New York, McCain, and Obama...

This year we have two presidential candidates to choose from: One is McCain, an older candidate that embraces a moderate approach to change; while the other, Obama, is a younger candidate who exposes the need for lots of "change." There are clear differences in styles between the two candidates, but the choice needs to be about substance, not perception. Our perceptions are easily manipulated, and it is important to understand what we're getting. An example of this manipulation comes from my childhood when I was brainwashed about New York City.



While growing up, one of the things I always heard from people was, "I would hate to go to New York City, it's too crowded. Why would anyone want to go there?" Since my parents had been raised in the mid-West during the "Great Depression," the idea of going to New York was frowned upon. Crowds, noise, crime, and money grubbers were all associated with NYC. It was funny, but it seemed my parents grew up with a general fear of the unknown.



This fear of the unknown was also used to paint other places: Mexico was a prime example. The general impression growing up was that it was a place that was corrupt, dangerous, and full of theives. Two months of my life were spent in Mexico and my experience showed me that the people are wonderful, and for most part, it is safe. My distrust of large cities melted away during trips to Boston (which isn't that large) and London, and both are wonderful places to visit. With that in mind, last year's trip to New York was a spectacular success. However, in 1984, a visit to Manhattan revealed a very different place: It was rather sleazy. Due to a concerted effort, Manhattan has changed for the better, was able to survive and even thrive since 9/11.



So, we are faced with a presidential race and one candidate (Obama) calls for change because the current administration under Bush is unpopular. He's running against Bush rather than McCain. There's no doubt that the United States has struggled under the leadership of Bush, but the country will eventually recover. What is sad about Obama is that he campaigns for change, but his efforts as a lawmaker in the Senate were meager. He gives good speeches, but the substance of his words is lacking. In the grist of the legislative process, Obama offers little. Unfortunately, McCain has not articulated how his economic policies will create prosperity for the working people, and he seems spend as much time distancing himself from Bush as he does running against Obama.

In a way, listening to McCain and Obama is like listening to my parents discuss New York City. Both candidates speak of fear rather than opportunity. Obama plants the fear of Bush while McCain speaks of the specter of higher government spending. On the one hand, Bush will be gone no matter who wins, and the government has almost always increased spending. The problems we face at the present time aren't about Iraq: they are related to the current and future economic condition of the United States. The two candidates need to articulate a plan that will determine the best method to move the economy forward. We need to lower inflationary pressures and insure energy independence. Working to secure Iraq and attaining global stability are a part of that plan. The candidates need to tell us how the United States is going to channel its economic resources through legislation, and through influence on the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments to help the American economy.