I just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. Some of the most interesting parts of the books are the descriptions of the main character’s classes in “History and Moral Philosophy.” This takes place in the future and looks back at the “failures” of our society and compares them with their solutions in the future. Some of the most interesting parts are about morality, the survival instinct, and how it relates to democracy.

The teacher in the book, Mr. Dubois, says “Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. … We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.” This is an interesting concept. Certainly when you look at animals you don’t think they are born with a moral sense. What’s more interesting is where he says our moral sense comes from. “What is ‘moral sense’? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it.” Where the moral sense comes in, is whose survival is imperative to you: “survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale.” He claims that their theory can solve any moral problem, on any level: “Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility to the human race.”

This discussion of morality gets really interesting when he ties it in with their political system. In their system, you must serve your country (in some capacity: military, science, research, engineering, etc) before you are allowed to vote or run for office. But this service is not required, moreover it is done on a volunteer basis and discouraged so that only those who are truly committed accomplish it. Mr. Dubois explains that “Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And that is the one practical advantage. He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than any other class of rulers in history.”

I’m not advocating this system of government, but this argument makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve argued in previous blog posts here that one of the biggest problems with our government is that people are too concerned with themselves than the best interests of the country. Politicians are more concerned with raising enough money to keep their jobs than serving the country well. Many voters are more concerned with how the policies affect them than what it means for the country or for future generations. Restricting the decision making to only those who actually put the best interest of the country ahead of their personal interests would make the system more successful. I’m not quite sure how to do that. Even when we have candidates who put the country ahead of themselves, they don’t necessarily get elected because there are enough voters who don’t do so. Certainly some interesting questions to think about.

Here’s a quote that sums up how I wish the government (and its voters) operated: “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” — The Iroquois Confederacy

The editorial board of toddhester.net (members: me) has decided to endorse Barack Obama for Presidency of the United States. There are a good number of reasons for this as I will explain below, including his stance on the issues, his experience, his vision, and his electability.

Issues

In the democratic field, there are actually three very good candidates who are very similar on the issues. They want to bring the troops home from Iraq, they support lowering taxes on the poor and perhaps raising them on the rich, they want to all Americans access to health care. So they’re all very good on the issues, and I don’t think Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards really separate themselves here.

Fixing the System

The governmental system in America is broken, because instead of our politicians representing the interests of the citizens of this country, they represent the interests of the corporations and lobbyists that donated to them. Both Edwards and Obama have harped on this issue and talked about the importance of turning this around. Obama has repeatedly said he has not taken money from PAC’s, lobbyists, and special interests.

Experience

Hillary Clinton keeps talking about her experience as the reason she should be elected over Obama, but personally I prefer Obama’s experience to hers. She’s been a Senator 8 years to his 4 years, is that a very big difference? Hillary says she’s the candidate who can make change and will be ready on day one. Once you get into office, any candidate is going to surround themselves with smart people (and they’ll have the backing of their party) to get things done. Experience isn’t the question there. The question is, “Who will get the right things done, the important things done?” On this point, I have more trust in Obama. He has a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. He went to elementary school in Indonesia, he’s gone to Columbia and Harvard law. He’s worked on the streets of Chicago organizing and helping people. I think this broad experience gives him a better perspective on what’s important to this country that Hillary’s experience as first lady and US Senator.

Vision

Obama’s vision for this country is great. Whether he can bring it about or how he could do so is another question, but I don’t think you can argue with his vision of hope for this country and uniting us together again (although Hillary did claim it was just “false hope”). It’s important that we have a leader who actually wants to unite us together rather than just rally their base of support and piss off half of the country. It’s important that we have a leader who campaigns on the politics of hope rather than the politics of fear. You also get the idea from listening to Obama that he actually has a vision of what needs to be done in this country, while Hillary seems to just have a vision of whatever the polls say she should do on an issue.

Freshness

This goes along with the experience thing, but Obama brings a freshness to the political scene. Instead of the usual waffling of our candidates, whose views on the issues seem to be simply whatever is most popular in the country, Obama actually has his own views and convictions that he stands by. He was against the Iraq war from the start, while Hillary was for it and has since changed but refuses to admit her mistake and apologize for her original vote. We need someone like Obama to bring a fresh perspective and change the political system from being under the control of lobbyists and fear to the control of its citizens and hope.

Electability

In the case of selecting a democratic candidate that can win in the general election, I think Obama is it. Hillary would have a tough time in the election. Do we want 24+ years of rule by just Clintons and Bushes? She inspires the democratic base but is a polarizing figure for Replublicans. Edwards would be a viable candidate and I think would be pretty successful in a general election. But Obama’s vision and unifying message of hope would give him a shot at winning a landslide election over the Republican candidate.

Summary

In summary, I’m endorsing Obama because of his experience and vision for this country. His experiences on the streets of Chicago and in Indonesia give him a fresh perspective that this country needs. He has a message of hope and unity, instead of the recent politics of dividing the country into red and blue states. He has the ability to overcome the problems in this country and lead us back towards success.