John McCain recently displayed yet another example of how truly disingenuous he is, by criticizing the Georgian-Russian Conflict with the statement that, “In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” Watch the video below, and then let’s talk.

I don’t want to spend too much time on this blog just talking politics. This site is supposed to be about the intersection of capitalism and culture. But, it’s an election year, and, I suppose you just can’t get away from it. Lord knows I’ve spent enough time writing about the virtues of Ron Paul.

The fact that John McCain was able to come from so far behind in the primaries to achieve the position he’s in now makes me sad for the gullibility of so many Americans. The man is utterly, desperately, completely disingenuous. He talks about how much he sympathizes with people who disagree with him, which would be great, except that he’s so obviously full of crap. His advisers are lobbyists and sycophants who tell him that the policies he wants to work, will work. And how can anyone have fallen for the way he laid it on so thick during one of the Republican debates when he took his microphone off the podium and walked out to address the wife of a veteran who disagreed with the war? That stunt should have buried him. When a person is truly compassionate, these gestures emerge organically. When a person is deceitful and conniving, these gestures are contrived. And how can ANYONE not see this in John McCain?

Don’t forget how the late Tim Russert caught John McCain being disingenuous about the war earlier this year. The man is a hypocrite. Why are so many Americans buying his lines? About this most recent gaff, Huffington Post had this to say:

It was the type of foreign policy rhetorical blunder that has regularly plagued the McCain campaign and could have diplomatic ripples as well. Certainly the comment was meant in innocence. But for those predisposed to the notion that the U.S. is an increasingly arrogant international actor, the suggestion by a presidential candidate that, in this day and age, countries don’t invade one another – when the U.S. is occupying two foreign nations – does little to alleviate that negative perception.

I suppose the larger issue does, in fact, pertain to culture, if not capitalism: We’re a nation very often, very easily led by men of mediocrity.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Barack Obama’s tax plan includes an increase in taxes on capital gains and income from investment dividends.

Sen. Obama outlined a plan Thursday to raise tax rates on capital gains and dividend income from 15% to 20% for individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively. He also detailed a plan to levy payroll taxes on earnings above $250,000 at a rate between 2% and 4%, though that increase wouldn’t occur for at least a decade. Right now, payroll taxes, used to fund retirement benefits, are levied on income up to $102,000.

To put it simply, capital gains and dividends are the income you earn from your investments. With investors’ confidence in the market currently very low (The DOW closed yesterday more than 1600 points lower than it did a year ago.), it would seem counter-intuitive to give the people who have the money to invest any kind of disincentive to do so. And yet, a promise that 20% of any money they make will be taken from them will almost certainly do that very thing. Proposals like this demonstrate at least one of two things about Barack Obama:

1. He doesn’t understand basic economic principles. OR
2. He doesn’t care about the economy or how it affects people.

I happen to believe that Barack Obama does care about what happens to the American people, but it’s of little comfort since it suggests that he knows nothing about the economy or how to foster its growth. The same disincentive will undoubtedly be at work if he succeeds in raising payroll taxes, as it will encourage employers to refrain from giving their excelling employees raises in pay once they begin to approach the newly taxable bracket.

America is at a difficult crossroad this year. We aren’t electing a new president in a time of substantial prosperity or peace. The economy has been faltering for almost a year, and our current president seems to believe that nothing is wrong– that if he ignores the problem, historians will say he finished his term with a stable and flourishing economy. That we have chosen as the two major candidates to succeed him men who have no fundamental understanding of economics themselves is troubling. Whoever gets the job in November is going to have the problem of weak market confidence and tight-pursed employers when he assumes office in January. Americans should think long and hard about this, because we could turn this problem around in four years. Enduring it for another four, on the other hand, could be a disaster.

The July 28 issue of Time Magazine reported the results of a poll by the Rockefeller Foundation, which revealed that 85% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. That percentage climbs dramatically when the polling sample is limited to ethnic populations. More than half of Generation Y, according to the poll, had to borrow money just to survive last year. None of this is at all shocking to me, except when asked about the solution to these problems, respondents overwhelmingly agreed that Government Expansion is the answer. 70% said that government programs should be helping more people, and 82% said they favor public works projects.

This, in the face of 78% who believe their financial future is at greater risk now than in the past. I’m led to wonder if respondents were asked if they knew whether government was spending more money now than in the past. I would be very surprised if such a question didn’t reveal that Americans believe the government is actually spending less. The fact is that the United States Federal Budget has consistently grown throughout the past under 2 different administrations.

From 1992 to 2000, President Clinton’s budgets grew from 1.4 trillion to 1.8 trillion, and under President Bush, spending has further grown to 3.1 trillion dollars (for 2009). Where do Americans think this money is coming from? It’s coming from us. We’ve been funding the expansion of government steadily, and, now that we’re at the point where nearly all Americans have lost hope in the “American Dream,” what do we propose to do? The exact same thing we’ve been doing.

The problem, at least in part, seems to be one of perception. Americans think the government hasn’t been doing enough for them, when, in reality, it’s been doing more and more. And whether we put a Republican or a Democrat in the White House next year, it’s unlikely that anything will change in that regard. Why can’t more Americans embrace the concept of a broader exchange of ideas? If things are going so horribly wrong, why is this nation about to nominate two of the most homogenized, shapeless candidates to choose between to fix things?

What I’m asking, really, is why we can’t be more open to multiple candidates with more radical ideas. Anytime a candidate comes forward with a non-mainstream proposal for change, he’s called a crackpot, and he gets shut down by these very same people who are lamenting about the state of things. We keep going back to the same genetic pool of mediocrity for new leaders, and it feeds into Americans’ complacency. If we keep doing this, things will worsen. I’ve no doubt about that.

According to this week’s issue of The Economist, Ecuador’s new Constitution (which it is widely presumed will be ratified at the end of September) is 444 articles long, gives state-owned companies control of the economy, gives the president the power to dismiss the legislature, guarantees a minimum wage for labor, and outlaws foreign military bases.

About that last bit concerning foreign military bases, I’m delighted. President Correa of Ecuador (described by The Economist as a, “youngish Catholic economist") may be a socialist, but at least he understands sovereignty. At least one implication of the approval of this Constitution would be that the United States would no longer be able to operate anti-drug missions from there, which is a plus. Although, there seems to be little else to get enthusiastic about. But, then, I (like almost certainly virtually every citizen in Ecuador), haven’t read all 444 articles.

This will be Ecuador’s 20th Constitution. It reminds me just how resilient (and mercifully brief) the Constitution of the United States is. We’ve been working from the same document for over 2 centuries, and have only once been faced with a serious risk of secession or collapse. Perhaps if we weren’t so fitfully busy minding the business of so many other countries around the world, they might be more inclined to examine our model, which, while flawed, has stood the test of time the way few other nations’ have.