The first, the optimistic Obama supporter opinion, the “hope” that Obama will truly create change in the economy. Obama has promised approximately $292.9 Billion for projects varying from healthcare to infrastructure according to the National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141 ). This would have to go on top of the 700 Billion dollar bailout (probably more after Obama’s done with it) or whatever costs the current fiasco will leave on the market. So we’re starting off at a cool trillion dollars which will have to go into debt- increasing the already staggering 9.8 Trillion we are already going to be in debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ ). Of course that’s not adding all the bonuses and earmarks that will doubtless be added… it was McCain, not Obama who proposed that earmarks and pork and projects like the 1.6 Million dollar aquarium Obama got funds for would be cut or vetoed and the savings passed on to the taxpayers. (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008 )
Here’s an important note- the numbers I mentioned earlier include (in billions) the “savings” Obama would achieve through discontinuing the Iraq war. Now I believe I've heard a million different times that "Oh, the Iraq war is costing so much, we can just use that money for other important issues like healthcare!" Regardless of the fact that Obama’s plan still outspends McCain’s plan by a factor of 3 to 1, I still want to address this statement. First, this reflects a massive misunderstanding of how our US budget works. Defense funding and healthcare funding draw money from two entirely different pots. Second, under Obama, there is absolutely no clear distinction as to where Obama's policy will be any different from McCain’s, specifically, Obama has backed off actively supporting a timeline and has privately asked top Iraqi officials to stop discussion about withdrawal until after the election according to the New York Post- (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm ), while McCain has consistently stated
"I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops." (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.iraq.html )
The major difference is McCain wants victory- a withdrawal from a stable self-governing Iraq, which recent news says is looking more and more likely- we’re facing what’s being called “a new reality in Iraq” where violence is down, casualties are the lowest since the original invasion, the insurgency is being defeated and children are playing in parks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html )! While the world was watching Obama’s speech, we turned over the Anbar province (Once the “most intractable region”) to the Iraqi people- a truly amazing and significant feat that received nowhere near the attention it should have (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/01/mideast/iraq.php ). What we cannot account for is the price of defeat- another brutal dictator commanding a majority and oppressing the minority ruthlessly, committing massive human rights violations and creating another situation we may eventually have to step in at some future point and resolve. So an Obama Iraq policy will not create the revenue Obama will need to enact what legislation he wants.
Obama has proposed, simultaneously, amnesty for illegal immigrants and universal healthcare. While I don't claim to be a lifelong expert on either, let me just give you a picture of what a system looks like where a good 18-20 million illegal immigrants do not pay into the system (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42216 ). When healthcare providers cannot distinguish between contributors and non-contributors in terms of which services they can provide, ultimately we will see the overall healthcare of our nation decline. Life-saving surgeries, already in high demand, will see even higher demand as those who do not have to pay for the system enter the system and create higher demand. As incentive decreases for the now lower-paying surgeries covered by the government, supply of doctors will decrease. Anyone with an economics background should understand this.
Now the whole issue I have with this view is that it presumes that the presidential power is far beyond what it really is, and really, after so much complaining about Bush and his extent of power, this assumption that presidential power is now a good thing and should be used and encouraged is rather hypocritical. Two people I've talked to have said that the democrats basically want to have a majority because they believe that their majority would create a situation where they could enact legislation which could create major change. This is not likely because Obama’s propositions are going to have to go through congress- this will be a significant problem. Obama’s plan is not likely to happen because of inner divisions within the Democratic Party and a lack of party unity. Even if the gigantic Obama spending bill CAN go through, it will not go through without being changed. Virtually no bills go through congress without being changed, ESPECIALLY massive spending bills.
One thing I'm hearing loud and clear from those who take these statistics and look closely at these things is that it is very dangerous to read a mandate into an election. An example I've seen given was that of the 2006 election, where Democrats ran a lot of conservative Democrats in Republican areas- the Democrats won because, many times, they were more conservative than the Republicans they were running against- “they exchanged moderate Republicans for conservative Democrats” (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1163086496-0fW4QzAQpEovRxP6c4OVwA&oref=slogin )! Having won the majority, the Democrats proceeded to run a number of Iraq War Resolutions, all of which Bush proceeded to veto, much to the consternation of Congress, which had hitherto experienced an administration where the veto pen was hardly ever brought out. This disaster is very likely to happen again even if Obama becomes president and the Democrats retain Congress- Democrats were very good at filibustering once, but Republicans have had a lot of practice lately, and are not likely to back down as long as they have the support of their districts.
Regardless of who wins this election, it will be close. The new president will face a divided nation, as did Bush in 2000. I've heard many predictions that we may in fact have another situation where the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes the other. We may have a lot of the same issues in this election. If this is the case, and even if it's not, we are absolutely going to need a leader who can deal with both sides, one who has a clear record of bipartisanship and functional policy. One who has crossed party lines in the past and created policy which spans both sides. This isn't a partisan line; this is an actual need for our government. Without cooperation, our nation fails to operate. And with all the heaping criticism being piled on the Bush administration for its partisanship, we are definitely going to need a leader who can forge a different path- not in terms of policy, but in terms of cooperation. We need a leader who can work with both parties. And no man really fits that description like John McCain.
Believe me, this is painful to say- Republicans have often been the recipient of the compromises McCain has made. It seems McCain won the primary because most of the major party partisans were split between Romney and Huckabee. This quite clearly created a lot of resentment with our candidate, as many people might have voted for one or the other to prevent McCain from getting into office. But that is water under the bridge, we cannot all receive the perfect candidate we want, but as I look at it now, it seems that McCain may not be such a bad choice in terms of creating effective leadership and getting things done. If you're a Republican, regardless of whether you supported Romney, Huckabee, Thomson or someone else, you have to concede that it would be a lot harder for any of them to work with a Democratic-dominated congress like McCain would be able to. But ultimately, that is how things must go for things to happen.
Obama, on the other hand, has the most liberal record in the senate, besting even Hillary Clinton (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ ). When it comes to most significant bipartisan issues, he's been loud when he’s talking about there being no red or blue states, but when it comes to his record, there’s a whole different story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0417/p01s07-uspo.html ). Once you take out all those possibilities, all you have left is lofty rhetoric. This may play well in a Hollywood movie, but it does not work with convincing die-hard partisans, who are elected by their communities because of the views they hold, that they should just start playing nice and working with each other. The change Obama wants will not happen under an Obama presidency, if for no better reason than the fact that no presidential advisers in the world can create a record of bipartisanship, nor can they convince people to work together. This will be something Obama will have to work at, and it’s clearly been something he’s had no part in before. He’s going to have to learn this lesson the hard way- true leadership comes from the top, not the bottom, and it comes from actions, not words.
And now I'll explain the other perspective- the cynical Obama supporter stance, which realizes the truth in what I just explained. I ran into this one today for the first time- someone who understood that the presidential power Obama claims he could have would not only be unconstitutional, but quite literally impossible given the divisions in government and the checks and balances put in place to prevent such widespread change. However he still felt that Obama had some potential and that anything Obama did would be beneficial from an overall standpoint.
However that can't account for the fact that there will be countless millions, looking at their elected hero in office, swamped by the quagmire of Washington, who will give up on the politics of hope and will fall into a stunning disillusionment with politics unseen since the Watergate scandals. I cannot tell you how much it scares me that we may have another generation of politically disaffected people.
I'm going to make a stunning confession here. I really love the idea of the politics of hope. I love the idea that one person has the ability to change the world- I strongly believe in that, and have for all of my life. I believe that strength and determination and force of will/can change the course of history. That's the optimist in me. However I also have a cynic in me who says that people are fundamentally evil, or at least only singly self-motivated. I believe in the power of the potential, but I ultimately don't trust it to be realized by everyone. And so, although I believe strongly in that aspect of the Obama message, I believe that it has become so nearsighted in its scope that it cannot see the true problems that lie in front of it.
Now, I find it hard to believe that Obama truly believes that by hoping and wishing, the problems of Washington will vanish like cockroaches in the light of the coming hope and change, but I know for sure that many of his supporters believe that. This is simply not going to be the case, and people need to wake up to that fact. Obama is a politician like any other, his negative advertising alone should prove that. In fact, he has 77% negative ads compared to McCain's 56% of negative ads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703581_pf.html)!
A good number of those who read this (especially in its entirety) will not be the kind of people who blindly believe that Obama can supernaturally overcome the binds of the presidency and become a national superhero who can magically fix every problem in the country. And yet this is the mythology of the man. To those of you who held on to this image, I sincerely hope this gives you pause before you put everything into your support of this man. Strip away his imagery and you have a regular politician with more flash and style than substance. In the final analysis, what our country is going to need is a leader who can truly work with others, who has an actual record of bipartisanship, who can go against his own party when necessary, and who is ready to lead. And that man is John McCain.
Palin I’ll reserve for another article, so hold those comments for that post. Until then, feel free to discuss anything I’ve mentioned here.
-Brad
0 comments:
Post a Comment