Prior to continuing with specific steps that may be taken to rebuild the American economy, a post on Tuesday's election and why I have decided to vote for Obama.
Throwing out the charges of both the extreme left and right and after following the campaigns of both Obama and McCain for almost two years, I am reasonably confident that both men, from different philosophies and perspectives, have the best interests of the country at heart. I do not question the patriotism or dedication of either. The question in my mind is one of policies and qualifications, the latter in terms of both experience and intelligence.
The pace of change in American society is today so swift, that it is doubtful that either man knows what crises lie ahead. In this sense, intelligence in the ability to adjust to new situations and demands outweighs, in my mind, experience, although the latter is not an insignificant factor. Equally important is the ability to understand the world as it is and project a strategic vision for the future, which should coincide, of course, with my personal perspective regarding the best interests of the country.
Regarding these matters, I find Obama the better choice. I also find the charge that McCain is simply "more of Bush" to possess a great deal of truth, excluding small differences in tactics. To me, Obama appears to be the strategic thinker, while McCain is the tactician.
Obama has laid out both a strategic vision and plan for the achievement of goals compatible with my own perspective, while McCain continues, in my opinion, to wrestle with the tactical changes needed to implement Bush's basic strategic goals.
McCain had the opportunity to address both foreign policy and domestic policy goals and provide redirection. He did neither, and instead allowed his campaign to degenerate into a negative approach that spent more time attacking his opponent, than in laying out his own vision and strategy for the future. This may have been a dilberate campaign tactic anticipating a bad year for Republicans, but I believe it was a disservice to the voter. Foremost, I look to the candidates to explain what they are for more than what they are against.
In the realm of foreign policy, McCain has never questioned the President's decision to invade Iraq, which I view as an unnecessary war of choice. Obama, on the other hand, took tremendous political risk in condemning the invasion as "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," before public opinion turned against the invasion. [A political risk at least as great as McCain's risk on his surge position.] It is not enough for McCain to hide behind the Bush excuses of "we were all fooled" or to adopt the post invasion multiple causation reasons. The Bush Administration has never renounced its own Doctrine regarding the right to pre-emptive war and McCain has never questioned it. McCain has merely stated that he will correct Bush's errors. This sounds as if he views the "errors" as solely military tactics. There is no broader view. While Obama may also be charged with failing to lay out a comprehensive picture of changes to the Bush Doctrine, he still edges out McCain on this point.
Obama's statements on his willingness to talk to perceived enemies without pre-conditions is strategic and intelligent diplomacy, regardless of what he may actually do as President. McCain's insistence on pre-conditions, similar to Bush's, strikes me as a school boy attempt to gain a tactical negotiating advantage. If we must always leave military force as an opition on the table, it is also wise never to shut the door on diplomacy.
Domestically, although neither candidate appears to have much of an economic background, McCain appeared ready to leap before looking (suspending his campaign, threatening to cancel the first debate and rushing to Washington to "take charge" of the economic crisis). Nor does he seem to have any appreciation for the failure of Reagonomics that I've discussed in previous posts. As argued earlier, I believe that we are now in a position wherein a dose of Keynesian economics is essential for economic recovery. I have seen nothing that indicates McCain understands this, or the depth of the economic problems the country now faces and its implications for our future global position.
In fact, in both foreign and domestic policies, the McCain proposals do not, to me, seem to signify an awareness of just how bad the problems are that the country faces. In foreign policy it seems McCain is all about "winning" and knowing how to be militarily tough, without defining what winning means and what is actually necessary to rebuild our armed forces. Again, he seems stuck in past, with tactical changes to problems requiring strategic changes. He seems not only to admire Ronald Reagan, but also fails to understand the real changes in the world, since Reagan, that have led to our present situation: two unresolved wars abroad and a domestic economy on the verge of collapse.
On the other hand, Obama's position on rebuilding the military lacks force. Barney Frank's comment about cutting defense spending by 25% worries me, although he may be referring simply to eliminating the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would agree with those cuts, provided that overall defense spending increase, excluding the savings from Iraq and Afghanistan. This point is also tied to my forthcoming "how to fix it" post and using increased defense spending to improve the U.S. economy. But, overall, I give Obama the edge on foreign policy, while considering defense spending a part of that policy.
I do not see pursuit of some undefined victory abroad and the extension of the Bush tax cuts at home as "keys" to improving our foreign policy or our economy. In a phrase, McCain appears concentrated on the past, equating the War on Terror and the threat of Islamic Fundementalism to the Cold War and communism. Obama's position looks more to the future and decouples that future from the Cold War, communism and the Vietnam experience.
As of last month, and the $700 billion + bailout package, it would appear that through mismanagement, corruption, the lack of oversight and an antiquated economic philosophy, we have blown the $700 billion Bush tax cuts and are repeating the mistake. Someone once wrote that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Or, as they say in Texas, you don't pour money down a dry well. The present economic crises is probably due to one of three things and most likely a combination of all three: incompetence, corruption, and the pursuit of the wrong economic philosophy. Bush blamed it on incompetence ("Wall Street got drunk."; McCain seems to think it was all due to corruption "I'll clean-up Wall Street" and Republicans, in general, seem to refuse to acknowledge that it might just be, at least in part, the economic philosophy itself.
Obama seems to acknowledge all three possibilities with a tax plan to "spread the money around" (OK...not ideal, until one realizes that the alternative is more loose credit) and redirecting capital, via tax increases toward jobs, new infrastructure and new technology. While McCain agrees with similar "goals," his approach is apparently almost entirely through reliance on the "free market" with additional tax cuts. Having just experienced a failure of the free market, it's a "sale" he can't make with me. My own view is that the best way to cure the free market's excesses is to temporarily take away some of their Monoply Money and scare the hell out of them. Tax increases may cause them to beg for a return to regulation. Let's face it; in good times, no one asks: How will this investment help the country? They look solely at their rate of return. Tougher investor questions may have prevented the current mess, which is a different way of supporting additional regulation. I don't exclude myself from investor blindness. As long as things were going great, I had minimal interest in economic theory.
On health care, there were three practical choices: Clinton's, Obama's and McCain's (which came late). Obama's plan is the least disruptive of the three, basically filling in the gaps of the present system and extending coverage by mandating coverage. McCain's plan would seem to me to lead to an increasing number of companies doing away with employee health plans and employees turning to McCain's $5000 tax credit to "fund" all of their health care needs; a plan virtually assuring that the result will be less universal coverage. Although I would prefer a genuine universal health care plan (which I assume would relieve American companies of the burden), I favor Obama's plan over McCain's.
McCain's ideas on freezing government spending and balancing the budget in four years have been discussed in earlier posts...in the vein of "if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you." Banning earmarks sounds noble and good, but is only approximately $18 billion out of a $2.7 trillion budget. Worse, one could argue that doing away with earmarks encroaches on Congressional prerogatives and almost ensures a Democratic Congress and Republican Executive Branch confrontation. While it is certainly true that earmarks are most often not in the country's best interests as a whole, appropriation bills originate in the House (the people's branch of direct representation, and short-two year terms). If the people of Alaska really want to build a bridge to nowhere and their representatives are able to finagle an earmark to do it, well, that's part of the price of democracy...making sure that one person does not have entire control over how money is spent. Rather than "banning" earmarks, my preferred approach is through transparency, requiring more public exposure. Given the magnitude of the budget and deficit, in addition to massive bailouts, earmarks fall in the category of "chump change."
It also bothers me that McCain has not supported veteran programs and hasn't really bothered to answer the charge, saying only, "that's nonsense; veteran's know me." But, then, there are a lot of answers of that sort from McCain. There is a lot of "trust me," in his campaign. A curious message for a Republican in this election year. It is not that I believe McCain's "trust me" approach hides deceit, but rather than it covers inadequate preparation. Sort of: "I know what's right and will do the right think when we get around to it." Conversely, I believe, in general Obama has been more detailed and informed.
Finally, good, old trustworthy John has flip-flopped on enough issues to make John Kerry look remarkably consistent. I understand that this was the only way a moderate, "maverick" Republican could obtain the nomination in a radical right dominated Party, but one occasionally wishes he'd been more consistent on issues other than the Iraqi surge.
Obama has also made "running changes," but they seem to be less significant than McCain's 180 degree shifts (e.g. the Bush tax cuts).
In sum, I believe it is going to require a lot more than shoot-from-the-hip, knee jerk reactions to get us out of our present problems; it is going to require a lot of thought and reflection to decide where we want to be in that future and to strategize on how best to get there. In this, I believe Obama to be the better choice as evidenced by his own past history and the organization of his campaign. Obama impresses me as the strategic thinker, who could listen to the ideas of the Reverand Wright and William Ayers and take the good and leave the bad; who could and would sit down and talk reasonably to unreasonable people without feeling he was giving them some sort of recognition or endangering his own position; a person that is not afraid of alternative ideas, whether or not he accepts them. My own opinion is that this attitude must be our approach in coping with our future in everything from Islamic Fundamentalism (less actual terrorists) to social security and the regulation of Wall Street. What I do not want is a President who will exclude potential solutions because of an ideological filter.
Vote Obama!
Throwing out the charges of both the extreme left and right and after following the campaigns of both Obama and McCain for almost two years, I am reasonably confident that both men, from different philosophies and perspectives, have the best interests of the country at heart. I do not question the patriotism or dedication of either. The question in my mind is one of policies and qualifications, the latter in terms of both experience and intelligence.
The pace of change in American society is today so swift, that it is doubtful that either man knows what crises lie ahead. In this sense, intelligence in the ability to adjust to new situations and demands outweighs, in my mind, experience, although the latter is not an insignificant factor. Equally important is the ability to understand the world as it is and project a strategic vision for the future, which should coincide, of course, with my personal perspective regarding the best interests of the country.
Regarding these matters, I find Obama the better choice. I also find the charge that McCain is simply "more of Bush" to possess a great deal of truth, excluding small differences in tactics. To me, Obama appears to be the strategic thinker, while McCain is the tactician.
Obama has laid out both a strategic vision and plan for the achievement of goals compatible with my own perspective, while McCain continues, in my opinion, to wrestle with the tactical changes needed to implement Bush's basic strategic goals.
McCain had the opportunity to address both foreign policy and domestic policy goals and provide redirection. He did neither, and instead allowed his campaign to degenerate into a negative approach that spent more time attacking his opponent, than in laying out his own vision and strategy for the future. This may have been a dilberate campaign tactic anticipating a bad year for Republicans, but I believe it was a disservice to the voter. Foremost, I look to the candidates to explain what they are for more than what they are against.
In the realm of foreign policy, McCain has never questioned the President's decision to invade Iraq, which I view as an unnecessary war of choice. Obama, on the other hand, took tremendous political risk in condemning the invasion as "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," before public opinion turned against the invasion. [A political risk at least as great as McCain's risk on his surge position.] It is not enough for McCain to hide behind the Bush excuses of "we were all fooled" or to adopt the post invasion multiple causation reasons. The Bush Administration has never renounced its own Doctrine regarding the right to pre-emptive war and McCain has never questioned it. McCain has merely stated that he will correct Bush's errors. This sounds as if he views the "errors" as solely military tactics. There is no broader view. While Obama may also be charged with failing to lay out a comprehensive picture of changes to the Bush Doctrine, he still edges out McCain on this point.
Obama's statements on his willingness to talk to perceived enemies without pre-conditions is strategic and intelligent diplomacy, regardless of what he may actually do as President. McCain's insistence on pre-conditions, similar to Bush's, strikes me as a school boy attempt to gain a tactical negotiating advantage. If we must always leave military force as an opition on the table, it is also wise never to shut the door on diplomacy.
Domestically, although neither candidate appears to have much of an economic background, McCain appeared ready to leap before looking (suspending his campaign, threatening to cancel the first debate and rushing to Washington to "take charge" of the economic crisis). Nor does he seem to have any appreciation for the failure of Reagonomics that I've discussed in previous posts. As argued earlier, I believe that we are now in a position wherein a dose of Keynesian economics is essential for economic recovery. I have seen nothing that indicates McCain understands this, or the depth of the economic problems the country now faces and its implications for our future global position.
In fact, in both foreign and domestic policies, the McCain proposals do not, to me, seem to signify an awareness of just how bad the problems are that the country faces. In foreign policy it seems McCain is all about "winning" and knowing how to be militarily tough, without defining what winning means and what is actually necessary to rebuild our armed forces. Again, he seems stuck in past, with tactical changes to problems requiring strategic changes. He seems not only to admire Ronald Reagan, but also fails to understand the real changes in the world, since Reagan, that have led to our present situation: two unresolved wars abroad and a domestic economy on the verge of collapse.
On the other hand, Obama's position on rebuilding the military lacks force. Barney Frank's comment about cutting defense spending by 25% worries me, although he may be referring simply to eliminating the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would agree with those cuts, provided that overall defense spending increase, excluding the savings from Iraq and Afghanistan. This point is also tied to my forthcoming "how to fix it" post and using increased defense spending to improve the U.S. economy. But, overall, I give Obama the edge on foreign policy, while considering defense spending a part of that policy.
I do not see pursuit of some undefined victory abroad and the extension of the Bush tax cuts at home as "keys" to improving our foreign policy or our economy. In a phrase, McCain appears concentrated on the past, equating the War on Terror and the threat of Islamic Fundementalism to the Cold War and communism. Obama's position looks more to the future and decouples that future from the Cold War, communism and the Vietnam experience.
As of last month, and the $700 billion + bailout package, it would appear that through mismanagement, corruption, the lack of oversight and an antiquated economic philosophy, we have blown the $700 billion Bush tax cuts and are repeating the mistake. Someone once wrote that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Or, as they say in Texas, you don't pour money down a dry well. The present economic crises is probably due to one of three things and most likely a combination of all three: incompetence, corruption, and the pursuit of the wrong economic philosophy. Bush blamed it on incompetence ("Wall Street got drunk."; McCain seems to think it was all due to corruption "I'll clean-up Wall Street" and Republicans, in general, seem to refuse to acknowledge that it might just be, at least in part, the economic philosophy itself.
Obama seems to acknowledge all three possibilities with a tax plan to "spread the money around" (OK...not ideal, until one realizes that the alternative is more loose credit) and redirecting capital, via tax increases toward jobs, new infrastructure and new technology. While McCain agrees with similar "goals," his approach is apparently almost entirely through reliance on the "free market" with additional tax cuts. Having just experienced a failure of the free market, it's a "sale" he can't make with me. My own view is that the best way to cure the free market's excesses is to temporarily take away some of their Monoply Money and scare the hell out of them. Tax increases may cause them to beg for a return to regulation. Let's face it; in good times, no one asks: How will this investment help the country? They look solely at their rate of return. Tougher investor questions may have prevented the current mess, which is a different way of supporting additional regulation. I don't exclude myself from investor blindness. As long as things were going great, I had minimal interest in economic theory.
On health care, there were three practical choices: Clinton's, Obama's and McCain's (which came late). Obama's plan is the least disruptive of the three, basically filling in the gaps of the present system and extending coverage by mandating coverage. McCain's plan would seem to me to lead to an increasing number of companies doing away with employee health plans and employees turning to McCain's $5000 tax credit to "fund" all of their health care needs; a plan virtually assuring that the result will be less universal coverage. Although I would prefer a genuine universal health care plan (which I assume would relieve American companies of the burden), I favor Obama's plan over McCain's.
McCain's ideas on freezing government spending and balancing the budget in four years have been discussed in earlier posts...in the vein of "if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you." Banning earmarks sounds noble and good, but is only approximately $18 billion out of a $2.7 trillion budget. Worse, one could argue that doing away with earmarks encroaches on Congressional prerogatives and almost ensures a Democratic Congress and Republican Executive Branch confrontation. While it is certainly true that earmarks are most often not in the country's best interests as a whole, appropriation bills originate in the House (the people's branch of direct representation, and short-two year terms). If the people of Alaska really want to build a bridge to nowhere and their representatives are able to finagle an earmark to do it, well, that's part of the price of democracy...making sure that one person does not have entire control over how money is spent. Rather than "banning" earmarks, my preferred approach is through transparency, requiring more public exposure. Given the magnitude of the budget and deficit, in addition to massive bailouts, earmarks fall in the category of "chump change."
It also bothers me that McCain has not supported veteran programs and hasn't really bothered to answer the charge, saying only, "that's nonsense; veteran's know me." But, then, there are a lot of answers of that sort from McCain. There is a lot of "trust me," in his campaign. A curious message for a Republican in this election year. It is not that I believe McCain's "trust me" approach hides deceit, but rather than it covers inadequate preparation. Sort of: "I know what's right and will do the right think when we get around to it." Conversely, I believe, in general Obama has been more detailed and informed.
Finally, good, old trustworthy John has flip-flopped on enough issues to make John Kerry look remarkably consistent. I understand that this was the only way a moderate, "maverick" Republican could obtain the nomination in a radical right dominated Party, but one occasionally wishes he'd been more consistent on issues other than the Iraqi surge.
Obama has also made "running changes," but they seem to be less significant than McCain's 180 degree shifts (e.g. the Bush tax cuts).
In sum, I believe it is going to require a lot more than shoot-from-the-hip, knee jerk reactions to get us out of our present problems; it is going to require a lot of thought and reflection to decide where we want to be in that future and to strategize on how best to get there. In this, I believe Obama to be the better choice as evidenced by his own past history and the organization of his campaign. Obama impresses me as the strategic thinker, who could listen to the ideas of the Reverand Wright and William Ayers and take the good and leave the bad; who could and would sit down and talk reasonably to unreasonable people without feeling he was giving them some sort of recognition or endangering his own position; a person that is not afraid of alternative ideas, whether or not he accepts them. My own opinion is that this attitude must be our approach in coping with our future in everything from Islamic Fundamentalism (less actual terrorists) to social security and the regulation of Wall Street. What I do not want is a President who will exclude potential solutions because of an ideological filter.
Vote Obama!
No comments:
Post a Comment