Let’s address this point by point. Firstly, McCain advocated reform in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2005 well before Obama. This came in the form of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act which identified Fannie Mae profits as illusory and predicted a meltdown. The Act never made it out of committee. Next, it is all well and good to call for regulation once things go sour but let us have details. Once the government expands, it rarely contracts – thus we must be very careful in imposing regulation that does not stymie growth. We can begin with transparency. If consumers and traders are more aware of the complete nature of the financial instruments they are purchasing, they are less likely to have to take on bad debt along with good. Perhaps Mr. Bopst would deign to stoop so low as to offer some of his own details regarding proposed solutions?

Next, perhaps Mr. Bopst will enlighten us as to the scatological implications of McCain’s, or anyone else’s, economic policy. I suspect that Mr. Bopst’s word choice is as astute as the political substance of his commentary.

As for continuing to maintain the elite, Mr. Bopst fails to grasp that our country’s economic policy can’t be reduced to “impoverished, virtuous widow v. gilded, wealth-addled plutocrat.” Higher taxes for corporations (even those sick, bloated, lucre-glutted oil companies) result in higher prices for us consumers. Even the internal logic of Mr. Bopst’s worldview should make this obvious. If a greedy rich man is forced to pay higher taxes, is he likely to do so out of his own profits or is he likely to pass that on to the buyers of the product that he makes? Similarly, jobs will be cut in order to maintain the same level of profitability.

I am not suggesting that the entire country should be run purely on the basis of free market economics. I do, however, realize that these are principles that we must keep in mind when determining economic policy. The clear lesson here is that neither side has a perfect solution. This is precisely why nobody is an idiot for voting either way. These are imperfect attempts at solving a difficult problem and there are good reasons for believing each side. Mr. Obama is no more likely to bring sweeping change to government than Mr. McCain, despite his formidable rhetoric. This can be evinced by the distinct lack of change wrought in the institutions he previously served on as well as the all too predictable tone of the current political campaign despite promises of a high-minded and morally courageous shift in the way campaigns are run. I will be the first to admit that Mr. McCain is equally culpable in this regard.

Lastly, regarding the war, I agree that it was a mistake, that it has been mismanaged and that it is heinously expensive. The issue now, however, is what we ought to do now that we are there. Here, again, reasonable people can differ as to the correct approach for the US and for the people of Iraq. None of that complexity, however, is evident in Mr. Bopst’s analysis.

In short, things are not as simple as Mr. Bopst would have them be. You are not stupid for choosing either candidate. If you truly want change then don’t respond to each other with the same simplistic sloganeering that politicians foist on us. We are intelligent enough to realize there is complexity here, and both sides have something to offer with regard to a solution. If we all choose Mr. Bopst’s approach of picking a corner and then bellowing at the opposition, we will be deserving of the reductionist and intellectually insulting rhetoric that we receive from the candidates and most of the media. Can we put aside our prejudices and passions enough to actually engage each other? Say it with me now, “Yes, we can!”

It’s ON! Booyachaka!