[digg-reddit-me]If you want to know why I – like so many others – held John McCain in such high regard for so long, it had a lot to do with David Ifshin. And if you want to know why my opinion of him has plummeted, it has something to do with William Ayers.
Of course, this is the same McCain who refused to take on the issue of the Confederate flag flying over the state capitol during the 2000 South Carolina primary – until after the primary was over. This is the same McCain who condemned torture – until he finally was in a position to actually affect policy. This is the same McCain who promised to run a clean campaign – only to base his campaign around slander, hiring the verypeople who he had so vigorously condemned for playing dirty during the 2000 campaign. This is the same McCain who – after being embroiled in the Keating Five scandal – vowed to become a reformer – and did so, but meanwhile maintained cosy relationships with lobbyists and did many favors for donors. And on and on.
All in all – there’s a lot of talk about socialism these days – driven by a fear, especially among the financial elite, that a blowback is coming. At the same time, after the better part of four decades of Republican rule, the Republicans need to scare people out of voting for the charismatic candidate who’s offering to help them in this time of crisis. And certainly this ongoing financial crisis has demonstrated to many the insufficiency of the Republican approach to regulation and governance and the limitations of the market. (Though not to Republicans and free-market ideologues who continue to insist that the problems that have spiraled out of control in the shadow banking system were the result of too much government in the more stable, regulated banking system.) I could easily see a populist candidate gain power today by railing against the big money elites. But Obama is not this candidate, let alone an advocate for socialism, class warfare, or any similar ideology. (In fact, McCain’s rhetoric comes closer to populist demagoguery of Wall Street.)
Obama’s economic plan is not about socialism or revolution or any such radicalism. He’s not that type of politician. The goal of his Obamanomics (if you will) is not a socialist paradise or a European-style market socialism but a restoration of the economic justice that made 1950s and 1960s America so stable. Unless you think Leave It To Beaver took place in a socialist nation, then Obama’s economic plans shouldn’t strike you as far left. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out while thoroughly debunking the right-wing spin that Obama is “far left,” Obama is to Richard Nixon’s right on taxes, which you would never guess from the ads Senator McCain has been running. Even the “code words” that the Investors Business Daily finds to be so fraught with meaning – “economic justice” – which they insist is just code for socialism – are from1950s era American thinkers Kelso and Adler. They were the authors of the 1958 Capitalist Manifesto, a book which sought to figure out how to make American capitalism more just – while acknowledging that “capitalism [is] the only just form of economic life.”
Barack Obama’s economic plan falls well within the mainstream of American economic history.
Alexander Hamilton – that first budding capitalist of a new nation – believed that government must create and maintain infrastructure, encourage industry, and maintain financial stability through central banks and financial regulation. Henry Clay promoted (and Abraham Lincoln supported) what he called “the American system” – which included various government interventions to build up American industry. After the Civil War, industry gained more and more power – and by the time the Panic of 1873 gave way to the Gilded Age, extreme capitalism had taken over America – with extreme concentrations of wealth and vast amounts of power concentrated in the hands of a few magnates.
McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, believed that we needed to protect essential institutions and elements of society from extreme capitalism – and focused on environmental conservation, on breaking up monopolies and other concentrations of power, on increasing regulations and beginning government’s role as a protector of consumer rights. This conservatism of Teddy Roosevelt’s resembled that of William F. Buckley – who defined conservatism as a man standing athwart history, yelling, “Stop!” ((Of course, Buckley came to distance himself from contemporary conservatism – which dropped this moderate approach with preemption and prevention.))
As a result of Teddy Roosevelt’s reforms, and then the turmoil of the Great Depression, World War II, Hoover, FDR, and Truman – America had reached a point of social and economic stability. This stability of the 1950s and 1960s came at the expense of tamping down certain social and economic forces. The social stability was torn apart by the Civil Rights movement, feminism, free love, and the later radicalisms of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This culture war has been dominating politics since then.
The economic stability of this period was destroyed by the forces of extreme capitalism, greed, deregulation, and other economic radicalisms of the 1970s and early 1980s – as labor unions were undermined, executive compensation grew exponentially, social mobility was impeded, and economic power concentrated in a handful of large corporations.
The excesses of the social radicalism of the 1960s have been cataloged by the conservative movement – and many of the worst excesses have been reversed – while other elements have become accepted by the vast majority of Americans. There has been no similar concentrated political effort to moderate the other radicalism that destroyed the status quo of the 1950s and 1960s America, extreme capitalism. Just as the social radicalism of the 1960s produced great good – from the Civil Rights Movement to women’s rights – and the mainstream opposition today accepts these progressive strides forward, so the economic radicalism introduced market forces, encouraged competition, and has elevated many people in Third World nations from abject poverty as it’s mainstream opposition today accepts these positive effects of the market.
Obama belongs in this camp of mainstream opponents of extreme capitalism. His agenda stems from an understanding of the middle class best encapsulated in this clip from West Wing, which though it aired ten years ago, seems eerily relevant today:
Obama’s economic plan is a response to this wish to make things “just a little bit easier.” It is an attempt to temper the forces of globalization and extreme capitalism that have wreaked havoc in our society and position us to compete in a globalized marketplace. Like Teddy Roosevelt, he’s attempting to protect the core values of our society from economic radicalism; like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Americans throughout history – he is proposing investments in our infrastructure and incentives for industry. Obama’s plan isn’t perfect – it’s just a start. It’s just tinkering – which is how that sage Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes “the best we can do” to improve our condition. It’s an attempt to make things “just a little bit easier.”
When Obama talks about “economic justice” he is not referring to some obscure Communist codeword – he is calling us to remember the world of Leave It To Beaver – a world where firemen and bankers, lawyers and plumbers, could all live in the same neighborhood. Obama doesn’t pretend he can bring back this past – but he believes we must stop the forces of extreme capitalism from destroying this American ideal and that we must take pro-active steps to reduce the destabilizing effects of globalization and capitalism while protecting our core values as a society.
This isn’t socialism – this is common sense – and it has been the American system since our founding. The radicals are those who propose we do nothing in the face of attacks on our way of life and in the face of economic calamity – the nihilists among the House Republicans and the Hooverites and those who continue to favor deregulation and oppose sensible government intervention in the markets. The radicals are those who believe the free market will cure all ills and will heal itself.
Those who claim that Barack Obama would be the most liberal president in history must have skipped the American history classes covering the period before 1980. Those who claim he is a socialist are just plain wrong.
[digg-reddit-me]I’ve reluctantly come around to the view of Sarah Palin, John McCain, and other luminaries that we must judge our fellow citizens by their associations – and we must assume that you at least partially endorse the views of anyone you pal around with. Hence – Barack Obama pals around with a terrorist – by which I mean he served on the board of a charitable foundation with this guy, along with a bunch of conservative Republicans. Therefore, Barack Obama does not see America as you see America and as I see America.
Clear. Logical.
So, I decided to see who else I could disregard because of their poor judgment and unsavory associations. Now – I first thought about Sarah Palin herself, whose husband is a member of a political party whose founder recently declared: “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government” among other nice tidbits; worse, Palin herself has spoken at this party’s convention and was at one point thought to be a member by their spokesperson – before the McCain campaign corrected her. I mean, in this case, Palin isn’t just palling around with this group – she’s associating herself with their politics by speaking at their convention – and her husband believed in the party enough to join! But then I realized that I know Sarah Palin – and Sarah Palin wouldn’t endorse those views. Obama on the other hand – he’s got bloodlines I don’t trust.
Then of course, I came across this other guy – a peacenik, with long hippie-like hair, preaching namby-pamby, weak-kneed, anti-American values like forgiving enemies and avoiding violence and caring for the poor and telling people they should pay their taxes – basically a filthy liberal. He seems to have influenced a lot of people – so I wanted to point out that not only was this guy born in what was called in his day, “Palestine” – making him likely an Arab.
Clearly, the guy is a dangerous liberal with worrying bloodlines who’s going to wage class war on the rich. That’s not what this Christian nation needs. Enough of this WWJD. It’s time for WWSPD!
We need a Straight Talkin’ Maverick to save this country! And it’s about time Sarah Palin and John McCain took the gloves off and denounced that guy with long hippie hair, class warfare rhetoric, and questionable associations with radical and prostitutes.
[digg-reddit-me]For the first time in it’s history, the Humane Society endorsed a presidential candidate, Barack Obama. They honored Obama’s record at the local and national level and expressed grave concern over Sarah Palin’s record – including opposing the Bush administration’s attempts to protect polar bears and engineering a campaign to hunt animals from helicopters and airplanes. The Human Society concluded:
Voters who care about protecting wildlife from inhumane and unsporting abuses, enforcing the laws that combat large-scale cruelties like dogfighting and puppy mills, providing humane treatment of animals in agriculture, and addressing other challenges that face animals in our nation, must become active over the next six weeks to elect a president and vice president who share our values. Please spread the word, and tell friends and family members that an honest assessment of the records of the two presidential tickets leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama-Biden is the choice for humane-minded voters. [my emphasis]
Obama himself said that he thinks, “how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”
Give McCain a break–there may be other things at which he would have excelled, and there might be things he does very well, but demonstrating political leadership in the clutch isn’t one of them.
While I work on a few posts, here’s an excellent profile of John McCain from Rolling Stone. There’s no attempt to appear fair and balanced – but the piece gets a number of people who knew John McCain to talk on the record.
In this piece, Tim Dickinson blows up the myth of the maverick John McCain who grew from a reckless youth to a mature and seasoned patriot while in prison in Vietnam.
Plus, there are some interesting tidbits – like the fact that a young navy pilot named John McCain caused a major diplomatic incident when he deviated from his flight path for a joy ride just above the ground and cut some power lines causing a blackout in much of Spain. Normally, that’s enough to get your wings clipped – but neither that nor the two planes McCain crashed previously seemed to affect his career path – as his father and grandfather were important admirals.
A man who lived his youth “looking for hardship, danger, horror, and death that [he] might feel the life in [him] more intensely” now seeks, in market his old age, by invoking the virtues of his being disinterested, of being “above politics,” of “putting country first.” This is McCain story – of an irresponsible youth – who is now wise with old age. Yet, as he wrote, “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.” Poetic – and an apt description of how McCain’s wisdom is limited by his personality. (While Obama’s wisdom is reinforced by his patience and focus.)
Old men have their uses – but today’s crises – financial meltdowns, terrorism, war, climate change – call for a young man who will have to live in the world he has wrought, after his power has ebbed. Just as in 1960 the nuclear standoff of the Cold War needed a new generation to take responsibility, to come into power, to wrest away from their elders the burden and privilege of leadership – so today, we must. We will live in the nation, the world created by the actions of the next president. It is important that the next president realize he must live with the consequences of his actions.
Below the jump is the context of this quote in Shaw’s play which is actually very interesting as well. The second line – a question by a young woman – describes exactly the tact McCain has taken to marketing his old age. Captain Shotover’s response reveals some other similarities with McCain – although I cannot imagine McCain being as honest or reflective.
[digg-reddit-me]Found on page 41 of today’s New York Daily News page along with a syndicated column by the arch-conservative Charles Krauthammer which, while attacking Obama’s character through all sorts of sleazy techniques, cannot deny that “Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament.” (Remember – Krauthammer is the guy who approvingly claims McCain wants to “kill the United Nations.”)
Unimaginably painful personal experience taught McCain that war is above all a test of honor: maintain the will to fight on, be prepared to risk everything, and you will prevail. Asked during the first debate to outline “the lessons of Iraq,” McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear: that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict.” A soldier’s answer––but a statesman must have a broader view of war and peace.
