Everyone is aware of the rapid changes which are occurring in the technological arena these days. Keeping up with the lastest device becomes a status symbol as well as a communication tool. Changes in the external challenge to the United States are also appearing on the scene at a disturbing rate. Before the current presidential race reached the convention T V theater, the threat from radical Islam represented the primary target in our sights. But now the U.S. faces a new tripartite coalition of oil-rich challengers. Russia and Venezuela have allied themselves with Iran and seem intent on removing America from the position of number one power in the world. A decision to collectively move against U.S. allies around the world could occur even before the next president is sworn in. Which of the two major presidential candidates is best equipped to respond to that? The VP's do not answer the red phone at 3 AM.
On the other hand, the VP's do provide advice and support in both foreign and domestic policy, especially the latter. As suggested earlier, the domestic or internal challenge facing the nation in this next election is the ideological direction to which the winning party will move.
Will it continue to be toward a reformed capitalistic system or toward a more socialistic one?
The capitalistic system is the limited government form described in the US Constitution with division of powers between Federal and States; and further divided into Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. ( There is no debate that this arangement needs some reform) But are the problems which we face so severe that we wish to throw out those limiting features and replace it with a central government so strong that it CAN absorb the three executive, legislative and junicial functions and then supercede the constitutionallly ascribed authority of the states?
That would be a socialistic system. Under the current understanding of the Constitution, that could not happen. But what if the US Supreme Court found that social, economic and cultural evolutionary changes required drastic structural changes in that understanding? Could they do that? Based on the actions of that Court or rather a majority of the Justices, the past fifty plus years have demonstrated that the Court is ready to "find" authority whenever a legal predicament arises which Congress is unwilling or unable to resolve. Undoubtedly some of these decisions such as Bown v. Board of Education, eliminating segregated education in public schools, was anticipated and approved; but others such as Roe v. Wade declaring abortion to be a constitutional right was an outright usurpation of legislative authority and socially divisive. It is this tendency to step up to the legslative plate whenever an opportunity arises which could be used to strip the limiting flesh from the constitutional skeleton which constitutes a most serious internal threat to the future of the American experiment in representative government.
The authority of the President to nominate persons to the Supreme Court and the Senatorial responsibility to approve the nominees is, or should be, of major concern to citizens who will be voting in November. Senator Obama has promised to appoint only judges who will interpret the Constitution to reflect current politically correct positions; they are called "activist" judges. Senator McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" nominees who will not legislate from the bench, and will preserve the strucure of government as originally designed.
Socialistic programs may be designated as politically correct by the Democratic Party, but hiding them behind the facade of "change we can live with" is- in my opinion- morally corrupt.