Country First

According to John McCain's campaign posters (which eerily remind me of barbed wire and the forthcoming border fence), my-friend-the-maverick puts "country first."

"Country first" has become the McCain brand. His rallies and events are dripping with patriotism. His supporters are grabbing opportunities to showcase McCain's history of public service, not to mention his military heroism. Such nostalgia was the primary thread of McCain's droning address at the Republican National Convention.

McCain's pledge to put "country first" not only highlights his own patriotic credentials, but also reinforces voters' uncertainties about Obama's willingness to wave the flag. Though Barack Obama attempted to stanch concerns about his patriotism with a "C'mon, we all love this country" shtick at the Democratic National Convention, many still do not trust him.

Just as Obamania has excited students, housewives and anyone wearing hemp, it has elicited quizzical reactions from grandparents, NRA members and Rush Limbaugh's audience. "Country first" harks back to Michelle Obama's pride in her country and Barack's rebellion against the flag-lapel-pin-wearing establishment.

As the McCain campaign's ethos, "country first" is both frustrating and distracting. Running for president -- by its very nature -- demonstrates love of country. The race should not consider who has more proudly displayed the stars and stripes, but whose policies will most likely improve the lives of the American people, the candidates' ultimate constituents.

So, let's ask a more meaningful question about the race: is a president obliged to put country first? Is he or she supposed to fight for American interests at the expense of global justice? Is the president the leader of the world, the free world, or just the country?

The president should not pursue policies that will create domestic jobs or increase domestic wealth if they will dramatically violate human rights in any country or disproportionately increase poverty in any community. Of course, the president's decisions are bound to have some inimical ripples across the world. However, the president has a moral obligation to consider and limit the global and humanitarian effects of his country's policy decisions. The president is a human first, an American second. The president is a custodian of the public good first, the American good second.

This is not to say that the president should only implement policies in the global interest. Nationalism is real and discrete groups need individual advocates. As long as the president's policies do not significantly decrease global welfare or dislodge the global order, they are acceptable.

However, a president should first consider how a policy affects the larger global system. If the policy is not likely to yield any mass displacements, economic disruptions or political eruptions, it passes muster. Only then should a president consider whether a policy is right for the American public.

The first consideration (the "humanity first" test), in addition to being prudent, will likely insure that policy decisions are in America's long-term -- as well as short-term -- interests. If a policy is implemented that would have failed to pass the first consideration, the incurring global madness is likely to hurt American interests. It turns out that "humanity first, country second" will preserve American interests.

So, is "country first" jingoism in America's ultimate interest?

---Ben