[Bond]

Allow me to build my case my examining the past two administrations:

The Clinton Years (1992-2000):

Bill Clinton was, more or less, an adherent to the third way. In my assessment, the philosophy of third way, or centrism, is the most effective way to govern a country. The problem with countries such as the United States, is that their electoral system, which is majoritarian / single-member-districts (smd), poorly reflects the political views of its citizens. Countries which have smd representation as opposed to plural representation end up electing politicians that are further away from the median voter than their plural counterparts. This is dangerous, because the smd system nominates, and eventually elects, either strong right or strong left candidates, whom are far away from the median voter.

While Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans controlled the Senate, creating an ideal environment for centrist policies to be passed and enacted. Under Clinton, the deficit was drastically reduced, and government spending was decreased. The same can be said for Ronald Reagan's administration. Reagan was able to pass meaningful legislation, while working together with the Democratic Senate.

The Bush Years (2000-2008):

When George Bush was first elected in 2000, it looked as though he would continue Clinton (and Tony Blair's) policy of the third way. In fact, Bush ran on a humble foreign policy, aka no nation building. Then September 2001 happened, and Bush abandoned his centrism in favor of neo-conservatism. Many commentators will improperly point out that Bush was a conservative, and this would be inaccurate. Bush increased the federal deficit, increased the size of government, and decreased our liberties. This is not true conservatism. Neo-conservatives within Bush's administration ceased the events of September 11th to regain power and move Bush from his centrist policies to right wing policies. These policies moved the Bush administration farther away from the median voter.

We now find ourselves at the end of the Bush administration, and nothing has been accomplished. Our deficit is out of control, the size of government has increased, our liberties are being compromised, social security is a tremendous problem, and medicare and medicaid are out of control.

The Future (2008-?):

This is where we get to the Obama part, and why voting for Senator Obama is a mistake. The reaction many voters will have is, "Bush was a Republican, nothing was accomplished, it's time to elect a Democrat, let's vote for Obama." This is reactionary thinking, and it does not work. Obama is very similar to Jimmy Carter and George McGovern, two far-left candidates who did not practice the third way. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton, or even George Bush, he is a reactionary candidate to Bush's neo-conservative years. This will not help our country.

If Obama were to govern the country, he would run the country using his far-left ideology, which is far away from the median voter. Obama's administration would trigger a reactionary candidate from the Republican party, which would continue this harmful cycle.

In the end, nothing will be accomplished, and our deficit will increase, and the size of government will continue to grow. This is why we need to elect politicans who practice the third way, and not those who are reactionary.