I'd be lying if I didn't say I was elated.
What a night. An electoral landslide, and a decisive popular vote.
The man faces a nearly impossible task; I'm hopeful he can have a powerful impact. John McCain was right: for most any political persuasion, several hundred years of pain, suffering and advocacy really culminated in a powerful sense of unshackling last night. (McCain's concession speech was really, really classy, by the way).
I cannot imagine what it feels like to be in the minority, to be disenfranchised, to live on the outside, but I believe that Obama's win will warm the hearts of those who do and perhaps inspire us all.
For now, this blog will be on hiatus. If I choose to write more in the future, I'll be sure to promote it on facebook and myspace.
Thank you my friends for the spirited discussion.
Ron
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Closing Remark
The case is clear. Obama is a better, more inspiring leader, with better ideas about how to fix our economy, help the poor, bring healthcare access to the American people, save us money, conduct foreign and energy policy, and who will reduce abortion (and the desperation it tends to represent).
As a citizen, I believe Obama's policies and persona will provide us with a better future than John McCain can provide. He isn't the messiah, perfect, or the answer to all our problems. But as presidents go, he is pretty great. He will more reliable provide a path to a more prosperous future, and a prosperity that isn't just for the few, but the many.
As a Christian, I believe this election has profound moral implications. It's time to repudiate the patronization by the national Republican party, who has never tackled abortion or faith based initiatives. It is time to recognize the warrior nation label for what it is--the antithesis of the Jesus of the gospels. It is time to realize that the social and economic fate of widows, orphans and immigrants and how we treat them as a society is given far, far, far more time in scripture than gay marriage, abortion, abstinence or public profanity. Jesus, in continuing the prophetic tradition, argued for the "least of these" and we have continually left them behind.
It's time for our policy to reach out to the least of these, rather than rewarding those who are in the front of the line. It's time to recognize that some of us have benefited in far greater measure from the social situation, and that we thus owe a greater debt to our society. A debt of money, time, energy, civic engagement and social action.
I believe that Barack Obama represents this vision in far greater measure than his opponent, and I hope you will join me in voting for him tomorrow.
Blessings to you all.
Ron Davis
As a citizen, I believe Obama's policies and persona will provide us with a better future than John McCain can provide. He isn't the messiah, perfect, or the answer to all our problems. But as presidents go, he is pretty great. He will more reliable provide a path to a more prosperous future, and a prosperity that isn't just for the few, but the many.
As a Christian, I believe this election has profound moral implications. It's time to repudiate the patronization by the national Republican party, who has never tackled abortion or faith based initiatives. It is time to recognize the warrior nation label for what it is--the antithesis of the Jesus of the gospels. It is time to realize that the social and economic fate of widows, orphans and immigrants and how we treat them as a society is given far, far, far more time in scripture than gay marriage, abortion, abstinence or public profanity. Jesus, in continuing the prophetic tradition, argued for the "least of these" and we have continually left them behind.
It's time for our policy to reach out to the least of these, rather than rewarding those who are in the front of the line. It's time to recognize that some of us have benefited in far greater measure from the social situation, and that we thus owe a greater debt to our society. A debt of money, time, energy, civic engagement and social action.
I believe that Barack Obama represents this vision in far greater measure than his opponent, and I hope you will join me in voting for him tomorrow.
Blessings to you all.
Ron Davis
One Evangelical's Question
One of my most mission minded evangelical friends asked me an interesting question a month or two ago. He asked me to respond on the blog--this is my belated response.
He was curious about foreign policy from a missions vantage point. His concern is that Christians are called to serve the people of the world and share the good news that Jesus can set them free from captivity--from the powers of the world through resurrection and living the kingdom of God--and from the power of our own sick selfishness to separate us from God.
There may be some disagreement about who would be most effective in terms of Foreign Policy. But for the question of the goodwill of our neighbors, of cooperation with our allies, and for a firm, but not illegally ceding moral high ground, response to our enemies--I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Obama would engender the goodwill of far more people internationally. The credibility of the US and its citizens would increase. This would make international travelers, such as myself, possibly more safe, and I believe it would provide the more amenable situation to sensitive missionaries.
Now, some people's reactions are already set for the matter ahead of time. But for the "swing" citizens of the world, who undoubtedly number in the hundreds of millions or more, our choices will effect their perceptions of us. Barack Obama's reputation would be a boon to missionaries' safety and opportunities.
If you are an evangelical Christian, this is something you should be considering.
He was curious about foreign policy from a missions vantage point. His concern is that Christians are called to serve the people of the world and share the good news that Jesus can set them free from captivity--from the powers of the world through resurrection and living the kingdom of God--and from the power of our own sick selfishness to separate us from God.
There may be some disagreement about who would be most effective in terms of Foreign Policy. But for the question of the goodwill of our neighbors, of cooperation with our allies, and for a firm, but not illegally ceding moral high ground, response to our enemies--I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Obama would engender the goodwill of far more people internationally. The credibility of the US and its citizens would increase. This would make international travelers, such as myself, possibly more safe, and I believe it would provide the more amenable situation to sensitive missionaries.
Now, some people's reactions are already set for the matter ahead of time. But for the "swing" citizens of the world, who undoubtedly number in the hundreds of millions or more, our choices will effect their perceptions of us. Barack Obama's reputation would be a boon to missionaries' safety and opportunities.
If you are an evangelical Christian, this is something you should be considering.
10 Reasons to Vote for Obama
I've explored a few matters on this blog of why you should vote for Barack Obama. If I had more time, I'd hit quite a few more. So, please forgive me for claims I make in this post that are undefended elsewhere. You all know I'm capable of defending them. I'm going to summarize why I'm voting for Barack.
1. Barack is the better leader: look at the brilliant organization he's built, his ability to inspire people from such varied ideological and socioeconomic backgrounds, his measured responses, his intellectual and tactical prowess, and his visionary skills.
2. Barack's economic policies are better: no candidate is perfect, but Barack has demonstrated more willingness to pay for what he proposes (and he's tied to the party who has done far better in this category for decades), and his proposals are better for the disenfranchised and oppressed of this world. Markets create wealth efficiently, but they don't self manage all that well (see the current crisis) and they distribute rather poorly. The system itself exploits some people, but the system gets a lot done. It needs to be preserved, but it also needs correctives along the way. This isn't socialism; it's social justice.
I've argued that democrats are more fiscally conservative, that stocks, GDP, inflation and unemployment all fare better under Democratic presidents, and that there is far more to a succesful society than these measures.
There are lots of ways to be pro-growth. You can certainly do what you can to unfetter markets. You can also use regulation to create new markets and raise revenues (Carbon Credits) or invest in the infastructure of a future economy (roads, ports, education, fiber optics, research, etc). When you invest in individuals, and keep those on the lower economic rungs from the risk of financial ruin, you grow the economy and save everybody a lot of money.
His economic policies will be as good or better for our economy in general, and they are more socially just. As a Christian I cannot ignore the latter.
3. Heath Care: In one of the defining matters of our time, Barack has a far better vision. His plan has been shown by bipartisan organizations to cover FAR more people (30 some million) at a comprable cost (1.3 trillion to 1.6 trillion) to John McCain. They both include some measures to curb costs, but Barack's plan addresses the problem of the uninsured and their role in increasing costs.
There is a lot of fear mongering around these issues--and certainly government provided medicine can and does have its faults. But in comparable market economies that are democracies and share cultural history with us, it is working. These countries pay half and way less than half of what we do, and have better health outcomes across the board. The data is very clear on this matter.
4. Iraq. We are in a terrible, unnecesarry, illegal war that was built on unfounded arguments. There are not clear answers at this point about what we should do, and both candidates can claim victories surrounding their judgment (Obama opposed, McCain and the surge). In reality, I'd prefer the man that wouldn't have gotten us in to this mess in the first place, the man who stood up and said no when almost the entire country (Democrats included) was rolling over. I believe that Obama will be faced with a lot of complicated reality in removing our forces incrementally, but the Iraqi government has 80 billion dollars saved up, and it is their responsibility to govern their own affairs. Because we have put them on this path, it is our responsibility to work to stave off a humanitarian crisis, but it is not our responsibility to govern.
Our treasury is being drained by this war, and the insurgency is because of our presence. The surge has helped but it is entirely unsustainable.
Barack has demonstrated better judgment on the matter.
4. Foreign policy in general: a steadier hand, a more strategic mind, McCain's history of overreacting (how many "greatest threats of our time" can we have, anyway?), Barack's popularity with the world and his willingness to work within the structures of multilateralism to leverage our allies resources on our own strategic behalf. Need I say more?
5. John McCain: A man whose greatest claim to personal character (Maverick) has caved to his party leaders by tacking significantly to the right. A man whose temperament isn't pretty, and whose policies are, on the whole, wrong. A man who has led a haphazard campaign.
6. Sarah Palin: I know a lot of moms, moms I love and respect. I wouldn't put them in charge of the country. Just because we identify with a candidate, would rather have a beer or hunt with a candidate, doesn't mean we should elect that candidate. Case in point, George Bush. She views our wars as holy wars, a dangerous, unbilical and historically naive assertion. She is divisive. She is incredibly lacking in foreign policy knowledge and judgement. She has demonstrated very little independent thought. She's agressive in a very unselfconscious way.
7. The big wedge issues. I addressed abortion rather thoroughly in my first posts. I argued that, whatever his intentions, Barack Obama's policies would bring about fewer abortions. I argued that if you really believe abortion is murder, then practicality matters more than ideology (it has been shown that outlawing abortion doesn't lower the rate of abortions). If you believe that abortion is murder, then you should consider that an Obama adminstration will likely pursue policies that result in fewer abortions. By preventing teenage pregnancy, and by providing an adequate social net for young, unwed mothers, desperation is reduced and more people chose to have their babies. It's the basic premise of the Pregnancy Resource Centers and it should effect the way you vote.
8. Judicial Appointments. The court has moved substantially to the right, and at the very least it needs balance. I am not going to attempt to argue for a paradigm here, except to say that the founding fathers saw the constitution as a live document. The world has changed, and although we ought to be constrained by the constitution, it needs interpreting because it has to both be relevant and it has to be acceptable to the population for our whole project in democracy to work. I prefer a candidate who sees this. Also, the founding fathers were not perfect, but we have had to understand the spirit of what they meant to move our democracy forward (their notions of equality, for instance, did not extend to women or black people--we have had to come to greater understanding while still being bound to the call for equality).
9. Democrats are more fiscally conservative. I alluded to this in issue #2. For decades, the Democrats have run smaller deficits than the Republicans. They have been outgunned in their marketing departments--the Republicans have pretended to be fiscally conservative. In fact, they have put our future on credit, running up the vast majority of our ten trillion dollar federal debt. Their resource allocation is indeed different than the Democrats, but they are still doling out trillions of dollars and also refusing to actually pay for it (through taxation).
I don't think I have to explain why that is bad. Let's repudiate that and vote against them.
10. Energy Policy: The "Drill Baby Drill" chant should be enough to see the matter for what it is. Fossil fuels not only are big carbon sources, but they are a limited resource and the need for energy is virtually unlimited. They represent a massive strategic problem, and we only seemed to finally get a sense of this as gas prices ran amok.
Obama will do more to create a whole new category of green jobs, and through carbon credits would create a new market for raising revenue and pushing the business world toward a more responsibile existence.
1. Barack is the better leader: look at the brilliant organization he's built, his ability to inspire people from such varied ideological and socioeconomic backgrounds, his measured responses, his intellectual and tactical prowess, and his visionary skills.
2. Barack's economic policies are better: no candidate is perfect, but Barack has demonstrated more willingness to pay for what he proposes (and he's tied to the party who has done far better in this category for decades), and his proposals are better for the disenfranchised and oppressed of this world. Markets create wealth efficiently, but they don't self manage all that well (see the current crisis) and they distribute rather poorly. The system itself exploits some people, but the system gets a lot done. It needs to be preserved, but it also needs correctives along the way. This isn't socialism; it's social justice.
I've argued that democrats are more fiscally conservative, that stocks, GDP, inflation and unemployment all fare better under Democratic presidents, and that there is far more to a succesful society than these measures.
There are lots of ways to be pro-growth. You can certainly do what you can to unfetter markets. You can also use regulation to create new markets and raise revenues (Carbon Credits) or invest in the infastructure of a future economy (roads, ports, education, fiber optics, research, etc). When you invest in individuals, and keep those on the lower economic rungs from the risk of financial ruin, you grow the economy and save everybody a lot of money.
His economic policies will be as good or better for our economy in general, and they are more socially just. As a Christian I cannot ignore the latter.
3. Heath Care: In one of the defining matters of our time, Barack has a far better vision. His plan has been shown by bipartisan organizations to cover FAR more people (30 some million) at a comprable cost (1.3 trillion to 1.6 trillion) to John McCain. They both include some measures to curb costs, but Barack's plan addresses the problem of the uninsured and their role in increasing costs.
There is a lot of fear mongering around these issues--and certainly government provided medicine can and does have its faults. But in comparable market economies that are democracies and share cultural history with us, it is working. These countries pay half and way less than half of what we do, and have better health outcomes across the board. The data is very clear on this matter.
4. Iraq. We are in a terrible, unnecesarry, illegal war that was built on unfounded arguments. There are not clear answers at this point about what we should do, and both candidates can claim victories surrounding their judgment (Obama opposed, McCain and the surge). In reality, I'd prefer the man that wouldn't have gotten us in to this mess in the first place, the man who stood up and said no when almost the entire country (Democrats included) was rolling over. I believe that Obama will be faced with a lot of complicated reality in removing our forces incrementally, but the Iraqi government has 80 billion dollars saved up, and it is their responsibility to govern their own affairs. Because we have put them on this path, it is our responsibility to work to stave off a humanitarian crisis, but it is not our responsibility to govern.
Our treasury is being drained by this war, and the insurgency is because of our presence. The surge has helped but it is entirely unsustainable.
Barack has demonstrated better judgment on the matter.
4. Foreign policy in general: a steadier hand, a more strategic mind, McCain's history of overreacting (how many "greatest threats of our time" can we have, anyway?), Barack's popularity with the world and his willingness to work within the structures of multilateralism to leverage our allies resources on our own strategic behalf. Need I say more?
5. John McCain: A man whose greatest claim to personal character (Maverick) has caved to his party leaders by tacking significantly to the right. A man whose temperament isn't pretty, and whose policies are, on the whole, wrong. A man who has led a haphazard campaign.
6. Sarah Palin: I know a lot of moms, moms I love and respect. I wouldn't put them in charge of the country. Just because we identify with a candidate, would rather have a beer or hunt with a candidate, doesn't mean we should elect that candidate. Case in point, George Bush. She views our wars as holy wars, a dangerous, unbilical and historically naive assertion. She is divisive. She is incredibly lacking in foreign policy knowledge and judgement. She has demonstrated very little independent thought. She's agressive in a very unselfconscious way.
7. The big wedge issues. I addressed abortion rather thoroughly in my first posts. I argued that, whatever his intentions, Barack Obama's policies would bring about fewer abortions. I argued that if you really believe abortion is murder, then practicality matters more than ideology (it has been shown that outlawing abortion doesn't lower the rate of abortions). If you believe that abortion is murder, then you should consider that an Obama adminstration will likely pursue policies that result in fewer abortions. By preventing teenage pregnancy, and by providing an adequate social net for young, unwed mothers, desperation is reduced and more people chose to have their babies. It's the basic premise of the Pregnancy Resource Centers and it should effect the way you vote.
8. Judicial Appointments. The court has moved substantially to the right, and at the very least it needs balance. I am not going to attempt to argue for a paradigm here, except to say that the founding fathers saw the constitution as a live document. The world has changed, and although we ought to be constrained by the constitution, it needs interpreting because it has to both be relevant and it has to be acceptable to the population for our whole project in democracy to work. I prefer a candidate who sees this. Also, the founding fathers were not perfect, but we have had to understand the spirit of what they meant to move our democracy forward (their notions of equality, for instance, did not extend to women or black people--we have had to come to greater understanding while still being bound to the call for equality).
9. Democrats are more fiscally conservative. I alluded to this in issue #2. For decades, the Democrats have run smaller deficits than the Republicans. They have been outgunned in their marketing departments--the Republicans have pretended to be fiscally conservative. In fact, they have put our future on credit, running up the vast majority of our ten trillion dollar federal debt. Their resource allocation is indeed different than the Democrats, but they are still doling out trillions of dollars and also refusing to actually pay for it (through taxation).
I don't think I have to explain why that is bad. Let's repudiate that and vote against them.
10. Energy Policy: The "Drill Baby Drill" chant should be enough to see the matter for what it is. Fossil fuels not only are big carbon sources, but they are a limited resource and the need for energy is virtually unlimited. They represent a massive strategic problem, and we only seemed to finally get a sense of this as gas prices ran amok.
Obama will do more to create a whole new category of green jobs, and through carbon credits would create a new market for raising revenue and pushing the business world toward a more responsibile existence.
Foreign Policy
Having been back in the US for Trina's interviews, my discretionary time has been swamped with other obligations and fun distractions
So I've done a bad job at hitting the leftover areas--Foreign Policy, Social Justice, some of the more nuanced elements of economic policy, environmental matters. I haven't analyzed Sarah Palin, who I find to be the scariest candidate in recent history. I haven't hit heavily on matters of character--moral, intellectual and leadership--and these issues matters as well. Unfortunately, even a loquacious guy like me takes breaks. I haven't really gotten in to the illegal torture issue of the Bushies, or the rapid deterioration of civil liberties (read: freedoms) at the hand of the homeland security department.
I'm going to do a quick summary on foreign policy, and then I'm going to summarize the main thrust of my blog's argument. I haven't decided if the blog has a real future after tomorrow.
On Foreign Policy:
First and foremost, the experience argument has got to be examined. The McCain claim that Obama isn't qualified is eviscerated by his choice of Sarah Palin. I'm not talking about Presidential Experience, Executive Experience or any of the other vacuous claims made surrounding election experience--I'm talking about Foreign Policy. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, saying Barack is naive because he wasn't a POW and hasn't been doing foreign affairs in the Senate for decades.
But, for a moment, let's ignore this hypocrisy. My pointing that out could be a bit of a straw man--is Obama going to be a capable international leader, compared with John McCain, Sarah Palin aside?
Yes.
There aren't guarantees with anyone, (McCain included) of course. But the signs point to yes.
Barack has demonstrated substantial awareness of the issues, and the intellectual acuity to see good strategy. Everything from his answers in debates, to his policy proposals and the way he has run his campaign points to the fact that he is able to organize a hierarchy of values and goes, subjugating some and elevating others, and is able to be fluid in response to the challenges that come up.
His answers on Foreign Policy--despite McCain's words--"you just don't understand"--were not silly neophyte answers. Pick up an issue of Foreign Affairs sometime, one of the most respected journals (that normal humans can understand, anyway) in the country on the matter. You will find both conservative and liberal voices in Foriegn Affairs, many of the leading thinkers in the country. You can easily find a lot of grounding for foriegn policy as Obama would have it.
And also please pay attention to the fact that Colin Powell endorsed him. George Bush's Secretary of State, who (before his case before the UN for Iraq) is one of the most respect statesmen and diplomats in the country, and who is a republican.
Also, think about leverage. There is this fear of ceding our interest to the world. It seems that when we act alone in our own interests, we risk losing partners with the net effect being a negative for our own interests (read: Iraq).
That said, there are many threats we face. Radical Islam, a resurgent and assertive Russia, instability in Pakistan, rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea and Burma, civil wars and genocidal conflict in Africa, an autocratic and rapidly rising China, the emergence of non state threats, a shrinking global economy, a limited amount of fossil fuel, rising population, and a huge proliferation of weapons and weapons technology. And global poverty and starvation in hundreds of places around the world.
We need our allies. We are powerful, but we do not have the power to take it all on. We barely have the resources to handle our own affairs right now. We need someone who can bring coherence to US policy, one not founded on illegal and failed principles (Bush Doctrine). We need someone who can keep a steady hand on the war hawks in the Pentagon (didn't JFK, in his "inexperience", save us from Nuclear winter when he said no to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis?"), who will offer measured but clear responses, and who will consider the implications of our behavior.
We need someone who will pull our allies together, so that we can leverage their resources toward our policy goals. China's GDP will likely pass ours in just a couple decades, their purchasing power even sooner. Our best option for handling this is building robust institutions that China needs, and balancing relative power by linking arms with our allies. China's GDP won't surpass that of the US and Europe together in the foreseeable future, and India represents another massive power-partner in the effort to check potential future agression.
These linkages are matters of leverage. I understand that we do not want to cede our national interest to international organizations, but we have to be willing to look at what we get out of those international organizations. They are an opportunity to project our values, much like domestic law is here in the US, but they need to be robust and the laws need to be enforceable. That will depend on our cooperation.
Fortunately, the world (however naive) is enamored with Obama. He will face all the challenges a normal president does, but he will start with an enormous amount of goodwill from the worldwide electorate. I cannot imagine this will hurt his standing with international leaders.
There is the question of John McCain's war experience. No doubt it qualifies him to be a compassionate veteran's advocate, it has shaped his thinking on torture, and it makes him a bona fide hero. How many people do you know who have been to war, fought on the front lines, and really been through traumatic experiences? It's horrible. But it doesn't qualify you to lead a country, decide about when to go to war, or anything like it. If anything, the trauma may have the opposite effect. In either case, comptenece has to be demostrated.
McCain has the habit of chronically overreacting to foreign policy challenges, and overreaction is what got us into this Iraq mess to begin with (and McCain voted for that). He's not an idiot--despite being (fairly) linked with Bush, I don't believe he would be the bufoon that Bush II has been (Palin would), but I think when compared with Obama, he is not what we want as Commander in Chief.
We want someone who understands the issues, who has the goodwill of our allies, who is consistent, and who can run a tight and highly strategic organization in a shifting environment.
Given the choices, the clear one is Barack Obama.
So I've done a bad job at hitting the leftover areas--Foreign Policy, Social Justice, some of the more nuanced elements of economic policy, environmental matters. I haven't analyzed Sarah Palin, who I find to be the scariest candidate in recent history. I haven't hit heavily on matters of character--moral, intellectual and leadership--and these issues matters as well. Unfortunately, even a loquacious guy like me takes breaks. I haven't really gotten in to the illegal torture issue of the Bushies, or the rapid deterioration of civil liberties (read: freedoms) at the hand of the homeland security department.
I'm going to do a quick summary on foreign policy, and then I'm going to summarize the main thrust of my blog's argument. I haven't decided if the blog has a real future after tomorrow.
On Foreign Policy:
First and foremost, the experience argument has got to be examined. The McCain claim that Obama isn't qualified is eviscerated by his choice of Sarah Palin. I'm not talking about Presidential Experience, Executive Experience or any of the other vacuous claims made surrounding election experience--I'm talking about Foreign Policy. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, saying Barack is naive because he wasn't a POW and hasn't been doing foreign affairs in the Senate for decades.
But, for a moment, let's ignore this hypocrisy. My pointing that out could be a bit of a straw man--is Obama going to be a capable international leader, compared with John McCain, Sarah Palin aside?
Yes.
There aren't guarantees with anyone, (McCain included) of course. But the signs point to yes.
Barack has demonstrated substantial awareness of the issues, and the intellectual acuity to see good strategy. Everything from his answers in debates, to his policy proposals and the way he has run his campaign points to the fact that he is able to organize a hierarchy of values and goes, subjugating some and elevating others, and is able to be fluid in response to the challenges that come up.
His answers on Foreign Policy--despite McCain's words--"you just don't understand"--were not silly neophyte answers. Pick up an issue of Foreign Affairs sometime, one of the most respected journals (that normal humans can understand, anyway) in the country on the matter. You will find both conservative and liberal voices in Foriegn Affairs, many of the leading thinkers in the country. You can easily find a lot of grounding for foriegn policy as Obama would have it.
And also please pay attention to the fact that Colin Powell endorsed him. George Bush's Secretary of State, who (before his case before the UN for Iraq) is one of the most respect statesmen and diplomats in the country, and who is a republican.
Also, think about leverage. There is this fear of ceding our interest to the world. It seems that when we act alone in our own interests, we risk losing partners with the net effect being a negative for our own interests (read: Iraq).
That said, there are many threats we face. Radical Islam, a resurgent and assertive Russia, instability in Pakistan, rogue regimes in Iran and North Korea and Burma, civil wars and genocidal conflict in Africa, an autocratic and rapidly rising China, the emergence of non state threats, a shrinking global economy, a limited amount of fossil fuel, rising population, and a huge proliferation of weapons and weapons technology. And global poverty and starvation in hundreds of places around the world.
We need our allies. We are powerful, but we do not have the power to take it all on. We barely have the resources to handle our own affairs right now. We need someone who can bring coherence to US policy, one not founded on illegal and failed principles (Bush Doctrine). We need someone who can keep a steady hand on the war hawks in the Pentagon (didn't JFK, in his "inexperience", save us from Nuclear winter when he said no to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis?"), who will offer measured but clear responses, and who will consider the implications of our behavior.
We need someone who will pull our allies together, so that we can leverage their resources toward our policy goals. China's GDP will likely pass ours in just a couple decades, their purchasing power even sooner. Our best option for handling this is building robust institutions that China needs, and balancing relative power by linking arms with our allies. China's GDP won't surpass that of the US and Europe together in the foreseeable future, and India represents another massive power-partner in the effort to check potential future agression.
These linkages are matters of leverage. I understand that we do not want to cede our national interest to international organizations, but we have to be willing to look at what we get out of those international organizations. They are an opportunity to project our values, much like domestic law is here in the US, but they need to be robust and the laws need to be enforceable. That will depend on our cooperation.
Fortunately, the world (however naive) is enamored with Obama. He will face all the challenges a normal president does, but he will start with an enormous amount of goodwill from the worldwide electorate. I cannot imagine this will hurt his standing with international leaders.
There is the question of John McCain's war experience. No doubt it qualifies him to be a compassionate veteran's advocate, it has shaped his thinking on torture, and it makes him a bona fide hero. How many people do you know who have been to war, fought on the front lines, and really been through traumatic experiences? It's horrible. But it doesn't qualify you to lead a country, decide about when to go to war, or anything like it. If anything, the trauma may have the opposite effect. In either case, comptenece has to be demostrated.
McCain has the habit of chronically overreacting to foreign policy challenges, and overreaction is what got us into this Iraq mess to begin with (and McCain voted for that). He's not an idiot--despite being (fairly) linked with Bush, I don't believe he would be the bufoon that Bush II has been (Palin would), but I think when compared with Obama, he is not what we want as Commander in Chief.
We want someone who understands the issues, who has the goodwill of our allies, who is consistent, and who can run a tight and highly strategic organization in a shifting environment.
Given the choices, the clear one is Barack Obama.
A Libertarian Vote for Obama
Christie posted a link to this in a comment, and I wanted you to see the whole article.
For those of you who are historically somewhat conservative, have been thinking about Barack, but are having cold feet, please read.
David Post, Trackbacks
For those of you who are historically somewhat conservative, have been thinking about Barack, but are having cold feet, please read.
David Post, Trackbacks
Why I’ll Be Voting for Obama:
As those of you who followed the dust-ups here on the VC after some of my earlier postings critical of Sarah Palin will not be surprised to hear, I’ll be pulling the Obama lever on Tuesday – and quite enthusiastically, too. I consider myself a “pragmatic libertarian” – I’m not a big fan of the state, I believe that power inevitably corrupts, that individuals, when left to their own devices, are capable of remarkable feats of self-organization and problem-solving, and that the freedoms of speech, conscience, and association are, by far, our most precious ones and need to be zealously protected from the folks with the monopoly on coercive force. I haven’t voted for a Democratic candidate for President since 1980 (and I came to regret that one pretty soon thereafter). My personal list of great Presidents is a short one: Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan.
So that’s where I’m coming from, and in my eyes the choice couldn’t be easier. My reasons:
Reason 1 is John McCain. During the two months since he was nominated – the two months during which he (and Obama) got to act “shadow presidents,” and in which we all got to ask ourselves, more seriously than we had been able to before: “If this guy were the president right now, would we like what he’s doing?” – McCain has, time and time again, shown himself to be a panicky, impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip decision-maker, and we don’t need panicky, impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip decision-makers at the moment. I really used to like John McCain a lot. In his role as “maverick Senator,” McCain was a real asset – I think he showed enormous political courage in taking on the culture of earmarks, and in standing up to the more xenophobic elements of the Republican party on immigration, and even on political financing, and I trusted his instincts on the important questions about national security, war, and peace. I also think he’s an immensely likable guy. But with each decision he’s made – his choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, his almost pathetic reaction(s) to the financial crisis (from his initial “Fire Chris Cox!” to his belated discovery that there’s actually greed on Wall Street – who knew! – to his suspension, and un-suspension, of his campaign), to the choices he made about the overall tone and tenor of his campaign – each one made him less and less credible, in my eyes, as president.
Reason 2 is Barack Obama. The country, and the world, are in a precarious state at the moment, and the prospects for a very dark and gloomy future are very real; it took three years for the effects of the 1929 stock market crash to be felt throughout the global economy, and I can’t help but worry that something similar is on the horizon today. We have, as a nation, become demoralized and pessimistic and cynical about our ability to solve our problems. It’s not just that our “infrastructure” is crumbling, it’s that nobody seems to give a shit. Our belief that we are, in fact, the greatest nation on earth has always been one of our most precious assets – something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that has made us the engine for economic growth, and for freedom, for two centuries. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to believe that, these days, and when people stop believing it, it will no longer be true. Countries can descend into the ranks of the second-rate in the blink of an eye (historically speaking): it happened to Spain, and to Portugal, and to Argentina, it is now happening to Italy, and it can happen to us.
We need a truly great president right now – and for me, a great president isn’t one who magically solves all our problems, but one who inspires us to solve our problems. No president can get us out of the mess we have made unless he or she can inspire us to do great things, and there is at least some real chance that Obama has it in him; that’s no guarantee that he’ll be a great president, but given the alternative (see Reason 1) that’s plenty good enough for me. I think he grasps the significance of the moment, and I think he understands that ideology is not policy and policy is not ideology. His gift for oratory, far from being the sideshow that some of his detractors claim, is in fact central to the prospects and the possibilities of an Obama presidency. The Great Ones – Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan – have had one thing (and maybe only one thing) in common: the ability to stir us to great deeds with their words. It is, I think, a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for greatness, and Obama’s got it; McCain does not. Obama’s astonishing capacity to connect with young voters is also part of why he might be a great president; like it or not, the young have a bigger stake in the future than the old because they’ll see more of it, and if they are energized to take the reins of power they deserve the chance to do so.
Nor is Obama’s obvious, and profound, appeal to the people of the world irrelevant to my choice. Whatever you, personally, think of Obama or his policies, it is simply an indisputable fact that hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, of people across the globe are damn near infatuated with him, and that the world will, almost instantaneously, become much better-disposed to the United States when he is elected. It’s quite astonishing, when you think about it; he’s the first global candidate for office. There are many good reasons, to be sure, why a (rational) voter in the United States should ignore the views of the French, the Indians, and the Kenyans etc. when deciding for whom to vote in this (or any) election; presidential elections are and should be about our “self-interest,” and there are plenty of good reasons why we don’t give French, Indian, or Kenyan citizens a vote in our elections. But a world in which hundreds of millions of people are far, far better-disposed to the US is a world in which we are more likely to get a handle of serious global problems, from terrorism to the banking collapse to global warming and the energy crisis. It’s just easier for me to imagine, say, the people of Pakistan actually helping us out in our efforts to protect ourselves from the madmen who are taking refuge in their country if they think we stand for something important and that we deserve protection, rather than because Pervez Musharraf orders them to do so. I know that it’s not all about “hearts and minds” and all that, but it won’t hurt.
Reason 3 is Bush. George W. Bush has, almost single-handedly, destroyed (a) the Republican party, (b) our standing among the nations of the world, and (c) our pride in being Americans. His “compassionate conservatism” turned out to be mean-spirited and exclusionary, his attitude towards the people he was elected to serve contemptuous, and his capacity to lead virtually non-existent. His approval ratings are an accurate indicator of how miserably he has performed. I’m not enough of a historian to know whether he’s the worst president we’ve ever had, but he’s on the short list, and he is certainly the worst I have encountered in the 40-some years I’ve been paying attention to this stuff. The Republicans needs to be punished for allowing it to happen.
Reason 4 is energy policy. For my money, this is the big domestic issue for the next several decades, because pretty much all other important domestic issues will turn on whether or not we can solve it. The sight of 10,000 oil-addicted junkies shouting “Drill, Baby, Drill!!” at the Republican convention (repeated over and over again at campaign rallies this Fall) was chilling. The idea that we can drill ourselves out of the economic and ecological hole in which we find ourselves is as wrong as an idea can be (as McCain, before he began pandering, understood quite well).
So I hope he wins. Ultimately, in a democracy, you take what your fellow-citizens give you, and you accept that whatever answer the democratic process has produced is the “right” one. If a majority of the people in this country think McCain is the man to lead them, then so be it; they must view things very differently than I do. But I’m pretty confident that we’re going to be taking the other course, and that we’ll be better off for having done so.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Gridlock is better?
I am pretty close to some people who think it is...and in some cases it is.
But, in the (albeit narrow) question of the stock market, a democratic president with a democratic majority in both houses is better than a democratic majority in both houses with a republican president.
So, since there will, in fact, be a democratic majority in both houses, this is just another (small) point for Barack Obama over John McCain.
But, in the (albeit narrow) question of the stock market, a democratic president with a democratic majority in both houses is better than a democratic majority in both houses with a republican president.
So, since there will, in fact, be a democratic majority in both houses, this is just another (small) point for Barack Obama over John McCain.
Focus on the Family Action
Focus on the Family action, which is basically an arm of Focus on the Family, has published yet another embarrassing letter. It is a made-up letter from a Christian in America in 2012. In it they make outrageous claims, absurd conjectures, and they preach a message of fear.
Beside being incredibly far-fetched, Focus on the Family has committed itself to irrelevance as an organization offering a prophetic view of our society because it has been so transformed by one political party's platform. That's not to say they are not entitled to their political opinions, but they have become such a caricature of themselves that it is hard to imagine that anyone behind these letters has any measure of humility, history, or self-conscious thought.
Whether in making the claim that "at no time has America been in greater danger" because of "judicial tyranny" during the Terry Shiavo case (when the country was run from top to bottom by Republicans), to spreading their gospel of fear (nuclear attacks, churches being forced to close because they won't allow gay staff members, hardcore pornography on television, terrorist attacks because Obama is president--be serious), Focus on the Family has sacrificed credibility for power, and a sacrifice for power is anything but Christian.
Beside being incredibly far-fetched, Focus on the Family has committed itself to irrelevance as an organization offering a prophetic view of our society because it has been so transformed by one political party's platform. That's not to say they are not entitled to their political opinions, but they have become such a caricature of themselves that it is hard to imagine that anyone behind these letters has any measure of humility, history, or self-conscious thought.
Whether in making the claim that "at no time has America been in greater danger" because of "judicial tyranny" during the Terry Shiavo case (when the country was run from top to bottom by Republicans), to spreading their gospel of fear (nuclear attacks, churches being forced to close because they won't allow gay staff members, hardcore pornography on television, terrorist attacks because Obama is president--be serious), Focus on the Family has sacrificed credibility for power, and a sacrifice for power is anything but Christian.
Obama's Tax Cuts
For those of you who are concerned that Obama will be raising your taxes, and independent review of the two candidates tax plans has been conducted by Deloitte and the Brookings institution.
Turns out John McCain is being deceitful in trying to convince you that Obama wants to rob your pocketbook.
See the details here.
Turns out John McCain is being deceitful in trying to convince you that Obama wants to rob your pocketbook.
See the details here.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
McCain and Foreign Policy
I would like to focus on Foreign policy in the closing days of this campaign.
It seems that Matt Welch's article is a good start. I've provided the entire text here. He basically argues that McCain is given to hyperbolic responses, which I would suggest is the last thing we need in a president. Experience doesn't do you much good if you have poor judgment.
McCain's Georgian Hyperbole
Exaggerating threats is a feature, not a bug, of McCainite neoconservatism, and reveals much about what kind of president he'd make.
Matt Welch | August 18, 2008
On Thursday of last week, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that Russia's invasion of Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." This is most certainly not true, at least according to the last two decades' worth of foreign policy assessments from one John McCain.
In December 1990, two months after Germany reunified and four months after Saddam Hussein did unto Kuwait far worse than what Vladimir Putin has so far done unto Georgia, the Arizona senator asserted that "the peace and security of the world for future generations [demand] that the world community act decisively to end the Gulf Crisis now." Pretty serious stuff.
In January 1994, he described North Korea's nuclear weapons program as "the most dangerous and immediate expression" of "the greatest challenge to U.S. security and world stability today," and warned that "there can be no serious doubt that our vital national interests are imperiled." Serious!
In an April 1999 speech that everyone considering voting for McCain should go read now, the rogue-state rollbacker said that "America's most important values—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under vicious assault by the Milosevic regime," requiring "an immediate and manifold increase in the violence against Serbia proper and Serbian forces in Kosovo," including mobilization of "infantry and armored divisions for a possible ground war." Très sérieux!
And of course, during the current campaign, he has repeatedly reminded voters that he's running for president to confront "the transcendent issue of our time: the battle and struggle against radical Islamic extremism." Which, he argued at a Republican debate in June 2007, "is a force of evil that is within our shores.... My friends, this is a transcendent struggle between good and evil. Everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here." If that isn't a "probably serious crisis internationally," then the phrase truly has no meaning.
OK, so McCain misspoke with that whole Cold War bit. But did he really? Consider another line from last week: "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire."
Let's review what McCain is alleging here: Not only does Russia have malevolent designs on recently detached "Near Abroad" territories within nearby Georgia, Belarus, and Moldova—a critique, I hasten to add, that I share—McCain warns that the Bear is also working actively toward re-swallowing all or much of such Russian colonial holdings-turned sovereign states as, oh, Finland, Armenia, the Baltics, a pack of 'stans, and a big chunk of Poland.
It's one thing to look into Putin's eyes and (accurately) see three letters: K-G-B, quite another to base your foreign policy approach on the assumption that the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world wants to go on the biggest nation-gobbling rampage the globe has seen in over 60 years, devouring a half-dozen NATO members in the process.
These aren't the exaggerations of a novice or a naif; quite the opposite, actually. McCain knows Georgia and the Near Abroad perhaps more intimately than any other senator. The taxpayer-financed International Republican Institute, which he has headed up for 15 years, has been deeply involved with democracy-building projects in the formerly Soviet republic. His chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has performed extensive lobbying for the country (including directly to John McCain), and like all the best lobbying efforts, it appears to be a case of genuine shared interests.
The case against neoconservative foreign policy has never been about an insufficient store of knowledge. You couldn't, for example, accuse Paul Wolfowitz of inexperience with the Middle East. Neoconservatism's problem, and electoral advantage, is one and the same: By escalating international problems into monumental crises and impending threats, interventionists such as John McCain have been able to appear knowledgeable, "serious," and presidentially tough, all at once. Any competitor preaching policy restraint and rhetorical prudence looks like a wuss in comparison.
Like Democrats ready to re-intervene in the economy at the first sign of crisis, the neocons' continuing state of red-alert readiness—whether directed at China, Russia, or the Middle East—provides a go-to set of policy prescriptions, expertise, and action items whenever the latest "holiday from history" comes crashing to a halt. George W. Bush's "humble" foreign policy approach, however sincere it might have been, was no substitute on Sept. 12 for an offensive strategy backed by a well-worn worldview. By 2002, Bush's foreign policy was little different than what a President McCain's might have looked like and, not uncoincidentally, McCainite National Greatness Conservatives went from being prime candidates for defecting from the Republican Party to the in-flight ideological officers of Air Force One.
The problems with their approach should be evident by now, but are worth repeating. Perpetually exaggerating threats leads to, well, perpetual exaggerations, whether about a bad guy's wickedness or a good guy's virtue. On such faulty edifices are constructed unnecessary wars, those most murderous of foreign policy mistakes. In October 2001, McCain, a longtime Iraq hawk, told David Letterman that "some of this anthrax may—and I emphasize may—have come from Iraq." And the senator has long been a supporter of disgraced Iraqi National Congress schemer Ahmad Chalabi.
So take care when the would-be commander in chief says "we are all Georgians" (a rhetorical flourish made goofy by the fact that not all Georgians are even Georgians). McCain may indeed have a usable, just-add-water approach to Russia (consider that his calls to kick Russia out of the G8 went from being crazy-sounding to a distinct possibility within a few short months), but after nearly seven years of seeing a McCain-lite foreign policy in practice, our burden of proof should shift back to the boys who perpetually cry wolf.
It seems that Matt Welch's article is a good start. I've provided the entire text here. He basically argues that McCain is given to hyperbolic responses, which I would suggest is the last thing we need in a president. Experience doesn't do you much good if you have poor judgment.
McCain's Georgian Hyperbole
Exaggerating threats is a feature, not a bug, of McCainite neoconservatism, and reveals much about what kind of president he'd make.
Matt Welch | August 18, 2008
On Thursday of last week, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that Russia's invasion of Georgia was "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." This is most certainly not true, at least according to the last two decades' worth of foreign policy assessments from one John McCain.
In December 1990, two months after Germany reunified and four months after Saddam Hussein did unto Kuwait far worse than what Vladimir Putin has so far done unto Georgia, the Arizona senator asserted that "the peace and security of the world for future generations [demand] that the world community act decisively to end the Gulf Crisis now." Pretty serious stuff.
In January 1994, he described North Korea's nuclear weapons program as "the most dangerous and immediate expression" of "the greatest challenge to U.S. security and world stability today," and warned that "there can be no serious doubt that our vital national interests are imperiled." Serious!
In an April 1999 speech that everyone considering voting for McCain should go read now, the rogue-state rollbacker said that "America's most important values—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under vicious assault by the Milosevic regime," requiring "an immediate and manifold increase in the violence against Serbia proper and Serbian forces in Kosovo," including mobilization of "infantry and armored divisions for a possible ground war." Très sérieux!
And of course, during the current campaign, he has repeatedly reminded voters that he's running for president to confront "the transcendent issue of our time: the battle and struggle against radical Islamic extremism." Which, he argued at a Republican debate in June 2007, "is a force of evil that is within our shores.... My friends, this is a transcendent struggle between good and evil. Everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here." If that isn't a "probably serious crisis internationally," then the phrase truly has no meaning.
OK, so McCain misspoke with that whole Cold War bit. But did he really? Consider another line from last week: "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire."
Let's review what McCain is alleging here: Not only does Russia have malevolent designs on recently detached "Near Abroad" territories within nearby Georgia, Belarus, and Moldova—a critique, I hasten to add, that I share—McCain warns that the Bear is also working actively toward re-swallowing all or much of such Russian colonial holdings-turned sovereign states as, oh, Finland, Armenia, the Baltics, a pack of 'stans, and a big chunk of Poland.
It's one thing to look into Putin's eyes and (accurately) see three letters: K-G-B, quite another to base your foreign policy approach on the assumption that the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world wants to go on the biggest nation-gobbling rampage the globe has seen in over 60 years, devouring a half-dozen NATO members in the process.
These aren't the exaggerations of a novice or a naif; quite the opposite, actually. McCain knows Georgia and the Near Abroad perhaps more intimately than any other senator. The taxpayer-financed International Republican Institute, which he has headed up for 15 years, has been deeply involved with democracy-building projects in the formerly Soviet republic. His chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has performed extensive lobbying for the country (including directly to John McCain), and like all the best lobbying efforts, it appears to be a case of genuine shared interests.
The case against neoconservative foreign policy has never been about an insufficient store of knowledge. You couldn't, for example, accuse Paul Wolfowitz of inexperience with the Middle East. Neoconservatism's problem, and electoral advantage, is one and the same: By escalating international problems into monumental crises and impending threats, interventionists such as John McCain have been able to appear knowledgeable, "serious," and presidentially tough, all at once. Any competitor preaching policy restraint and rhetorical prudence looks like a wuss in comparison.
Like Democrats ready to re-intervene in the economy at the first sign of crisis, the neocons' continuing state of red-alert readiness—whether directed at China, Russia, or the Middle East—provides a go-to set of policy prescriptions, expertise, and action items whenever the latest "holiday from history" comes crashing to a halt. George W. Bush's "humble" foreign policy approach, however sincere it might have been, was no substitute on Sept. 12 for an offensive strategy backed by a well-worn worldview. By 2002, Bush's foreign policy was little different than what a President McCain's might have looked like and, not uncoincidentally, McCainite National Greatness Conservatives went from being prime candidates for defecting from the Republican Party to the in-flight ideological officers of Air Force One.
The problems with their approach should be evident by now, but are worth repeating. Perpetually exaggerating threats leads to, well, perpetual exaggerations, whether about a bad guy's wickedness or a good guy's virtue. On such faulty edifices are constructed unnecessary wars, those most murderous of foreign policy mistakes. In October 2001, McCain, a longtime Iraq hawk, told David Letterman that "some of this anthrax may—and I emphasize may—have come from Iraq." And the senator has long been a supporter of disgraced Iraqi National Congress schemer Ahmad Chalabi.
So take care when the would-be commander in chief says "we are all Georgians" (a rhetorical flourish made goofy by the fact that not all Georgians are even Georgians). McCain may indeed have a usable, just-add-water approach to Russia (consider that his calls to kick Russia out of the G8 went from being crazy-sounding to a distinct possibility within a few short months), but after nearly seven years of seeing a McCain-lite foreign policy in practice, our burden of proof should shift back to the boys who perpetually cry wolf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
