Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
softwareNerd

A John McCain presidency

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If you agree that the 2010 Congressional elections were a response to Obama's overreaching, then there'd be a different makeup there now. But supposing a McCain win also implies that the 2008 Congressional elections would have turned out differently, so it becomes impossible to say what the net effect would have been.

Obamacare wouldn't have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is the obvious answer although I'd bet we would have a watered down "McCare" program as well.

Foreign policy would have been greatly altered as well, especially in how we are handling the Middle East but you could make the argument it might have been mismanaged a completely different direction, for example I have no reason to believe he wouldn’t have stuck his nose into Libya too. I do think his handling if Israel would be better since he gets they are our ally plus I expect Iran would be a better policy without going off into neo-con territory.

Frankly, I more or less expect it would be a diet version of Obama outside McCain would be political savvy enough to not double down like Obama has on Nation Building™.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is the obvious answer although I'd bet we would have a watered down "McCare" program as well.

Including some provision that discourages abortion, just barely short of making it outright illegal. Or rather, until Personhood is a concept written into law, defined as such after some crazy supreme court decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare would not have happened. What would have been the most likely move in healthcare under McCain?

  • Would we have got something along the lines of Romneycare?
  • Or would McCain have done something more like what Paul Ryan is suggesting?
  • Or would he have allowed the status quo continue for his term (thus building a bit more pressure for change)?

I'd forgotten about LIbya. Yes, McCain might have done something more aggressive there. In the area of war, McCain, as president, would probably have got his way. What about Afghanistan and Iran? Would he have pulled out on the the same schedule?

McCain had spoken of a freeze in federal government salaries, but Federal payrolls have not exactly ballooned. What do you think McCain and the Congress elected with him might have done on stimulus, unemployment-compensation, and temporary payroll-tax (2%) reduction. Would the economy have been significantly better today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Israel is treated differently under different presidents for the past 30 years is jsut silly. Obama is not anti-Israel. He isn't even neutral. He is pro-Israel. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have been elected or re-elected. (As I imagine he will be).

I think the drone policies would have been pulled back in favor of more direct engagement. We probably would have still gotten another stimulus package, but it would have been altered. We wouldn't see as much a resurgence in people touting limited government, because people are blinded by Republican rhetoric both on the Right and Left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Bush Sr. gave us the American with Disabilities Act, his son gave us medicare Part D. Any thoughts on whether John McCain would have slipped in any such left-supported economy-related program which Obama did not manage to get through?

For instance, in 2008, McCain said he supported the fight against Global Warming. This was in the primaries, when he was catering to the more centrist GOP voter. According to the article, he said: "I will clean up the planet,... ... I will make global warming a priority" and also that he had learned in his 2000 campaign that "young people care about climate change."

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCain would've almost certainly supported Israeli plans to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

Also, no Obamacare, smaller deficit and better economic growth, possibly a different outcome in Egypt and Lybia, probably no civil war in Syria.

On the downside, no Tea Party, and Sarah Palin would be vice-President (causing endless embarrassment to the administration and the country as a whole). Illegal immigrants would also be worse off, the FCC would be policing speech more harshly, gays would still be discriminated against in the military, and the Supreme Court would almost certainly have 5 justices who are opposed to abortion rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one negative effect is that the Tea Party would probably be a lot weaker. Obama has energized the Tea Party and a Republican president might turn a lot of them into the cheerleaders instead of the activists they need to be.

Edited by oso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the downside, no Tea Party

The Tea Party started in 2007, and was a response to the republicans' (and democrats) support of Keynesian economic policies, which almost certainly would have continued under a McCain presidency. I agree that their energy probably wouldn't have been so high in 2010 because no Affordable care act, but it's not accurate to imply McCain and congress would have endorsed their economic views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose John McCain had won the 2008 election.

What one or two major things would have been different about the U.S. today?

We would have been massively better off than we are now. I disagree with your implicit premise here, which is essentially a "broken country fallacy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We would have been massively better off than we are now. I disagree with your implicit premise here, which is essentially a "broken country fallacy".
I'm really not trying to push a view. Personally, I think there is a sense in which we would be better off and I also think it depends on what area we look at: budget, psychology, defense, etc. However, I'm not interested in other people's final conclusions, but in their reasons. That's the input I need to draw my own conclusions.

You say we would be massively better off. Fair enough, but in what specific ways? People have responded with specific things McCain might have done and might not have done, do you agree with some? Disagree with some. Even people who have responded about areas where McCain would have been better have not said he'd be "massively" better. In what areas do you think we would be massively better off? Do you mean the economy? Militarily? And how -- what would he have done or not done?

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea Party started in 2007, and was a response to the republicans' (and democrats) support of Keynesian economic policies

I think early 2009 is the right date, I remember vividly Rick “Ayn Rander" Santelli's rant, and then how the first mass demonstrations that followed were labeled as "tea parties".

Anyway, McCain and GWB were on board for the bailouts, which is not quite the same as "Keynesian economic policies", though I suppose it's close enough for Jazz. They did let Lehman Brothers croak, however. What "too big to fail" entity has Obama let croak? Solyndra?

solyndra+didnt+build+that.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think wrong.

You're welcome to post any accounts of large scale protests in favor of a smaller government, before 2009. Pictures, written media accounts, audio, paintings, anything you'd like.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think wrong.

What is this, the Monty Python Argument Clinic?

The main point here, what’s relevant to this thread, is that by saying the Tea Party started in 2007, there’s an implication that it would have developed just the same whether McCain or Obama were elected. I’m inclined to disagree, but of course there’s no way to prove it. The question from the OP is what would be different if McCain had won, so, whether we’d have seen the Tea Party protests of 2009, even if McCain had done the same things Obama did, I just lean towards answering no. I’m curious what other people think about this.

The Wikipedia article on the Tea Party supports my earlier claim, though it does reference a Ron Paul campaign event from December 2007 in Boston that was called a Tea Party. Whether Rick Santelli was thinking of that in February 2009, I suppose only he could say. His rant sure looked and sounded completely spontaneous. There’s no question that it reached critical mass as a result of Santelli, and I think he deserves credit for coining the name.

http://en.wikipedia....ovement#History

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... ... if McCain had won, so, whether we’d have seen the Tea Party protests of 2009, even if McCain had done the same things Obama did, I just lean towards answering no. I’m curious what other people think about this.
I think that's the best guess. A Republican President would have discouraged some of the protest from the Tea-party and encouraged a bit more from the OWS types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's debatable. There were tea party rallies back in 2007 for limited government across the country. It did gain more steam when Rick santelli went on that rant and then stated he was going to start a tea party group in Chicago. I would credit him for giving it attention, but not for creating the movement.

Edited by Matt Giannelli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's debatable. There were tea party rallies back in 2007 for limited government across the country. It did gain more steam when Rick santelli went on that rant and then stated he was going to start a tea party group in Chicago. I would credit him for giving it attention, but not for creating the movement.

You think what’s debatable? Santelli didn’t say he was going to start a Tea Party group in Chicago, and he didn’t reference any pre-existing group. Go to 2 minutes in, he’s talking about dumping derivatives into the river, that sounds like an omage to the Boston Tea Party, and it sounds like he’s proposing a one time event.

Do you know of more material about the beginning of the Tea Party than is referenced in the Wikipedia article? I know I never heard of it before Santelli, and then all of a sudden it was everywhere.

Do you believe the Tea Party protests of 2009 would have happened if McCain had been elected? Maybe roughly the same? I don’t claim to have a knockout case that they wouldn’t have happened, that much I agree is debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think what’s debatable? Santelli didn’t say he was going to start a Tea Party group in Chicago, and he didn’t reference any pre-existing group. Go to 2 minutes in, he’s talking about dumping derivatives into the river, that sounds like an omage to the Boston Tea Party, and it sounds like he’s proposing a one time event.

Do you know of more material about the beginning of the Tea Party than is referenced in the Wikipedia article? I know I never heard of it before Santelli, and then all of a sudden it was everywhere.

Do you believe the Tea Party protests of 2009 would have happened if McCain had been elected? Maybe roughly the same? I don’t claim to have a knockout case that they wouldn’t have happened, that much I agree is debatable.

What is debatable is whether santelli created the movement or just gave more attention to it. Go to YouTube and look it up for 2007. It is debatable whether that is the same movement. I think I saw video of Austin and Los Angeles rallies.

As for the tea party, I don't know what would have happened and don't claim to. I do know that the stimuluses and other faulty economic policies probably would have continued, whether or not that would have been enough to cause protests as massive as 2009 is debatable.

Edited by Matt Giannelli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's debatable. There were tea party rallies back in 2007 for limited government across the country. It did gain more steam when Rick santelli went on that rant and then stated he was going to start a tea party group in Chicago. I would credit him for giving it attention, but not for creating the movement.

The symbolism of the Boston Tea Party has been used to protest taxation for hundreds of years, by various unrelated groups and individuals.

But this movement (the organizations involved, and their public events) started in early 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...