conservative principles, in times of reckless Republican pork-barrel spending and cynical support for agricultural subsidies. He has admonished his colleagues when they have lost sight of national interest, as in the case of Guantanamo Bay and and the question of torture. When the popular mood turned against the Iraq war in 2006, McCain stood by a new “surge” strategy, unwilling to let the country fall prey to ethnic cleansing and civil war. Unlike the president, McCain was willing to explain the situation in clear terms—that the odds were for success in Iraq were low, but the U.S. had an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them rebuild.
Obama too has made telling hard truths a hallmark of his campaign. He doesn’t shy away from confessing to voters in Michigan that they aren’t likely to get their jobs back. He is a black candidate who opposes race-based affirmative action, a key rallying issue for black activists and voters in the U.S. In 2002, Obama did not give into the fervour of pro-war patriotism swirling around Washington, and voted no on sending troops to Iraq.
Contrast McCain and Obama with their closest competitors. Though Mitt Romney has dropped out, he once commanded a strong following among rank-and-file conservatives. Romney positioned himself as the cookie-cutter social conservative, despite a socially liberal governing record in Massachussetts on gay marriage, abortion, and stem cells. He conveniently changed positions on immigration reform, campaigning against amnesty when a controversial bill providing guest-worker status to 12 million illegal immigrants was hotly debated last summer (Mc- Cain had co-written one version of that bill). When consultants advised Republicans on distancing themselves from the president’s Iraqi struggles, Romney listened. He second- guessed Bush’s surge strategy, before becoming a convert once it proved successful.
Hillary Clinton appears to be the only candidate who could spoil an Obama vs. McCain race, and she has been no better. In fact, her political machine has all but made her campaign one big lie: that she is the experienced candidate. As a senator, Clinton has only one more term in office over Obama. Most of her touted “experience” comes from her years as a first lady. Visits with celebrities to Africa and a failed health care initiative are not signs that one would make a good president.
Clinton’s ambition and calculation are indicators of the poll-tested presidency she would preside over. This is best exemplified in her Iraq plan, which calls for a withdrawal of troops with a remnant contingency to fight terrorists. It would mollify left-wing pressure for an end to the war, but also appease the right’s charges that she is soft on national security. Of course, drawing down troops to a number that is small enough to fail sounds similar to the original Rumsfeld “light-footprint” strategy that got the U.S. into the mess it is now trying to correct.
We can never believe all that is promised on the campaign trail will be fulfilled. After all, situations change and political obstacles often make keeping promises impossible. Instead, in an election with so much at stake, we must rely on our assessment of character. Neither Mc- Cain nor Obama are perfect. They have made mistakes in judgment, and have occasionally had to burn bridges to achieve political ends. But they are politicians who have achieved great, difficult tasks, and inspired many people through their honesty, integrity, and courage. Their character is superior, and it is on that consideration that they both merit endorsement.
