It's (always) the economy, stupid!
The timing is odd. John McCain has suspended his campaign indefinitely to hammer (and sickle) out the current "economic crisis." Though I believe McCain should suspend his campaign definitely, a-la Mitt Romney, I offer little other disagreement about this "political move"—a vacuous pejorative people are using to describe their contempt for McCain's choice when, as a politician, every move is "political." After all, McCain is an elected senator—by the people no less! thank you 17th Amendment. He has a duty to represent his constituents in Washington D.C. and make sure their voices are hard. For all of the pandering people are putting behind that old hitching post to "call your representatives in Congress and tell them you oppose the bailout!" there sure seems to be quite the criticism of McCain for somewhat assuming this role. He wasn't elected to run for president by his constituents after all. Even Ron Paul, after all, temporarily suspended his presidential bid to shore up his congressional re-election.
Yet, the timing is odd, and people are associating McCain with ducking the presidential debate this Friday—a curious notion because the debate concerns foreign policy, arguably McCain's stronger point over Barack Obama. With few weeks left before the election, both candidates have some alleged duty to better inform citizens of their views to help them choose whom to vote for. Here's all the help you need: They both support warfare across the world. You can say tomato and I can say potato, and that's about how much these two candidates differ when you replace tomato with Iraq and potato with Afghanistan.
Regarding the debate, others lament that, unfortunately, the debate is not about the economy when the US economy is in such "dire straits." But here is the misdirection, again. The debate, whether it's Friday or another time, about foreign policy is inextricably linked to and cannot be removed from the economy. That "other" debate concerns domestic policy. You know, education and the like. Both debates—here's the kicker—concern the economy. For how can the US government pledge billions, nay, trillions of dollars into war venturing across the planet without affecting the US economy as a whole?
This was the beauty of Paul's cohesive arguments in the Republican presidential debates. He tied everything back to monetary policy, the economy, because nothing can be separated from the economy—that is, economics: human action. How the government acts oversea, how it spends its war venturing, directly impacts the economy. Where does the government get so much money to fight overseas? They sure don't tax US citizens, at least in the commonly perceived sense. The government either borrows or prints money, and both means increase the government's total debt, which, in the end, must be financed by US taxpayers. When the government is so financially invested overseas, in 160 countries, it directly impacts the home front, leaving less to spend at home. At least it should, but it doesn't, because if any domestic financing is needed the government, again, borrows and prints.
All of this leads to a reckless financial policy. When people demand more for bailouts, or health care, or whatever they want more money for, education, drug wars, etc., and the government is strapped, all they need to do is look at the overall financial policy: foreign and domestic. The debate Friday will concern foreign policy, and it should also concern financial policy. It won't, though, because both candidates are incapable of linking foreign policy with financial policy.