Unless you've been living in a cave, or you're from another country (and probably not even then), you know that on Tuesday Barack Obama was elected as the next President of the United States. Now that I've had a few days to take things in, I have a few thoughts.This is the first election that I've participated in that went the way I wanted it to. The first presidential election I got to vote in was in 2000, when George W. Bush began the first of his two terms. At the time, and even more so after the 2004 election, it felt like things were just getting worse, and things would never go my way. I'm a liberal, I feel no shame in saying that (though I don't ascribe blindly to the Democratic Party, more on that later), and it seemed like all around me the country was getting more and more conservative. As the war progressed, our rights were threatened, and the government grew powerful in provocative and ominous ways, I never lost hope, but it did worry me greatly.
Finally, this time around, enough people seem to have become fed up with how things are going that a tidal change occurred. Obama didn't just win, he won decisively. He won in states that haven't voted for a Democrat in decades. And he won in the largest voter turn out in US history. If that's not a clear mandate, I don't know what is. A map that was awash with red only four years ago is now equally blue. This overwhelming support will allow Obama to do things that Bush and even Clinton (who enjoyed wide popularity while in office) could only dream of. It could also back fire terribly.
After the two year campaign, the tension and drama of the last few months, and the amazing outpouring of support - much of it from first time voters - if Obama fails to deliver, he'll be eaten alive. What Obama needs to do is what he's been promising all along: Carefully considered but bold moves designed to benefit the greatest number of people. He can't be afraid of being labeled a socialist, that was tried and the people chose him anyway. His easy celebrity must be used to the greatest effect, since that is what got him where he is. He can't be afraid to admit he is wrong and to take the advice of the experts, he can't afford to act out of hubris. If he turns out to be a lame duck president, or if his policies crash and burn, so will his chances of a second term come 2012, and so will the progressive tide (and rightly so, having been tested and failed, just as Bush's neo-con policies have).
I hope I've been right all along. I hope a bold, progressive, intelligent leader is what we need. I fear what will happen if I'm wrong.
Switching gears a bit now, what of McCain? I've spoken well of him in the past, citing both him and Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe as examples of conservatives I hold in high esteem. Over the course of this campaign, however, we watched him sell his soul to win the GOP nomination, and then descend into the depths of nasty politics in an effort to win. He had truly been a maverick; someone who did what he thought was right and who actually admitted when he was wrong. The “maverick” label was commercialized and packaged alongside policy ideas and campaign promises designed to placate the Republican base. It became just a word without meaning, and by and large the voters knew it. If the 2000 election had been McCain against Gore, or if 2004 had been McCain against Kerry, I'm fairly certain I would have voted for McCain. Not this time. Not after what he'd become, and especially not after picking a whack-job like Palin as his running mate (I'm all for a female vice president, or even president, just not her). Then came McCain's concession speech. It's like the old McCain, the one I respected and admired, was back. It was a great speech, filled with respect and humility, and delivered with what appeared to be honest feeling. A sign of how divergent the real McCain had become from his supporters came when this speech was booed by the crowd in attendance. I don't think I've ever seen that before. There were hints of the real McCain now and then - such as when he corrected a woman about Obama being a Muslim(the implication being that he was a terrorist sympathizer and he was booed then as well - but the mean little troll always came back with vigor. Hopefully, now that the election is over, the real McCain will be back to stay. I quite possibly would have voted for him if he'd been running.
11 comments:
I find it interesting you agree with me that Obama's easy celebrity got him where he is. I would say this was a much greater factor than his plans or policies. People who voted for him who actually agree with his policies probably are just glad he will now have the opportunity and power to pursue them in a way that no presedent in several decades has.
A close friend of mine and die-hard conservative basically said to me, well I guess we need to find our own cult of personality so we can win next time. I disagreed, being perfectly willing to win or lose on substance.
This brings me to my question. Is not an electoral environment in which the most likeable candidate is the winner (in my view, this has been the case going back to Reagan at least, possibly Carter, but excluding Bush I) an essential abandonment of idealogical and policy nuance in favor of party power? Furthermore, does it not make us vulnerable in an unprecedented way for an egomaniac dictator?
I can't disagree with you on that, at least not completely. I think it depends on the kind of "cult" that develops. In Obama's case, in my opinion, the whole thing is predicated on him being an agent of change, and working for the people instead of givernments or corporations. That's a message that obviously resonated this time around, and he rode it to victory. As I mentioned above though, I think that if he fails to live up to the hype (so to speak), he's finished. In fact, if things don't get better in the view of the average voter, they'll turn on him whether it's his fault or not.
Contrast that with someone like Reagan, under whose leadership most measurable metrics got worse (unemployment, cost of living, crime, etc.), and still to this day he's a beloved figure in certain circles. His message was that he would bring respectability back to the White House, and would push for conservative ideals(note that I'm pulling this off the top of my head and don't have time to look it up at the moment). Love him or hate him, he was a charismatic and personally respectable leader, and he did swing things to the right. The country as a whole didn't do well as a result, but he did what he said he would.
I guess I'm saying, or maybe just hoping, that Obama's ability to meet his promises depends on things getting better, as opposed to things just changing. I could be wrong, and I'm certainly not an objective observer, but this is honestly how I see things at the moment. Maybe in four years I'll look back and wonder why...
For the record, I voted for Obama because I agree with most of what he has said. I see in his echos of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D Roosevelt (in short, a willingness to work with his rivals, the spreading and equalisation of wealth, and the ability to carry a progressive agenda on the strength of personality, respectively).
I'll admit that the actual, concrete policy discussion was a bit light. I also wonder if it hurt McCain to have come out with some actual policy ideas while Obama was speaking in big picture terms. I could argue that the bigger problem is that generally they were bad ideas, but it's an interesting point to ponder.
I think McCain had a few major issues. #1. He had never been much of a conservative, and thus his nomination minimized (if not doused) any potential candidate genererated enthusiasm for a large part of the Republican base.
Secondly, in his efforts to shore up the base (who probably would have "held their noses" and voted for him without any special "courting") and running ads later demonstrated to be dishonest alienated the moderates and Blue Dogs who had loved him precisely for all the reasons Conservatives didn't.
Thirdly, the economy broke at the worst time for McCain and the best for Obama (regardless of actual causes, the Repubs were going to wear the blame on that one, and, frankly, the ought to have).
Fourthly, and back to our original discussion, Obama made better television.
Unlike you, I will consider Obama much more successful if he doesn't follow through on all his campaign promises (real or implied). Not because I want the country to turn on him, really. I just don't want us to be *that* country.
Out of curiosity, what in your view would make us into *that* country?
To name a few . . . so-called card check and other "big-labor" friendly policies like proposed mandated sick day laws, an agressive carbon cap and trade policy, creation of embryos for the sole purpose of stem cell research, higher taxes, national health care, continued gross fiscal irresponsibility, more gun ownership restrictions, up to six left-leaning suprem court appointees, return of the so-called fairnes doctrine, a muddling of our middle east policy . . . that's off the top of my head.
I will say its encouraging that Obama seems to be selecting Clinton (who was essentially center/left not far-far left) retreads for key positions.
I'm sure you know this already, but we have some fundamental differences of opinion here.
About mandated sick time laws and national healthcare: Can you name another 1st world nation that doesn't have these? They're not all doing it right, but some are doing very well, and many surpass the US in most measurable metrics (infant mortality, life span, unemployment, crime rate, literacy, etc.), so I don't see why that's such a big deal for some people. Things like mandated maternity and sick leave have huge benefits that go far beyond the simple cost per hour of actual work calculations. The same goes for education spending. Every legitimate study of the subject shows that everything gets better when people are better educated, and yet we keep cutting education spending. If "socialism" (which has been here for some time in the form of taxes and social programs) is what it takes to get national healthcare and an improved education system, then I'm all for it.
I also don't get the problem with a carbon cap system. It's basic economics (create incentives and disincentives to create desired behaviors), and it has been shown effective in other countries. Even if we remove climate change from consideration, aren't there plenty of good reasons to cut emissions?
Higher taxes? I don't know about you, but in every analysis I've seen of Obama's proposals, my taxes are going to go down. If you're making six figures already, I really couldn't care less (come on, you're not going to starve, you're probably not going to even feel it, you might just have to vacation in Key West instead of Hawaii, you poor thing). It's not like we would ever get back to the pre-Reagan tax levels (which were ludicrous), people just wouldn't allow it.
I don't buy the notion that a fiscal conservative is what we need to fix our money problems. Just look at the last three decades or so: Reagan = record deficit; Bush 1 = record deficit; Clinton = Surplus; Bush 2 = REALLY record deficit. I say we give the "tax and spenders" another shot.
Finally, I'm going to have to call bullshit on the stem cell thing. I can't find any mention from any legitimate source of Obama supporting "embryo farming". That sounds like a scare tactice, comparable to mentions of "drive-thru abortions".
A couple things. Starting with taxes. When Bush passed his first tax cut, our household annual income was under $50K. His tax cut increased my refund by $1500-2000 year one. If that isn't a tax cut for the middle class, I don't know what is. I am still making *well* under six figures (and my wife works 30 hrs a week). If Obama has his way, my tax rates will go up. He has redefined tax cuts (just words?) to mean net effect of what you pay in taxes vs. what you take in entitlements/other programs. http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/16/searching-for-obamas-95-percen
Furthermore, you have no idea about my lifestyle. I have never been too HI, nor vacationed in FL. I am lucky to be able to take a trip that doesn't involve a borrowed camper or carefully shopped time share week.
Reagan's defecit was nowhere near what we have now, and won us the Cold War. Bush's is pretty inexcusable, hence my use of the word "continued" fiscal irresponsibility. I see no reason to expect that Obama is going to fix this problem.
Regarding your BS call on the embryo farming, here is an excerpt form an article at RealClearPolitics by Robert George, professer of jurisprudence at Princeton University.
"[Obama] has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This 'clone and kill' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive."
Remainder found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obamas_abortion_extremism.html
I apologize if my wording was poor, by "you" I meant to imply a theoretical person, not you personally.
I'm not sure I agree about Reagan winning the Cold War. It's repeated a lot, but the fact is that the USSR could barely feed its citizens, let alone pose a major threat to the US. The book Legacy of Ashes sheds some light on the mistaken thinking and intelligence gathering that led to the misconception. I'd wager the USSR would have fallen all by itself in time.
I'll modify my point about taxes: McCain's plan would have caused higher taxes for the middle class (such as myself) than Obama's plan. Again, every objective analysis I've seen bears this out. Don't bother with biased sources for this stuff, it's relatively complicated and it's easy to make untrue claims. FactCheck.org has lots of articles about this, debunking false claims made by both sides. As for redefining taxes, if I'm getting benefits for my tax money (for example, health coverage), doesn't that amount to roughly the same thing?
And I still call BS on the embryo farming. The only sources I can find are highly partisan and otherwise biased sources, and every single one of them points to that same article. I'd have to see an objective report or analysis before bought it, regardless of the letters before or after the author's name.
I would like to decide for myself what benefits I get for my money. The government saying, "We'll forcibly take your money from you but you will get a benefit you neither want nor need (or more on point in the particular case of health care, one that is inferior compared to what you are currently buying by choice)," is a net loss in $ and, arguably, freedom.
Fair enough. I guess it's a question of whether you view supporting the less fortunate members of society as a moral imperative (or at least "the right thing") or not. I do.
I know that some people simply freeload off government handouts, but I'd rather accept that than deny help to people who honestly need it, personally (though efforts should be made to eliminate cheating, of course).
Oh, and of course, even if someone agrees that it's the right thing to do, they then have to agree that it's right to push it on others who do not (via mandatory taxes). I guess that's more the heart of it, now that I'm more awake.
Post a Comment