A New Day for America

by Pete Bodo

Howdy, everyone. I missed most of the election discussions last night because of the state of our apartment, which will be going on the market this weekend with an open house, kicked off by an ad in the real estate section of the New York Times. But I did watch the election returns last night. It's a historic moment, deserving a post despite the ongoing action in Doha.

Although I've voted for candidates from both parties over the years, this was the first time in my life that I voted for the losing candidate but found myself feeling a mixture of relief and optimism when the smoke cleared. The overwhelming reason for this may be obvious: At this point, the thing this nation most needs may be a fresh infusion of self-belief and self-respect. It's ironic, but the net result of the election may be the reassertion of all those things that America-bashers here and abroad most detest - a re-establishment of American confidence and, for lack of a better term, "moral authority."

After all, isn't President-elect Obama himself the one who has framed his astonishing victory as a powerful proof of that age-old - and often assailed - notion that in American, all things are still possible?

So why, you may ask, would I have voted for John McCain - especially when, like many of my fellow citizens, I found Obama a compelling personality?  Well, the worm began to turn for me when Michelle Obama made that widely-publicized comment about being proud of her country for the "first time" when her husband vaulted to the top of the Democratic heap. Soon thereafter, and with the nomination secure, Obama turned around his position on a number of key issues, including campaign financing. I also became increasingly irked by the degree to which the mainstream media seemed to be in the tank for Obama (which, of course, isn't Obama's fault).

Here's a parallel story from my tennis experience that points toward the basic nature of our media culture. Wimbledon before last, Gianni Clerici, the Italian author, pundit and tennis junkie, came over to the "American row" in the press center and made some disparaging remarks about George W. Bush, winding it up with the rhetorical question, "Who voted for this man?" The answers were like shots fired from a maching gun: Not me! Heck No! Bush is an idiot! About a dozen reporters made their feelings known, and they were identical. Sometimes, the smaller the window, the more clearly you can see.

Anyway, as the election approached I kept wondering, what if it had been McCain who had a Bill Ayers in his life (say, a right-wing abortion clinic bomber?), or if he was the one who reversed course and opted out of public campaign financing? What if McCain, powered by seemingly unlimited funding, had been the one to produce and broadcast a widely broadcast 30-minute infomercial about himself? It would have simply re-ignited the age-old (and by now patently untrue) claim that the Republicans are the party of wealth and privilege.

The ACORN voter-registration scandals bothered me, and so did the fact that the McCain website had standard identify-verification procedures in place, ensuring that nobody could donate excessive amounts to the campaign using the same credit card numbers. Obama's website had no such safeguard, which had to be a conscious decision on the part of the campaign; you could contribute pretty much all you wanted using multiple names etc. to make it all look clean. I found those elements of the Obama campaign, added together, very troubling. And they kept me from warming to a candidate who, despite his charisma, was something of an unknown factor.

So the next step was looking at the issues, and in that area I had more problems with Obama's basic vision than with the policy specifics of either candidate. I buy into the idea that wealth creation is far more beneficial than wealth redistribution. I would feel differently if "wealth" were a specific commodity of which there is a limited if large amount (like a great big pile of diamonds, or water). But all wealth is created, so those things that suppress wealth creation end up hurting everyone down the line, even though wealth creation sometimes enhances real or apparent divides between the comfortable and the indigent. There are better ways to close that divide than destroying the machinery for creating wealth.

Here's another tennis connection: We all know that France, a highly socialized nation, is a kind of touchstone nation for the U.S., in a variety of good and bad ways. I had an interesting conversation at the U.S. Open with a French colleague, who told me that among the top French tennis players, only one actually still lives in France. All the others are tax refugees in places like Switzerland and Monaco. Are those refugees merely greedy and unwilling to pay their "fair share" as determined by the French government, or smart, self-protecting realists, tired of being punished for being high achievers while paying lip service to conventional notions of patriotism and playing (wink, wink) Davis Cup?

I'm not against helping those in need. I also believe we should have a good, affordable health-care system, and am willing to contribute my share to it. But in my profession, I often get a check with a number, sometimes a relatively big number, on it. And almost half of that money immediately disappears; I (or we, as a family) don't earn enough to shelter or hide the money like some higher earners. So it's like taking an eraser and almost halving the number - with the missing portion going directly to the government. I've examined my conscience on this. I feel I do my share, especially when I look at what everyone else appears to be doing.

But more than that, I believe this nation's greatest asset is economic mobility (and the social mobility that comes with it). My biggest concern is that onerous taxes and wealth redistribution will create a permanent class structure dominated by the truly wealthy (who don't experience the hardships of even substantial tax hikes) and government bureaucrats. The government that promises to take care of you will also end up owning you, and sentencing  you to an established place in the social order, from which the chance of escape gets slimmer in direct proportion to the amount of "care" you get. I say let people keep the money they earn and use it as they see fit - preferably to build better lives in a responsible way.

Let's go to tennis again. The Volvo International at North Conway was a sweet tournament - a kind of American regional Grand Slam in the bucolic woods of New Hampshire. But as the tournament became more successful, it came up against the ATP's increasingly high "pay-to-play" standards. Soon it became apparent to tournament promoter Jim Westhall that the higher demands (financial and otherwise) of the ATP could not be met (partly because having split-sessions including night play was unworkable for a host of reasons), the tournament was forced to move. It survived for a few years at Stratton Mountain in Vermont, but then had to move again (for similar reasons) to New Haven, where it finally collapsed and died. Although this was in the private sector, Westhall's event was basically "taxed" out of existence, with the ATP playing the role of the government. New England no longer has big-time tennis to speak of, and that's a pity. Of course, somebody down the line benefitted - but to me it's a net loss.

On a more personal level, I have no problem with the wealthy, even as I roll my eyes at the antics of a Donald Trump or P. Diddy. This is because they don't have their wealth stuffed in a mattress, pulling some out only when they want to buy a new HumVee, yacht, or Rolex. Their wealth is cutting paychecks every day for people working in the industries they control or in which they're invested. If and when Trump goes broke, he will take down a lot of wage earners with him.

Call me a fool, but I just don't believe that The Donald or Mr. Diddy lives that much better than I do (although all three of us live far, far better than many people all around the world). I want for nothing, although goals like financing my son's education and securing my retirement remain a high priority and cause me some anxiety - especially if taxes rise. People want jeweled watches, $500 bottles of wine, Cadillac Escalades or Gucci handbags, more power to them. I couldn't care less.

Give me three square meals a day, the company of my family and friends, a good truck (preferably, powered by liquified coal)  and a piece of land that I can roam and manage to enhance wildlife and I've got it all. In my own mind, I live like a king compared to many of my European friends (not to mention monstrously large swaths of the world), even though nobody ever accused me of being rich. I worry that people like me - typical consumers, typical lifestyle-builders - will cease to exist if we drift closer to a socialist vision. It's selfish, I know. But we're all entitled to pursue or dreams.

So I had serious reservations about Obama's seeming inclination toward wealth redistribution, which to my mind often translates to wealth evaporation. At the same time, neither Obama (nor McCain) offered solutions to some of our common problems that really resonated with me, like "luxury" taxes (which seem pretty attractive, no matter how much it causes lobbyists for luxury goods manufacturers howl), or even a transparent, taxpayer financed health-care system.

In the fishing and hunting community, we have something called the Pittman-Robertson Act. It is one of the oldest - and most successful - of American laws. Essentially, P-M it imposes a modest excise tax on every single article of outdoor "sports" related merchandise, and all of the money - by law - goes right back to supporting fish and wildlife agencies and initiatives. Something like 70 per cent of the financing for our fish and wildlife management agencies and efforts at the state levels comes from P-R monies. Nothing gets diverted to, say, highway maintenance. It works. In fact, it works beautifully. Where's the comparable approach to health-care?

When it came to foreign policy, McCain seemed a little too volatile, while Obama looked, well, a bit naive.  I really believe the world has changed more in the last 10 years than it had in my previous forty-plus, and the good news amid the horror stories is that maybe that does call for a new approach to international affairs. But I still believe that, as someone once said, the lodestar of every nation is self-interest. We'll see how our allies, never mind our antagonists, respond to our new, charismatic, open leadership when our competing self-interests bump up against teach other.

So here I am, cautiously optimistic. I can't forget my reservations and it's unlikely I'll alter my basic beliefs, but as far as I'm concerned, President Obama starts with a clean slate. He did what he had to do to win (which in and of itself suggests that he knows a thing or two about discipline and steadfastness), and now he is more or less free to do what he thinks is right. I have a high regard for the office of the President, and one of the most discouraging things for me these past few years has been to see the extent to which the simmering antagonisms led so many people to so flagrantly exhibit what I would call a lack of regard for the office. But I suppose it was always that way. You want to see a case study in the politics of demonization, look no further than the "convictions" of the man who shot Abraham Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth.

It's a new day for America, that much is for sure. We'll soon see if we are emerging from a national nightmare (much of it self-imposed, which may be a more poisonous tendency), quietly surrendering our unique nature and identity, or embarking on a massive, positive course correction that will leave many of us smacking our heads, asking, How come I didn't see all this coming? I do know that multitudes who had lost their faith in our nation, or at least our leadership, have been placated, and here in deeply liberal New York I saw a lot of happy, smiling faces on the bus and subway today.

It's a heckuva start, so if I end up eating crow, it will be mighty tasty crow.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect!

[[ PS - feel free to comment, but keep it civil, whatever your opinion; TennisWorld standards will be strictly enforced.]]