Barack Obama

If I were asked to cast a vote in the coming November’s presidential elections I wouldn’t worry choosing Obama for any of the reasons presented in the mainstream press.

I wouldn’t be scared by his “Obama-who?” political status. Neither would I be impressed by his “half-black-half-muslim” cultural roots highly different from the “traditional” ones in the office of Presidency. Nor would I be discouraged by his history of nearness to both local businesses or religious and racial “radicals”.

Those are namely all peculiar patterns characterizing the personal growth of a “newcomer” to the top of public responsibilities starting from one’s own origins towards collection of a higher political “consensus” or business success. All of them characterize to me the real opportunity offered by the USA to anyone disregarding his starting point. They tell me that the “American Dream” is still alive and fully accepted in the “Land of the Free and of the Brave”.

What would I be crosschecking before casting my vote would instead be Obama’s credibility as an innovator offering “change” to the USA political arena as his key role. This well beyond his eminent tactical ability as a speaker. “Facts rather than Words” would discourage me in casting a vote for him.

His pretended “change” was rooted to Republican’s and conservative Democrat’s initiatives as far as foreign and industrial policy are concerned.

His criticism to Dubye’s administration way to tackle the “War on Terror” were shared by McCain too. The difference among them was that while McCain suggested a “change” through the “surge”, Obama pretended an “early withdrawal” from Iraq. The recent history has proven that “change” is a mystifying concept unless stated in alternative decisions. Only one of whose would grant “success”, the other would result a “fake change”.

A consistent criticism to Dubye’s administration was addressing “multilateralism” as “change” as compared to “unilateralism” in foreign policy. Unilateralism gives full sovereignty in politics to the USA. This offers the President the widest use of national resources to achieve goals of a national interest; both “sticks” (warfare) and “carrots” (foreign aid). Multilateralism instead is forcing the President to decisions taken in fully ineffective international forums (the ONU and partially the NATO). Foreign aid and ONU and NATO expenses are overwhelmingly covered by the USA taxpayer, while the emerging results have overwhelmingly resulted in anti-USA outcomes. This is a “fact” that the recent history has proven to the vote-caster. Denying this is a wishful thinking not an appealing “change”.

In addition, while “unilateral” decisions to make sovereign use of “war acts” as a tactical tool in politics have brought to highly successful outcomes for achieving a more peaceful world along the Republican and conservative-Democrats traditions starting from Teddy Roosevelt, to FDR, to Ronnie Reagan, to Dubye the “multilateral change” suggested by Obama did always prove being disastrous and a bloody choice for both the USA and the world starting from Wilson, to Chamberlain, to JFK, to Carter, to Clinton.

On the other side “Change” cannot be confined in mere symbols such as being “black” as a decision maker. Namely just to mention the ongoing Dubye’s administration two Secretary of State have been more “black” than Obama and one of them has “changed” to the successful “surge” adoption as a foreign policy tool that resulted in a dramatic, positive political “change” for the USA in foreign relations as well. France gets back in NATO, Iraq is a free democratic State, Iran is growingly isolated in its Middle East anti-USA policy, Saudi Arabia and the sunni States are consolidating a more “moderate” Islamic core that started even “multiconfessional” relations in Riad with the Catholic Church, Germany is enhancing its military contribute to the Dubye’s “War on Terror” as well as Italy, most of the former East European Countries show higher attention to USA then to the politically ineffective EU in their foreign relations, Russia is trying to resist this highly successful growth of USA importance in Europe. These are “facts” highly positive for the USA induced by “unilateralism”. Any “change” suggesting to swing back to “multilateralism” sounds more a masochist wishful thinking rather than an appealing political strategy.

Health and Environmental Care are highly desired goals for both Republicans or conservative Democrats. Their “solution” goes through growing technological and industrial ingenuity and that demands a growing private highly effective free market rather than costly and ineffective Federal spending programs or “pauperism” as a strategy imposing in an illiberal approach the existing insufficient resources to help the “needy”. The “way towards socialism” can be twofold either through a “bubble up” constant economical effective private market growth where in full democratic spirit along our founding fathers tradition everyone can purchase the sort of goods and services that he responsibly selects to fulfil his needs composing his pursuit of happiness or through a “top down” delivery by the State to his subjects the spread and amount of goods and services that some “wise” politician decides fit to fulfil the dose of felicity available and affordable for us in equal amounts and quality.

The first is the liberal-democratic way to social welfare through the capitalist free market, the second is the illiberal “liberal-radical” way through “big federal spending” programs along priorities and criteria designed by bureaucrats that we know from the history of the European Nation States from where our founding fathers escaped to create the historical revolutionary event of the USA and later on cloned in Countries guided by right or left inspired dictatorships from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro.

If our “change” should suggest a return of political decisions made in the same “multilateral” spirit still hegemonic in today’s world and in most of Europe, I’d rather cast my vote for a more conservative patriot solidly tested along his life such as McCain.

If Obama’s suggestive “change” is resulting constantly more alike McCain change but in a full continuity with the successful international achievements of the conservative Republican policy of proud “unilateral” guidance of the western world centred upon protecting the global interests of the USA why in the heck should I be convinced to cast my vote to elect Obama, a newcomer in national politics before having had a chance to check his credibility and reliability for several years?

He is young and determined, he may get a chance next time while McCain is a proven patriot and national hero who has contributed changing the political mistakes of his own Party leading to gradually convert Dubye innovative policies into a solid, successful global leadership. In addition McCain is experienced enough and aged enough to accept being replaced should his clear minded continuity show dissatisfactory for the national voters in four years to come.

“Yes we can; let Obama await four years” to check him thoroughly in that period of time before taking the risk of his presumed, unspecified “change”. We would else take the risk of “change” only for the sake of Obama’s fascination as a communicator and a speaker. Too little to loose the USA sovereign, successful “unilateralism” built with blood and pride by our troops and to explore with him an “innovative” pattern that suggests only reviving the abused and frustrating “multilateral”, ineffective costs of global policies where the USA taxpayer is called to pay the costs and refrain getting the benefits for America