I think I've started this entry six times now. I wanted it to be inspiring, I wanted it to be well-considered... I even hoped it might be persuasive. In the end, I've settled for thorough. Sorry.

I've always thought of myself as an "issues" voter. It makes a certain visceral sense, after all--vote for the guy whose policies are most in line with your own, and you're more likely to see your pet policies implemented, right? But what do you do when no viable candidate represents you on a majority of the issues?

(Warning: This is a long one.)

Chapter One: McCain
Let's take Senator McCain, for example, since I am (after all) a white, male Republican. He says that the Republicans have forgotten how to control spending. Well, I definitely agree with that!

On the other hand, he is a strong proponent of "filtered" Internet access in public places like schools and libraries. Uh-oh! I have to deal with BYU's Internet filter (they block YouTube! YouTube is one of the best places to get independent news reports!) and it impedes my ability to conduct research about once a month, but there's no functional or expeditious way to appeal a block. While it's really thoughtful of Uncle-Nanny Sam to protect me and mine from the psyche-warping dangers of unshielded exposure to the human breast, "benevolent" filtering inevitably devolves into a political statement. Should children have access to sites discussing uncomfortable contemporary topics like abortion and torture? What about religious sites? Should they have to brave the condescending looks of librarians every time they come to a screen that says, "Your parents trust you to be at the library unsupervised, but that's only because they know the government is doing an excellent job of raising you for them. Check with a librarian if you really want to bypass the filter and visit the website of this homophobic, hate-mongering religious group." The law of unintended consequences is best formulated by this question: "How would my ideological opponents use this law against me?" McCain bleats, "think of the children," I say, "think of the fit you would throw if public Internet access were limited to what your opponents think is appropriate for children."

Senator McCain also opposes torture and recognizes that waterboarding is wrong. Bravo.

On the other hand, he's repeatedly endorsed the inaptly-named PATRIOT act, eroding civil liberties. I think it was Bush who was stupid enough to claim that Muslim terrorists attack us because they "hate our freedom." Well, in that sense I guess the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act helps defend our country by jettisoning those freedoms one-by-one. Although the safety of Americans is important insofar as it enables our freedom, the freedom of Americans as such hasn't really been threatened by an outside enemy since Pearl Harbor, and even in World War II the United States didn't have much to worry about in terms of invasion. The only credible and effective threat to our freedoms in the past century has been from within--either reactionary conservatism or nanny-state liberalism.

Senator McCain believes that gay marriage is a state issue. I have my doubts as to whether marriage should be a government issue at all, but McCain scores some points for being a good federalist here.

But he also thinks that violent media causes school shooting. That's right, McCain gored my sacred cow (so to speak) and suggested that movies and video games cause criminal behavior. Rubbish and poppycock, Senator. One human being kills another because the killer is hungry, or addicted to a controlled substance, or mentally unstable, or a religious zealot, or a political zealot, or racist, or scared, or ordered to do so by the supreme executive of their country, or any of a million causal reasons any schoolchild could name. One does not kill another because they played a video game or watched a movie. Were that the case, violent crime among youth would be on the rise. It isn't.

Chapter Two: Obama
Right, well, enough about McCain, you get the point. Let's contrast this with Obama, who happens to be my personal favorite democrat. (I will never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton.)

Senator Obama wants to increase funding for basic research and expand broadband access. He favors Net Neutrality (a very important part of preserving the Internet as a democratic medium), transparency in government (facilitated by Internet technology), and in short he understands technology. Clinton and McCain do not. I believe that technology is the key to human advancement, and I do not want frightened rabbits like Clinton and McCain to strangle the Information Age in its infancy.

On the other hand, he voted against notifying parents when their teenagers get out-of-state abortions. Now, I'm a huge advocate for the independent rights of children, especially teenagers, but this is really inconsistent. Obama opposes lowering the drinking age to 18. Teenagers are regularly prosecuted under "child pornography" laws for taking racy pictures of each other. Yet here's Obama talking about recognizing a teenager's independence by letting her get an abortion without parental consent. One step at a time! The choice to get an abortion carries at least as much gravity as the choice to drink heavily and pose lasciviously and get pregnant in the first place. If we're going to condescend to individuals under an arbitrary age, let's at least give their parents a right of first refusal.

Senator Obama also wants to close tax loopholes for corporations relocating abroad. I'm not sure why this wasn't taken care of years ago. Oh wait, yes I am! It's because of the corporate world's "No Congressman Left Behind" program, assuring that every congressman gets enough bribes perks campaign funding to keep their seat in D.C. At any rate, good call. You do business in America, you pay taxes in America. It's only fair.

On the other hand, where's my flat tax!? Seriously, guys, whatever happened to comprehensive tax reform? It was the grand promise of the 1990's. Maybe a national sales tax, or a flat tax, or a graduated flat tax... I don't know but the present system just doesn't make a ton of sense. It seems like the biggest pinch is in the mid- to upper-mid income range. Why would you do that to the middle-class? The thing about percentages is that bigger percentages hurt less the more your initial number is. For example, if you make ten million dollars a year and you have to pay half of that to the government, you're still incredibly rich. But if you make a hundred thousand dollars a year, giving half of that to the government really takes the wind out of your sails! Tiered taxation makes a lot of sense, but at present we only tier it to benefit those who make below average money. Helping the poor is all well and good, but when someone earning $20,000 per year has about as much discretionary income as someone earning $40,000 per year, you've screwed something up.

Chapter Three: The Sober Leader or the Inspiring Visionary?
At any rate, this is an exhausting exercise and you get the point. You can't really be an issue voter if you have more than about three informed opinions. And besides, it turns out that the President has to make so many compromises in getting bills legislated that "the big polarizing issues"--gay marriage, abortion, health care, et cetera--don't actually get addressed that often once the elections are through and everyone can get back to the business of lining each other's pockets. So maybe, despite the powerful rhetoric of "issue voting," the issues don't actually matter that much.

Thus my dilemma. America's next president is going to be in a position to either correct Bush's egregious mistakes, or compound them. Bush did not limit his mistakes; both foreign and domestic policy have been a train-wreck under Bush's nightmare administration. Bush's two biggest mistakes--the PATRIOT act and Iraq--are likely to be compounded by McCain (with more PATRIOT acts and, likely, Iran). So if I'm strictly interested in a President that will drag America out of the hole Bush has been digging, then Obama is the clear choice. But then, Obama will do nothing to advance federalism, and whatever money he saves by not starting new wars will doubtless be spent on domestic programs. Which is not all bad, but I'd much rather see the federal government downsized a bit.

On the other hand (lots of those today), Obama is likely to appoint intellectual judges, which would be a refreshing change from Bush's anti-intellectualism. (With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, when an uppity 2L at a top-40 law school can confuse you with a simple question about legal philosophy, you are not an academic--which may well be a compliment of sorts, but I think our judiciary needs less gut-level responses from ideologues and more theory-laden responses from philosophers.)

And then there's that je ne sais quoi, that tertium quid, that extra unquantifiable thing. All issues aside, even theoretical ones, McCain is a leader--and Obama, a visionary. Whatever their respective positions, McCain is not destined for greatness, and Obama really is. I think McCain would be an adequate defender of the status quo, but Obama is ready for an adventure. He's not afraid of failure, as long as we can learn something in the process. He's inspirational, charismatic, infectiously optimistic. McCain is proud of what America is; Obama, proud of what America has the potential to become. Even if he's wrong, no one can say he isn't ready to try, to be enthusiastically wrong.

And, at heart, isn't that the true difference between a conservative and a liberal? The conservative fears tomorrow's unknowns while the liberal embraces its possibilities. Sometimes the liberal finds himself hugging a cactus, but the conservative is convinced that cactus will bring about the downfall of Western civilization. I think, at the dawn of this bright new Information Age, the capacity to embrace change, to harness change, is more important than the capacity to resist it.

It may even be that, as President, Obama would do more good for this country simply by being an inspirational and enthusiastic figurehead than he or anyone else could ever accomplish through actual policymaking. So, my Democratic friends and colleagues with state primaries yet to come, pick Obama. This white, male, Christian Republican is ready to vote for him, issues be darned.

But I will not vote for Hillary.

UPDATE: Looks like the Financial Times agrees with me.