By Gary DeSantis

I voted for John McCain. I am neither proud or ashamed of this, it’s simply that I believed McCain would have made a better president. That being said, I, like millions of other Americans, took great pride in the election of a bi-racial candidate to the highest office in the land. As Eugene Robinson, an African-American national columnist noted, after 400 years of either mistreating or shunning our fellow African-American citizens, we have restored our promise in and to America by electing one to the presidency.

As good Americans, we have a responsibility to support our newly elected president and, of course, wish him well in what surely will be a monumentally difficult tenure. He will be faced with a tottering economy, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the inevitable insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare. On these issues and how he deals with them, the Obama presidency in large measure will be judged and defined.

In his bid for the presidency, candidate Obama promised “change.” “Change is coming,” he assured us and, apparently, an overwhelming number of his fellow Americans believed him. I must confess, perhaps through my own deficiencies, I never understood what would be the nature and the scope of the change Obama was predicting. In view of the three issues above, maybe we can evaluate what sort of change is possible and probable.

Relative to the economy, what can President Obama do differently? There is no confidence in the American finance, investment and manufacturing segments by any of their consumers. Americans spend way more than they make and have the world’s worst savings rate and, sadly, these chickens have come home to roost in the finance and “Big 3” automotive debacles. The sub-prime fiasco has dragged down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual Bank and thousands of over-leveraged homeowners.

Chrysler, Ford and General Motors are hat-in-hand in Washington asking for a guaranteed “loan.” What is left up to Obama to do? The federal government has committed a cash infusion of $750 billion to the top financial and banking firms and, it seems, the government will eventually bail out the auto manufacturers. Obama has no alternatives open to him with the financial institutions and automakers but to pour more money into them if the original infusions are unsuccessful. We cannot be without a credible banking system, and the bankruptcy of any of the big three would have consequences that are dire indeed. Millions on the unemployment line is unacceptable.

Obama’s range of motion seems limited and any sort of divergence from existing policies is unlikely. What about any possible “change” in the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts? It appears our presence in Iraq is winding down, or, at the very least, a light is shining at the end of a pretty dark tunnel.

Obama has said he would like to see the majority of our troops out of Iraq within 16 months or so. While Bush and McCain would not establish this timetable, it is certain the Iraqi government wanted the bulk of our troops out in the 16- to 24-month time period and, this being accurate, no U.S. president would have imposed his will on this sovereign country. Not much difference here, we would all agree. Everyone, including President-elect Obama, has insisted on stepping up the number of troops in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban resurgence. It would be like a “troop surge,” only in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Hopefully, this increase in troops will quiet the Taliban and, maybe, Osama bin Laden once and for all.

In any event, I can’t see a whit’s difference between what Bush, McCain and Obama endorsed. Certainly, there won’t be much change here. What difference can we expect from the Obama administration relative the to the 800-pound gorilla in the economic room of our futures — Social Security and Medicare?

Both of these programs have serious unfunded liabilities and will be insolvent UNLESS some changes are made. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize we must either raise contributions or cut benefits to restore both programs. Various non-partisan commissions have reported this simple solution. The problem has been, of course, that no one has the courage to deal with the politically dangerous consequences of reforming either Social Security or Medicare. Such reform would be like touching the third rail of a subway system — instantly fatal to a political career because older Americans would resist benefit cuts and younger Americans will resist the necessarily high increase in contributions. Will Obama (or any U.S. president) get very close to the “third rail?” This question brings us to the most important element of change we all hope the new President Obama will make.

Let us hope President Obama will approach his first term in office as if it is his last. Namely, give him the courage to do what is necessary for the welfare of our beloved country without any concern about how he will win his second term in office. This, my friends, would be a fundamental and substantive “change” in how any politician and any former U.S. presidents have operated. This is not to say that our past presidents don’t do what is best for the country, but all decisions are generally evaluated against a re-election backdrop — witness the inactivity surrounding the Social Security and Medicare scandals.

E.J. Dionne, a liberal national columnist, in a column several days ago, encouraged President-elect Obama to be “audacious” in his solutions to American problems. Here again, I’m not certain in what and how Obama may be audacious, but I am pretty sure that if he was totally oblivious to a second term — now that would be audacious.

Donna Brazile, African-American Democratic activist, said shortly after Barack Obama was elected, how intensely grateful she was with the election of Obama. I understand why she felt that way and share her pride.

No matter whom you voted for, however, let us pray that four years from now, we share her enthusiasm in his election.