Why Obama, Part I

In order to explain why I support Brarak Obama, I must give some background on my personal political philosophy. In the last two presidential elections I voted for Ralph Nader. Why “throw away” your vote, you ask? Well, I believe that the United States is held hostage by the two party system. In a word of far ranging possibilities, we are given only those possible solutions to political problems that fit within the narrow spectrum of what the Republicans and Democrats will consider. I liken American politics to a football field. The entire range of possible political action would be the full 100 yards of the field. However, the entrenched powers of the Democratic and Republican parties will only ever play between, because American is a right-leaning country, the conservative 20 yard line to the liberal 40 yard line. On either side of these political positions are a range of possible solutions that will not be considered because there is no apparatus in the two party system to bring these ideas into the public discourse. It has been my position that the only vote that actually counted was a vote to oppose the current Republican/Democrat hegemony that controls power in this country. Consider, for example, that neither party is ever “out of power,” they only shift footings regarding which party has slightly more power than the other. We are lead to believe that the presumably hard fought battles between democrats and republicans prove that they are bitter rivals, and on some level perhaps they are. But one thing they absolutely agree on is that the two party system must remain intact. They have a lock on power, they know it, and they will do anything they can to keep it that way (i.e. in 2004, the Democratic party paid the Green party not to nominate Ralph Nader again, thereby marginalizing both the party and the candidate).

I have argued, while supporting my votes for Nader, that the two major US political parties are so similar that any difference between them is insignificant. Over the last eight years, President Bush has worked hard to disabuse me of this notion. Think what you will of Al Gore, but no one could reasonably suggest that we would be mired in Iraq right now if Gore had won in 2000. Bush I and Clinton were essentially the same presidency (Clinton passed NAFTA of all things), but Bush II is so radically conservative and hawkish that I must acknowledge that there is a difference between the parties. The real problem, however, is that there was no one to stand up to Bush when he went into Iraq. There was no one, as one might see in the British Parliament, to shout down the notion of war and force the country to really consider the implications of a “preemptive war” (how evangelical Christians reconcile their beliefs and the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is beyond me). In a nation that was perhaps a little too eager to punch someone in the mouth to prove just how tough it still was, the democrats rolled over and, despite revisionist histories by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave Bush the power to go to war.

So what does this all have to do with Obama? Well, the Bush II presidency has been so disastrous for the US that the democrats are basically assured of winning the presidency. An unpopular and costly war, a burgeoning deficit, the mortgage crisis, spiraling healthcare costs even for those lucky enough to have insurance—the country is not in good shape, and one needn’t be a partisan to see it. The catastrophe of the Bush presidency allows the Democratic party to nominate someone that is not a centrist in the stripe of Clinton, but instead nominate a candidate with truly progressive ideas (maybe even getting to the liberal 30 yard line?). But who would this nominee be? John Edwards was one of the most unabashedly liberal of the major democratic candidates, but he’s dropped out. Hillary Clinton, until her recent conversion to the true liberal cause, has been a staunch moderate. Despite popular opinion of her she has long been a centrist democrat. In fact, she is a member of the Democratic Leadership Conference, a centrist group within the democratic party (Joe Liberman is also a member of the DLC). That leaves us with Barak Obama, a unashamedly progressive candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. And while others were off making money by cutting back labor costs, he was using his law degree to help community activists in Chicago try to improve their city. The choice for anyone leaning left, is clear: Barak Obama represents a chance to shift the powerbase in Washington in a way similar to how a third party might. In a political landscape covered with presumptive nominees, 96% incumbent reelections, and political dynasties, Obama is the proverbial monkey wrench that might just get us out of, not the mythological Washington gridlock, but the status quo where both major parties shrug off lost elections because they know, without a doubt, that they’ll be back in 4 to 8 years. But would I advocate electing someone to such a critical office just to be a token of discontent? No, of course not. In my next post I’ll detail why I believe Obama isn’t only the best choice to challenged entrenched Washington politics, but is in fact the best candidate for the office of President of the United States.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Why Obama, Part I

  1. If the British parliamentary system is so preferable, why could that august body of learned men not stand up to the bloodthirsty warlord Tony Blair, instead of blindly following him into Iraq, just as the US congress did with Bush? Could it be that it is, at its core, it’s really a two party system (Labour and Conservative) just like the United States?

    Americans always complain about there being no difference between the two political parties, because they have no idea how a multi-party political system actually functions. The minority governments, the coalition building, with its inherent instability. Italy has a new government every 90 days. Canada has one-third of its parliament dedicated to tearing the country apart. France’s third party is essentially fascist. Yes, by all means – let’s try to govern a country with seven different political platforms competing with each other.

    And will you stop with your self-righteous contempt for American corporations just because they out-source some of their operations to stay competitive in a global economy.

    Congratulations to Obama – he was a saintly community activist who helps people, and not an evil, grasping, corrupt CEO who fires them and steals their pensions. Instead of trying to demonize business men like Romney he should be praising them. Aren’t they the ones who start businesses that employ people and provide the tax revenues to fund the billions of dollars of social programs he’s proposing?

    But I do admire Barak Obama for working to improve his community, and I expect he’ll talk about that experience more out on the campaign trail. After all, it’s the closest thing to executive experience he’s got.

  2. Americans always complain about there being no difference between the two political parties, because they have no idea how a multi-party political system actually functions.

    No, we complain be cause even in a representative democracy we feel that no one represents our views. While you might argue that few know how a multi-party system works, you’ll find that we Americans do, on occasion , pay attention to other countries and their governments.

    The minority governments, the coalition building, with its inherent instability. Italy has a new government every 90 days. Canada has one-third of its parliament dedicated to tearing the country apart. France’s third party is essentially fascist. Yes, by all means – let’s try to govern a country with seven different political platforms competing with each other.
    You rather uncritically lay the political instability of these countries at the feet of a multi-party system. As you know with Canada, the issue isn’t the system, it’s a deep seated cultural/linguistic difference. The problem is expressed in the multi-party system, not caused by it. As the riots in France indicate, there are worse ways of expressing these cultural differences than in a democratically elected public forum. Further, you describe the complexity and tension of a multi-party system as a failing to be avoided. I would welcome the refining process of n strong opposition party. Diversity, college buzzword status not withstanding, is in fact a good thing.

    Republicans, not surprisingly, give primacy to “executive experience.” And if you see America as “America Limited, Inc.”, then yes, your test for office might be how much money your candidate made for other rich people. (How you justify GWB is questionable, then.) But those of us who are interested in having leaders and not just another boss don’t really care about “executive experience” as much. I value the collaborative experience acquired in legislative experience just as much as that of being in an executive position.

    BTW, look into Bain Capital. Romney didn’t open up a lemonade stand and employee kids on street corners. He bought failing companies, fired enough people to make them profitable, and then sold the them off. Fine, no problem. But such a job description could hardly endear him to the American middle class. (I know The Huckster made this point, and I’m reticent to repeat it because of that. However, that’s simply what Bain Capital does.) Romney was very good at making money for wealthy investors. Obama helped improve his community through outreach and education. Neither of these backgrounds is a bad thing. Pick whichever background you like better and vote accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s