Danny ChaiPolitical blog entries are almost always pointless because everyone’s already made up their mind and no one convinces anyone else. Seeing the reaction to stuff like convention speeches and debates is comical, because I have rarely seen anyone change their mind from it. Almost always, their reaction reflects what they felt going in. The whole exercise seems pointless to me. Regardless, here’s why I’m voting for Obama. It’s long and has copious external links, and I doubt anyone gets through it.
First a digression about the House rejecting the bailout plan. First of all, I think the Republicans are idiots. I’m not happy about the necessity of a bailout, but the consequences of doing nothing are far worse. Do the House Republicans want to turn a financial calamity into an economic one? Are they that ignorant of history? (Bernanke is a Great Depression scholar. I highly highly highly recommend you read this speech he gave a few years ago that discusses the causes of the Great Depression. If nothing else, I hope that it highlights the lunacy of economic Libertarians, who I constantly rail against. They (e.g. Ron Paul) seem to believe that returning to the gold standard is the solution to everything. Umm, hello. The U.S. was on the gold standard when the Great Depression hit. And in fact, adherence to the gold standard made the Great Depression worse – countries that weren’t on it were affected less than those that were, and countries that abandoned it recovered earlier than those that didn’t. Furthermore, bad monetary policy was a direct cause of the Great Depression. Bernanke knows very well what caused the Great Depression, and that’s why he’s been so active in the financial markets. It sucks that it’s necessary, but the alternative is catastrophic.)
That said, while it’s absurd that the Republicans blame the failure of the bill’s passage to Nancy Pelosi’s speech before the vote, said speech makes me sick. Partisan sliming, bush-league stuff. She deserves whatever chastising she gets.
Back to why I’m voting for Obama. Comes down to two main reasons. One, on nearly every policy position, I agree more with Obama than I do with McCain. There are a couple, possibly important issues on which I disagree, but I’m not a one (or two) issue voter, and even on those issues, I’m conflicted. The second reason is, every single public voice that I respect, without exception, prefers Obama. This includes conservatives. Some people seem to think I’m a die-hard Democrat or something because I avidly support Obama. Untrue. I’m a registered Republican, though a moderate one. Most of the people I respect lean conservative. But they all support Obama. Fareed Zakaria wrote in the Future of Freedom how it used to be all about who supported who, in the arts and otherwise. If the right people supported an artist, he was set. Now, it’s all about numbers – who doesn’t matter at all, it’s just how many. To me, who still matters a lot (as does why), and everyone that matters to me supports Obama.
Speaking of Zakaria, his voice is the one I trust most when it comes to foreign policy. He leans conservative. He supported the Iraq War. And he prefers Obama’s foreign policy stances to McCain’s. I agree. Bush’s foreign policy was disastrous and caused the world to hate us because it made the U.S. appear arrogant and belligerent. McCain’s stances (specifically his overwillingness to go to war with Iran and his public antagonism toward Russia and China in regards to the G8) would only further that perception (if they haven’t already). It’s also a matter of record that other countries are gaga over Obama, although who knows if that would last. But on both policy and personal stature, Obama is to me the better candidate.
On the economy, I trust Obama far more than McCain, who admits that his grasp of economic issues is not strong. Certain of McCain’s proposals (e.g. the gas-tax holiday, a proposal that not a single economist of any political leaning endorsed) have been just absurd. The accounts of the differences between McCain and Obama in their meeting with Congressional leaders regarding bailout talks is also telling. Furthermore, it helps that every economic hero of mine supports Obama. For example, Paul Volcker (the old Fed chairman credited with ending the stagflation of the late 70s / early 80s) and Warren Buffett are Obama supporters. That’s not surprising, since they’re Democrats. But there’s also John Bogle, who I’ve written about many times as being my single greatest economic hero. I agree with pretty much everything he says, economy-wise. He’s almost certainly a Christian, and those values come out in his economic proposals. He is also a Republican. And he supports Obama, saying “We need some regulation! … I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican, and the party has abandoned me.” I’m no expert on the economy. But the ones who demonstrably know their stuff and that I trust the most support Obama.
To rail on libertarians just a little bit more, can the events of the past month finally put to rest the fantasy that unfettered “free” markets are the solution to everything? You’d think that the collapse of these huge financial giants, largely caused by actions in under-regulated arenas, would cause everyone to realize that we need more regulation in certain areas. And that’s mostly happened, across the political spectrum. But there’s still a fringe libertarian faction that believes, against all evidence, that removing all regulations would be a good thing. People have been posting this Ron Paul commentary on CNN.com in which he argues that, since the 1930’s, government meddling in the housing markets ultimately led to this situation, and that in fact, government meddling is what made the Depression as long and severe as it was.
Some of what he says has merit. But talk about cherry-picking data. Starting from the 1930s? I already mentioned how the Great Depression happened in the midst of what libertarians want – under-regulated markets and a country on the gold standard. These very things made the Great Depression worse – the data is compelling. And the response libertarians want now is pretty much what then Secretary of the Treasury famously advocated at the time:
[Mellon] felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people”…
Oops. And libertarians think that’s a good idea now? The reason we haven’t had a Depression since then is largely because of effective regulation that was enacted in its wake. For example, Jonathan Alter points out the amazing fact that the failure of WaMu, the largest bank in the country, has barely caused a financial ripple. It’s a testimony to the effectiveness of FDIC regulation. The reason we’re in a financial crisis now is because we’ve lacked effective regulation. Are many regulations bad and counter-productive? Unquestionably. But to take from that the lesson that we should have virtually no regulations whatsoever, as libertarians do, is like saying since there exist many bad parents, we should not have any parents at all. It’s unjustified, and empirically untrue – every time there have been under-regulated markets, it’s led to catastrophe. I simply don’t understand how libertarians can just blindly ignore actual history in favor of theory.
I’m digressing. But yeah, foreign policy and the economy are two of the big issue. On the issue of character, I’m even more strongly Obama. Obama seems a genuine Christian, McCain not, if that matters (it doesn’t really to me; as Martin Luther said, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk (i.e. Muslim) than an incompetent Christian”). Obama is quite clearly more intelligent. But McCain has more serious character flaws, which has turned off many people that should be supporting him. Elizabeth Drew, who wrote a pro-McCain book (Citizen McCain) recently wrote how he has lost her, due to his pandering, bellicosity, and erratic actions. Uber-conservative George F. Will wrote a shocking commentary that was highly critical of McCain, saying that Obama’s potential weakness – lack of experience – can be fixed, whereas McCain’s – temperament – cannot. Could you ever have imagined a day when George F. Will would express preference for a Democratic candidate over a Republican one? The mind reels.
Not to mention Palin. People who are (still) enthusiastic about her must jive with her policy positions, and that’s valid. But in terms of ability, she’s frightening. I’m sure you’ve seen the Couric interview, and CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasting it as “one of the most pathetic pieces of tape I have ever seen from someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country”. Maybe’s he’s biased. But Zakaria adds:
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start…. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.
Ouch. He’s not alone. A bunch of influential conservative commentators have called for Sarah Palin to step down. Again, these are conservatives, including columnists for the National Review, which is insane. That McCain would choose Palin does not reflect well on him.
And maybe this is lame, but I was also turned off by his campaign’s Facebook updates. As I’ve mentioned before, I voted for McCain in the primaries, so my souring on him is recent. And I was a Fan of his Facebook Page. I removed myself after I just got one nasty Update too many. His campaign can argue all they want that they don’t do anything the other side doesn’t, but at least as far as Facebook Updates go, that’s untrue. McCain’s just started feeling slimy, negative, and dirty; I felt unclean after reading them, and disgusted enough that I had to remove myself as a Fan. The tone of those updates also did not reflect well on him.
I haven’t really gotten into much, but that’s a bit. And I haven’t even talked really about specific policy issues as that would take too long, but yeah, I agree with Obama far more. And the fact that every voice I respect supports Obama, even the conservative ones, and why they do, is a big deal to me. Honestly, all things considered, voting for Obama is nearly a no-brainer, unless you cannot get over his abortion stance (valid) or only care about less taxes, primarily for the rich (invalid).