« No Bailouts for Jobless or Homeless
A Brief Pause (in the Campaign) to Think of Our Returning Troops »



Undecided No More: It’s Obama

October 6th, 2008
By POLIMOM

Print Print

Almost a month ago, I wrote that I had taken the Obama sticker off the back of my truck and gone back on the fence.

In large part, I needed to take a step back. Having declared myself for a candidate, I was finding myself defensive of him, and thus not able to evaluate positions fairly. Likewise, the screeches and screaming that arose around Sarah Palin’s elevation to the GOP ticket — ludicrously over the top — made it utterly impossible to judge her at all.

So I pulled back… and the intervening weeks have been illuminating. I’m not on the fence anymore, but I didn’t come down quite where I expected.

In one of TMV’s recent thoughtful threads, I defined myself as fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal, to which commenter CStanley replied:

Do you consider your fiscal conservatism or your social liberalism to be more important at this time?

Events have overtaken us, and my fiscal conservatism is strongly ascendant. But recent events have underscored much deeper problems than the economy per se; I’ve realized that our legislative branch is warped and corrupted beyond my capacity to tolerate.

I’ve also come to believe that the next president, whoever he is, will not be able to move many of his proposals forward. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the realities of our economy are going to radically alter what might have been for years to come.

In the face of these conclusions, the worries I have about a radical agenda from the extreme edges of a one-party government lose significance.

My feeling that Congress owns a disproportionate amount of our fiscal problems also informs my choice for President. Yes, McCain has a number of proposals that superficially address various aspects of our economic woes, but I see neither the depth nor the coherence required of real reform. Alternatively, while I agree that some of Obama’s proposals could conceivably make an economic downturn worse, his much broader scope and understanding of the wider issues is reassuring. The real devil, when it comes to Obama’s approach, will be in the implementation details — which brings us full circle to the dysfunctional Congress.

Taken altogether, then, here’s where I’ve come down: I’m supporting Barack Obama for the presidency.

Much of my reasoning mirrors that of fellow TMV co-blogger and former fence-sitter Pete Abel — but there’s another consideration that rests on a previously undiscussed dimension to my foundational politics: foreign policy.

It’s fashionable in some quarters lately to disdain international regard for the United States, but it’s folly to think that global opinion is irrelevant. From national security to the economy… immigration to medicine… we are, and will continue to be, part of a wider network. Scoffing at our international reputation may be an understandable defensive mechanism, but it’s a nose-off-the-face level of foolishness.

The relationships we have with various interests around the world are both delicate and fluid; navigating them in this modern world calls for deliberative thinking and introspective reaction. Ideologues and moralists — as we’ve all witnessed in many scenarios — are destabilizing on the world stage, yet John McCain strikes me as both. Moreover, his predilection for grandstanding has been on rampant display recently, and I’m not at all sure he’s emotionally stable enough for the demands on a Commander in Chief.

There is a place for Maverickiness in this world, but it’s not the Oval Office.

In contrast, Barack Obama has displayed an almost surreal capacity for calm in the eye of a storm, and while I think this will be strongly tested if he becomes president, I also feel that his steadier temperament is far more likely to resist panicked or Hail Mary reactions.

Along with my presidential choice, though, I’ll be actively supporting congressional candidates who have demonstrated fiscal responsibility — or, in the case of non-incumbents, will give a public commitment to it.

Unfortunately, I expect to find very few of those to support.



This entry was posted on Monday, October 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm and is filed under Foreign Policy, Corruption, Newsweek Blogitics, John McCain, Barack Obama, Congress, Economy, Independent Voters, 2008 Elections. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Viewing 33 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Since we agree on virtually all points, you'll have to take my comment with a grain of salt. But I had not thought of and am intrigued by the following argument you make:

    "I’ve also come to believe that the next president, whoever he is, will not be able to move many of his proposals forward. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the realities of our economy are going to radically alter what might have been for years to come.

    In the face of these conclusions, the worries I have about a radical agenda from the extreme edges of a one-party government lose significance."
    • ^
    • v
    I checked out Project Vote Smart over the weekend and discovered that the Libertarian candidate for my Congressional district (Maryland 2) is actually a better choice for me than the incumbent Dem I was planning to support. You never know - there could be a better candidate out there for you to support in the local races.
    • ^
    • v
    :>

    Pete, Leaving aside the conclusions I articulated in this post, moving precipitously toward economic ruin -- via expensive and/or expansive new programs (with accompanying spending) -- would immediately trigger a Republican congress in 2010.

    Put into partisan-think -- I think Obama's too smart to bury his own party that way.
    • ^
    • v
    Amanda -- yes, you're absolutely right. Although I don't have an actual choice for my Representative (it's Ron Paul, running unopposed), I am considering a vote for the Libertarian candidate for the Senate.
    • ^
    • v
    Polimom, I respectfully disagree with your reasoning...well more so your mindset.

    What I mean is that fiscal "conservatism" vs. "liberalism" doesn't have much meaning at the moment for the near future. Even "fiscal" doesn't as that implies the focus is on budgeting issues.

    What we are facing is a systemic crisis, not only for the current system but more broadly how we approach economics in general. Over the next decade the world will be forever transformed in one way or another, there is no choice about that.

    The key focus should not be on government expenditures per se, but concerns about what we want our future economy to look like and how to transition to that point in a way that tries to maximize the probability of success and minimize pain. Not only are those two goals extremely hard to navigate, but they are also often contradictory and operate on multiple timescales.

    For instance, the bulk of Democrats AND Republicans at this point are doing things in a way that they hope to preserve the current system by trying to get asset prices to go back up (or at least stabilize) even if it means destroying the value of money and leading to long term massive inflation. (Europe is also in this boat). And that's if they succeed, so far all signs show that they are unable to due to massive deflationary forces.

    They might argue about the (cough)tactics but they have the same strategic goal.

    Democrats are doing it in the name of "caring" about people and Republicans in the name of supporting growth by supporting "businesses" but neither are really analyzing what the consequences are or providing alternative visions for how we can avoid this mess in the future.

    I think Obama is better able to handle this because of his strategic vision and natural ability to look to create new paradigms. On the other hand he also is operationally conservative and will attempt to support the current structure as long as possible. It will be important for traditional conservatives to put pressure on him to cut his losses just as it will be important for traditional liberals to make sure that the transitioning phase will help prevent another Great Depression amount of suffering.

    The way forward revolves almost exclusively on infrastructure improvements, namely energy, and making sure that money that is spent is wholly supported by scientific evidence that we'll be getting the most bang for our buck. Once on the other side then we can argue about how to structure economic principles and regulations to try to prevent a collapse in the future.

    I haven't seen anything about McCain that suggest he can provide a vision that the country can collectively work towards at all. I think he is more likely to try to do anything to stop failure until it looks inevitable and then just throw in the towel and not provide guidance about a path forward.
    • ^
    • v
    Hunh. Mikkel, I've read your comment 3 times, and I don't actually see where our thinking diverges. Perhaps it's because I used the word "fiscal" in the opening of the main economy paragraph?

    Because I absolutely agree that Obama's grasp of the economy and its systemic flaws is both broader and deeper than McCain's, and I tried to articulate that here.
    • ^
    • v
    Perhaps we agree entirely but I was caught up on a particular word.

    To me it sounded like you are saying that "although Obama supports expanding government spending through increasing health care, energy spending, spending money to try to lessen foreclosures etc., while McCain is more 'conservative' (in quotes because I don't think his plan is when looked at from a revenue perspective) I support Obama because..."

    While I'm trying to say that I think the Republican and Democratic principles are both wrong because they fail to solve underlying issues. The Democrats that voted against the bailout did so because there was no money to help "stop" foreclosures...even though that's impossible (or at least the mechanism to do so would have vast unintended side effects). The Republicans that didn't support it did so because they don't want "government spending."

    Most of the smart economists I read didn't support the bill because it was the wrong thing to do and a waste of money, but would support other actions that are highly expensive under certain conditions and that have certain aims (that most people would be upset about because they haven't accepted that they are necessary).

    I guess what I"m trying to say is that I think that neither Obama nor McCain can really do much to stop the bleeding -- or at least shouldn't -- until we are about another year or two into this. I read your post as saying that Obama is "less bad" while I think he is going to be "more bad" until a certain point and then once that point is reached be fair superior.

    I don't think that Obama can help stop the house of cards from crumbling but he has the ability to help guide a rebuilding.

    That make more sense?
    • ^
    • v
    It does... and in some ways you're right that we're differing slightly. My view of the bail-out was not based on "no spending", but that we can't keep kicking the can down the road. I thought (and still think) that a re-set is overdue, and we'll put our collective heads back into the sand otherwise.

    Re: the current situation, and the election, though: My feeling is that whatever they thought they were going to do ain't happenin'. And my worries about one-party government is less a Dem (or Rep) specific issue as it is a concern about a push from the more extremists in the party -- a worry that I think may be nullified by the economic realities.
    • ^
    • v
    While I have not been a supporter of Senator Obama, I find this passage in particular from Polimom compelling:

    "Barack Obama has displayed an almost surreal capacity for calm in the eye of a storm. . .I also feel that his steadier temperament is far more likely to resist panicked or Hail Mary reactions."

    I do not know if Obama's almost supernatural discipline and calm is a pose or not . . . (perhaps this distinction does not really matter in a president). . . but given the idiocies demonstrated on the Hill in the recent bailout, I think most Americans would find a calm, reassuring hand on the tiller of the ship of state reassuring amid economic turmoil.

    I find Obama's health policy is too right wing . . . and his foreign policy too left wing.

    But I think his calm and discipline are very very reassuring for many Americans, when the world is in the midst of not even a bear, but a Chicken Little, market.