Why Our Generation Loves Barack Obama
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
First, let me say that the following post falls outside the normal subject material for this blog. I have never discussed politics on my blog, not because I lack an interest in the area, but simply because I decided to focus on other subjects when I set out on this journey. That being said, my good friend, Glenn Packiam, came to me the other day with an idea to co-write the following article and I jumped at the chance – not only because the topic intrigued me, but because he is a great writer and I knew that I would be getting the better end of the deal.
Politics is an interesting game because while we often sneer at the way it is played and some of the players themselves, the fact remains that the fates of nations rest in how politics play out. As my friend Glenn so eloquently writes, voting is an immense privilege. I would add that the free debate of politics is a privilege as well. This is the main reason I decided to post this on my blog, I love that in America we are free to debate ideas without fear of persecution. And the art of debating in such a manner that leaves your character intact at the end is indeed a lesson in skilled living. So enjoy, discuss, debate and let your voice be heard!
Why Our Generation Loves Barack Obama by Glenn Packiam and Cameron Schaefer
Before I say anything else, you need to know this: I cannot vote. I have held my Green Card for almost five years, and soon I will be able to renounce my prior citizenship, take a test on American history, and become a certified American citizen. But for now, I am a permanent resident. That means I get to do almost everything a citizen gets to do: line up in the citizens’ line at airport immigration, be legally and gainfully employed, and, of course, pay taxes. But the one thing I cannot do is vote.
In a twist of disappointing irony, the ones who do not have a privilege are often those are treat it as such. Voting is a privilege. Americans call it a right because they’ve never lived anywhere else or known anything different. But it is an extraordinary privilege to have a say in who governs our country and how they may do so. It is a heavy responsibility that many philosophers, rulers, and civilizations have not deemed ordinary citizens worthy of. The ancient Greeks, for example, argued that only the wisest should have a vote.
Alas, that is not the case in the wonderful land of the free and the home of the brave. Everyone gets a vote. But since you do, and I don’t, and since I am neither a republican nor a democrat, I’ve teamed up with one of the brightest minds I know—my good friend Cameron Schaefer—to bring you some thoughts you ought to consider before you vote. From an observing “outsider” and an intelligent insider come our theories on why our generation is so madly in love with Barack Obama.
1. We’re too poor to care about taxes
A friend of mine said flatly, “I don’t care about taxes. I spend more on healthcare out of pocket than I’m likely to get taxed.”
I squirmed at the admission. But it belied a trend: college students and twentysomethings are almost always the least vocal demographic when it comes to tax increases. Why? Quite simply, we aren’t making enough for our taxes to be that high in the first place. Most of us find ourselves in the lowest tax brackets where an increase in taxes would not significantly affect our bottom line.
But what our generation often fails to understand is that, for most of us, earning $10 an hour at the neighborhood Starbucks is just a short stop on our socioeconomic timeline. With each new job and pay raise, higher taxes will become a bigger and bigger factor. A mother recently recounted how her daughter triumphantly announced how wonderful Obama was because he would provide free healthcare at only a fraction of a tax cost to her. The mom rolled her eyes and said, “It’s a fraction for you. What about me?” The stay-at-home-mom-turned-six-figure-earning-entrepreneur continued. “Do you realize that I will likely lose half of my income?” Her daughter was speechless. Her mom losing half her income would certainly impact her upcoming plans for a lavish wedding.
Obama has made it clear that he intends to increase Social Security payroll taxes as well as others. An interesting study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research provided the following conclusion of how Obama’s tax increases would effect our generation:
“…under Social Security’s current rules, young college graduates will contribute about 5 percent of their lifetime earnings. Under Obama’s proposal, that number would rise to almost 9 percent, taking these individuals’ overall lifetime tax rate from 45 percent to 49 percent. By voting for Obama, a 22-year-old young college graduate earning $40,000 per year today would be opting to surrender an additional 4 percent of his lifetime earnings to the Social Security administration — and may get no benefits in return.”
2. We’re too young to be suspicious of big government
The names Reagan and Thatcher ring a bell of familiarity for our generation, but most could not tell you anything about them—except that maybe Reagan was an actor. Makes sense since most of us were sucking on bottles while Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher battled expanding, meddling governments in the U.S. and U.K. respectively. Their legacy as champions of smaller government and economic deregulation came from their firm conviction that individuals know how to spend their money better than the government. As a result, the last three decades have seen a boom in economic prosperity both at home and abroad.
While we are lucky to have been born at such an opportune time, it has given us a somewhat one-sided view of government. We have never been witness to the terrible inefficiency, gridlock and economic downturn caused by big government and it’s emphasis on expensive, centrally-controlled and poorly-run social programs. Senator Obama apparently feels that the last 30 years of prosperity were sheer luck as he intends to increase and expand the federal government like no one in recent memory. Specifically, Obama is currently proposing an $800 billion increase in government spending. While reading his “Blueprint For Change” one thing I noticed immediately was the continual use of the word, “expand” as he talked about expanding this program and that program, expanding spending in this area and government oversight in that area. One thing is clear, a vote for Obama equals a vote for a bigger, more expensive government.
In his classic work, “The Road to Serfdom,” Nobel-prize winning economist F.A. Hayek explained that,
…socialism required central economic planning and that such planning in turn had a risk of leading towards totalitarianism, because the central authority would have to be endowed with powers that would have an impact on social life as well, and because the scope of knowledge required for central planning is inherently decentralized.
In the words of the old adage Reagan used: “Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away.”
A brief reading of stories from the failed communist ideal of the Soviet Union will reinforce the truth of that simple adage. Or perhaps a short trip to the dismantled Soviet bloc, the former home of big government with big ideals and good intentions, will be enough to cleanse your mind of all hope in government.
3. We’re too easily impressed with image.
Fact: Obama looks good on TV. He speaks fantastically. He comes off incredibly intelligent and vibrant. His words are measured and his demeanor composed. He has everything necessary to be attractive to young people (including a popular Facebook group). As one young observer explained,
Obama constantly talks about change, new beginnings and…We love be(ing) a part of something that is new, exciting and a little counter-revolutionary or daring, so we jump on his band wagon!
And all of that is a welcome relief to our “misunderestimated” bumbler of a current president.
The problem is it takes more than great platform presence and a few eloquent speeches about change to make a good president. A friend of mine said the thing that was most important to him in a president was “leadership.” I asked him what he meant by that. He went on to describe some one who speaks well, carries himself with confidence, and is capable of inspiring a nation. While I admit, a president like JFK did a lot to “bring out the best in us,” is that really what we need most in a president? Isn’t that what we have moms for?
Here’s a shocking thought: some of the presidents who did the most good for our nation would likely not have been elected today. Abraham Lincoln read his speeches straight off a sheet of paper with virtually no emotion. Before there were TVs in every home, American citizens paid attention to something other than how compelling a guy’s speeches were; they examined a man’s beliefs. They thought about what the implication of his policies might be, not just for them and their immediate future, but for their children, for generations to come.
All we are asking is that you do the same. Let’s not be the selfish generation, the ones consumed with what we can get. Let’s think bigger, more intelligently, and further down the road.
Thanks for hearing us out.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
19 comments
While your points are well taken, it’s something of a misnomer to say that Reagan helped the economy. Reagan and Bush presided over the two biggest economic downturns in the last 25 years. Bill Clinton was the first President to preside over a balanced budget in many years.
I’m a fan of capitalism. I think that a free market is the best way to help individuals accumulate wealth. However, there needs to be a certain amount of regulation or things run wild.
You also make presumptions. I have a friend who makes well over $100k per year. He’s only 25 years old. He’s more than happy to pay taxes for the social programs like Social Security, health insurance, and others.
If I can bring the perspective of a non-US citizen to this discussion …
As most Americans who have been paying attention will know, the image of the US overseas has been pretty unappealing since Vietnam. For a time post 9/11 many people felt a degree of sympathy and even goodwill towards the US, but George Bush squandered all of that, and the status quo ante returned. Amongst educated people, the argument was between those who thought America was full of evil, greedy, narrowminded sociopaths or ignorant, xenophobic morons. When George Bush wangled his way back into power in 2004, the debate pretty much came to a halt. Much of the rest of the educated world was too gobsmacked to find the words. People largely shook their heads in disgust or concluded that US governmance could be described as the rule of venal sociopaths through the manipulation of xenophobic morons.
Since that time, people like Al Gore and now especially, Barack Obama have begun to undermine this view. West Virginia certainly gave aid and comfort to those holding on to the traditional view, and the ignorant bigoted ’swiftboat’-style campaigns against Obama remind us of all the things non-Americans think repulsive about the US, while every victory of Obama tells of the possibility of an America who could fly with the angels and play a part in a saner and more worthy world — a world in which Americans everywhere could hold their heads up and declare that that most impressive preamble to the constitution amounted to more than mere words on a dusty old document.
This election is for you, for Americans, but please bear in mind that others will judge you by how this plays out. In the minds of many a victory for Obama would draw a definitive line under the Bush years and signal that America planned to begin being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Fran
My grandpa once told me: “Brett, there really isn’t any difference between a Democrat and a Republican. They both want to make government bigger, just in different ways. Democrats just have the sense to raise taxes to pay for it.”
I think what my grandpa told me has some truth to it, especially after seeing what Republicans did these past eight years. The government has gotten considerably larger and we’ve spent more money. Sure, we have war going on, but it used to be the government would raise taxes during times of war to help pay the costs. This time Republicans cut taxes and now we’re stuck with a huge deficit with most of our loans coming from China.
The reason I think Obama is appealing to young people is that we’re a much more civic generation than our parents. Millennials are optimistic about the power of markets AND government. They just need to be fixed. I think people see in Obama is a person who wants to fix these things.
When young people look at McCain and Hillary they see more of the same. And look what the same has brought us.
That’s my two cents at least.
@ Cory,
Reagan spent the first term of his presidency cleaning up the economic mess that had been left by previous administrations. Economic change takes time and often doesn’t come about until years after it is implemented…that’s why it wasn’t until a few years later into his presidency that the economy started it’s upturn. Here’s the stats for Reagan’s policies concerning economic growth:
1. 92 months without a recession! From November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II (Bartley 135, 44).
2. From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990 (Bartley 6).
I can’t argue with you though about the fact that Clinton had a balanced budget, I’m just as sick of the out of control spending done by conservatives in the past few years as anyone.
Secondly, I said, “Most of us…” when talking about not making that much money as a young person. Obviously there are those making much more and that’s great. But, just because your friend feels good about giving his money to the government doesn’t mean we all do or should be required to.
I’m all for helping people out, but on my terms, not going through an inefficient government program.
You make valid points though and I’m glad you opened up the discussion!
@ Fran,
Unfortunately you are not the first to bring the perspective of a non-U.S. citizen to the discussion, you were already beat out by Glenn, the co-writer of this post who is a citizen of Malaysia.
Second you say, “Amongst educated people…” I would be careful making such sweeping generalizations. I know plenty of highly intelligent people that support many of Bush’s policies.
I’m sorry that you dislike America so much as to think it’s full of as you say, “evil, greedy, narrowminded sociopaths or ignorant, xenophobic morons.” I think time and time again the American people have been the most generous of global citizens, donating the most to foreign aid year after year, coming to Europe’s rescue in WWII and most recently sending in our own C-17s to Myanmar to aid in the recovery.
@ Brett,
You are going to keep me on the defense I see, haha! Like I told Cory above, you are not going to find any arguments from me about the ridiculous spending that’s been going on in the past several years with a Republican president and congress. It is probably at the top of my list of things I have been disappointed with. It runs completely contrary to conservative philosophy.
That aside, I guess Republican or Democrat I just want someone who isn’t going to make a concerted effort to make the government bigger than it already is or spend more money that we already have. Obama seems to look at the government as the problem solver for every issue rather than the problem itself.
Finally in response to your last point, no doubt that McCain looks like just another politician, but as Glenn and I tried to point out, beauty contests are for judging image…politics is for judging policy and character. And more than any of the candidates McCain has gone across the aisle many times and been on the leading edge of change.
Reagan also instituted the largest tax increase since WWII – $100 Billion!
I would have to agree with Brett McKay – people are looking to Obama not so much for his star power as for the fact that he is so different from the other candidates. McCain clearly represents a continuation of war hawk policies (see his 100 year comment) and continued reliance on lobbyists.
Ms Schaeffer
You claim that there are ‘plenty of highly intelligent people who support many of Bush’s policies’. The statement is vague, untestable and counter-intuitive, though for those reasons, irrefutable. Every administration, even one that amounts to little more than a criminal gang in the view of those who are clear-eyed about them (the regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma would be examples) , could make that claim. A regime that serves too narrow a base tends not to endure. That’s not the same as saying that their policies or actions a re ethically defencible, in the eyes of most people affected by them. I seems that at the moment, in the US, something like 2/3 of the populace disapproves of Mr Bush’s policies, and I daresay overseas that the polls would not be so flattering. As an academic and educator working with NGOs, I have travelled quite a bit over the last 10 years, not only in Europe, but through South East Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even the Americans at the gatherings I attend are quick to distance themselves from Washington’s approach to policy, domestic and international. Of late though, what has come to be known as ‘the Obama defence’ is often heard — ‘we can’t be that bad if a black man can run for President as the nominee of one of the major parties’.
You say that I hate Americans. That’s not true. I don’t hate Americans as a class. America strikes me as something like the mixed bag of lollies. Close your eyes, put your hand in, and take pot luck on what goes into your mouth. There are a great many worthy Americans — so many in fact that Gore actually won the majority of the vote in 2000, and but for some electoral skullduggery would have won the Presidency. Regrettably, in recent years, the worst elements of America have proven better organised and more resolute in their determination to play out their angst as government policy. This has profoundly tarnished America’s standing internationally. Mike Huckabee’s policy on border security — “Chuck Norris” — and the antics of the conservative Christian right who were Bush’s foot soldiers, underlines for many the popular view of the dynamics of your politics. For many, America’s policy is not merely unethical but implausible. Many find it very hard to understand why the US essentially fund both sides of the ‘war on terror’ by allowing itself to become increasingly dependent on a commodity held in substantial volume by those giving aid and comfort to its enemies and then having to spend up big and destroy its goodwill securing supply. One of your leading economists, Joseph Stiglitz, recently claimed that the Iraq war would ultimately cost the US something like $US 3trillion. It has already cost $US600 billion. The best explanations of this policy don’t recommend the last half dozen administrations.
As I said initially, whom you support is, ultimately, the business of Americans. But just as each of us is judged on how we exercise our discretion, so too your collective decision, and how you arrive at it will send a message to the rest of the world.
It’s worth more than a thought about that.
Fran
@ Cory,
You are right man, even Reagan raised taxes after cutting them initially…he succumbed to the pressure of a Congress hungry for more money (You taught me something new today, this is why debate is good, makes you check your facts). I guess all I’m trying to say is that government, whether Republican led or Democrat is the least efficient way to bring about positive change in my opinion…and I would much rather keep my hard earned money and help people out the way I see fit rather than giving it to the government to let them sort it out.
Obama, on the other hand, feels that more government programs and oversight are the solution and I disagree. This in a nutshell is why I don’t support his economic policies.
As far as McCain’s stance on the war I think his comment was taken a bit out of context (amazing, that never happens in politics right?), but overall I think he has 100% more of an idea of what it takes to defend a nation than Obama. I’ll take McCain’s troop surge plans over and limited long term presence over Obama’s “pull all troops out 16 months from when I enter office” plan any day. From a military standpoint this is incredibly negligent and just doesn’t make any sense….but it sounds good when you’re running for President.
Anyway, this is a really good talk and I’m glad we can have it without resorting to name calling, haha!
As a Christian who does not support George Bush – I take issue with Fran who groups us as “Bush’s foot soldiers”. I find his Islamic “democratization projects” absolutely insane. McCain will mire the US in Iraq for a “hundred years” and then what?
Of course, the anointing of Obama will be no problem for socialists like Fran – its a win-win situation for them. He will create a socialist paradise or bring the US to its knees. That’s why the left love him.
Now there Bob,
I was quite careful not to claim that all Christians supported Bush. The phrase I used was the “conservative Christian right”, who, indubitably, were decisive in getting Mr Bush across the line in both cases.
It’s also a mistake to characterise Mr Obama as someone who will create ‘a socialist paradise’. As far as I can tell, Mr Obama is a mainstream liberal, who has received the backing of four SEC chairmen, including one that worked under Bush. That hardly squares with someone whom those who are modest in their claims would characterise as socialist. Has Mr Obama proposed expropriating any business? If so, I’ve missed it. Has he even proposed creating any state-based commercial enterprises. If so, it has gone unnoted.
Your comments do reflect a wider tendency in US political discourse to blur the lines between liberalism and socialism, which, at a minimum, debauches language. More generally though, it recalls the McCarthy-era campaigns in which dissent equalled treachery. This is indeed the flipside to American claims that respect and tolerace of difference characterise America. Stray outside of the Fox news paradigm, and one is cast as a dangerous deviant.
Ms Schaefer …
It seems to me that the Iraq project was doomed to fail. Let us, purely for the sake of argument, assume the purest of motives in Bush’s regime-change policy. Contriving democracy from autocracy is never an easy task. Development of democratic culture took those of us who made it some hundreds of years in comparatively benign conditions. Both the war of independence and the civil war were part and parcel of democarcy in the US. There was enormous communal bloodletting, and even then, it took a very considerable time before anything like equality for African Americans prevailed in the US. Iraq however, had nothing anywhere near so propitious a foundation as the US for democracy.
The country’s borders were designed by the British to obstruct a national consensus, precisely so the British could arbitrate in these residual portions of the Ottoman Empire. And of course, the demands of the Baghdad Pact, the desire of the west to obstruct the rise of Arab nationalism and Soviet influence led to massive and continual western interference over many decades. Saddam, as you should know, had received US assistance in coming to power from as far back as the year of my birth — 1958. The US was involved in both Ba’athist coups (1963, 1968) and the murder of Nasserites and ostensible communists. It then elevated Saddam in 1978 within the Ba’athist state. Next door, in Iran, it had given unconditional backing to the murderous crackdown against the Shia and Tudeh elements in Iran by Shah Reza Pahlavi. Throughout the 1980s, it continued to render just sufficient assistance to Saddam to ensure a maximum of casualties in the Iran-Iraq War, and facilitated Saddam’s deployment of chemical weapons. Post-1991 until 2003, it continually bombed the country and played a role in starving it. When your government implied it would support the Shia, and then abandoned them to Saddam, they had no choice but to flee to Iran, where, to their very great surprise, they were treated with a modicum of decency — a result that was one of the US’s more spectacular own goals! And then in 2003, it decapitated the state and looked the other way when chaos and communal violence broke out. As the morgues were filling and the bodies were going into the Tigris, the US military declared it had no interest even in keeping a body count. Yet if you look at the matter from a strategic standpoint, what has the US done? It destroyed Saddam, who was an enemy both of Al Qaeda and the Iranians, and the sunni Taliban who were, *inter alia* Iran’s enemy. Given McCain’s confusion about the players in the middle east, one might look forward to more blunders of this kind, should he win. But I digress …
These are not good foundations for realsing democracy or the US playing any kind of honest broker role in the process. The policy has failed by all the criteria any rational person would consider germane. Hundreds of billions have been spent and will continue to be spent and much of that will, ultimately, produce nothing but misery both there and in middle America. Large parts of it will be siphoned off by corporate criminals or worse in both places. The time to leave is not in 16 months but ASAP. Only then can Iraq begin to take the steps needed to achieve a modicum of coherence within its jurisdiction. It won’t be pretty of course, but this is the consequence of US policy over a very long period of time. It really is time to cut and run, because the US presence simply isn’t helping anyone.
Fran
@ Fran,
Thanks for all your opinions and your passionate debate. All Glenn and I wanted was for people to look at the issues and our goal is being fulfilled amidst these discussions. Glad you could be a part of it.
Oh, and it’s Mr. Schaefer
No problem, Mr Schaefer.
I have strong opinions, but believe that the tone should remain civil and issue focused. That, indeed, is a part of my concern about the wider contest that now looms.
Regards
Garth Brooks once said, “sometimes you gotta go against the grain.” With that being said, I’d like to say I thought it was well thought out and well written… interesting perspective as to why Americans love Obama.
1. We’re too poor to care about taxes
I don’t think “poor” is the right word choice- when I was 15 and made $6.25/hour, taxes hardly impacted me, but I still didn’t like them. I think the problem is that a lot of people don’t realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Sure social security, free (or at least subsidized) healthcare, etc sound GREAT. Who would argue with anything free… until you sit down and really think about what it will cost you… In addition, it’s not the government’s job to provide people with a “retirement” plan. I don’t want congress “investing” MY money for me. I would rather have my $200/month in my pocket, and invest it as I see fit. Why do Americans feel like the government 1.owes them heath care or 2. should provide this service? No one is whining that the government and/or their employer pay car insurance, home owners insurance, etc. It’s something they personally shop around for, and find a plan that works. It should be the same for heath care. The less “big brother” touches everyone’s money, tells them where to get heath insurance—in essence, intervenes in their lives, the better.
2. We’re too young to be suspicious of big government
We’re either too young, or too dumb to be suspicious of big government. Either way, as stated above, the less the government tries to regulate personal interests, the better. The more the government “expands” programs like social security, welfare, healthcare, etc, the more Americans become dependent and expectant—and less able to think and function for themselves. Bottom line: people should exercise their freedoms to think and choose for themselves, not depend and pay the government to do it for them.
3. We’re too easily impressed with image
That’s pretty dead on. Looks and charisma don’t determine the effectiveness of a president. I’m more concerned about integrity and character than I am how well someone speaks in public. I’m more concerned about someone’s qualifications to lead my country than I am how many Facebook friends they have. I’m not looking for a “trendy” president, and I sure as heck am not looking for a fancy and popular bandwagon to jump on.
Anyways, well put… good for a lil controversy anyways.
I was in my twenties during the Reagan revolution. Reagan had a youth movement, just like Obama.
The young people who supported Reagan weren’t any richer than today’s young people, at least not from the standpoint of tax breaks.
Tax rates and tax collections are at or near historic lows, in comparison with GDP. There isn’t any reason to put taxes high on the list of priorities.
Perhaps youth isn’t distrustful of “big government” but my parents are completely dependent on it – medicare and social security are essential for them to live. Those programs are facing some serious demographic obstacles, but show me a corporation that has survived without a crisis since the 1940s or 1960s.
I’m not sure what “big government” Obama is proposing anyway. His health care program is built around private insurance, and allows people to opt out. Other than that, Obama isn’t a social engineer. And health care in this country is in serious trouble, and needs to be addressed somehow.
Then you give us a riff on the Soviet Union – the program Obama is proposing gives the government far less power than the systems in Europe, which have functioned (well or poorly) for decades, without leading to a Soviet style dictatorship. That’s about as apposite as liberals who compare Bush to the Nazis. Laughable, really.
Basically, you’re just slamming young people because they don’t share the shallow over-simplified vision of the world you do. Maybe you should look a little deeper.
Great blog and glad to see all the discussion it generated. In my opinion, I think your three main points about Obama are outstanding and they can all be traced back to one, almost universal character flaw of young people in general…lack of foresight for the long term future. If there is one thing that characterizes the current generation it is instant gratification. Over the past few years, our society has demanded more and more instantaneous pleasure, much of this fueled by the credit card industry. Case in point; without even moving from my chair I(an average U.S. citizen) can reach over, pick up my cell phone, find the nearest Best Buy and order a ridiculous home theater system that rivals an MGM theater, have it installed by next week and be watching the latest movies streamed over the internet. Paying for it all with my credit card, I could then refinance my credit card debt into a consolidated home loan, default on my mortgage payment and if the Democrats have their way with the current legislation in Congress, get bailed out by the government and get off scott free. Furthermore, I attribute the soaring teenage pregnancy rate in America to this “instant gratification” character flaw.
Obama appeals to a young, educated crowd due to a couple of reasons. First, he is young and seems sophisticated with his Ivy League education, multi-cultural background and eloquent speeches. His policies seem “progressive” and people see him as a man with a new breed of politics that hasn’t been corrupted by old Washington and their lobbyists. While eloquence and sophistication may be admirable traits, they do not replace sound, logical judgment and experience. Second, two of his three main campaign issues offer quick, short term solutions to long term problems. The first being Iraq. Whether you agree with invading Iraq or not is a moot point. We destroyed that nation and we owe it to ourselves, Iraq and the rest of the world to rebuild it into a stable, sovereign nation that won’t be a breeding ground for terrorists. Sure, everyone wants the soldiers home now, but it will be in the better interest of everyone, including the soldiers, if we stick it out and clean up what we started. Obama’s “brigade a month” plan certainly does not have the long term in mind and is only a shortsighted solution to the symptom. Secondly, Obama vows to bring about nationalized health care in America. While this debate has raged for years, studies show that the quality of health care diminishes under a socialized system. If the U.S. wants to retain cutting edge health care, socialized medicine is not the answer. Furthermore, the U.S. government currently spends more on health care than Social Security and the defense budget combined. Attempting to fully nationalize our healthcare would bankrupt the government overnight. In closing, Obama is an incredibly smart man who comes from humble beginnings yet the majority of his “blueprint for change” brings short term solutions to long term problems, which may bring immediate relief but only prolong the inevitable facing of the root problem.
@Will
Even a cursory fact check will tell you that military spending outpaces all other types of spending (of course, this depends on how you interpret the data. see this link http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm)
Name one study that shows, conclusively, that health care quality is reduced by socialized medicine. I’ll show you another one that shows it has increased. It’s all about how you measure it. Do you mean the level of health of the individual has gone up? Certainly that will vary wildly from person to person. Do you mean access to health care has gone up? With nationalized coverage, almost certainly.
BTW, doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners favor nationalized health care by a strong majority.
Who says that it’s in the soldiers’ best interests for them to stay in Iraq? What kind of an argument is that?
The citizens of Iraq don’t want us there. The surrounding countries don’t want us there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
If they don’t want us there, why do we owe it to them to rebuild their country?
The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people it represents, not tell them what to do or think. The majority of Americans favor withdrawing from Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
You accuse Obama of a having a judgement problem. My question for you is this: who voted against Iraq in the first place? Who has raised more money than any other past candidate by connecting with the voice of the people? Obama’s presidency would be a return to government representation, rather than government manipulation.
If you wouldn’t mind finding some research that backs up your claim that a vote for Obama equals a vote for teenage pregnancy, please do and let me know your source.
@ Cory,
I think what Will meant by “in the soldiers’ best interests” was simply that we would hate to see much of the hard work and progress made by our friends be thrown away by simply pulling out the troops and letting things return to chaos. It would nullify years of hard work and sacrifice made by troops interested in making Iraq a place where people can freely go about their daily lives without having to be scared of being tortured and killed by a dictator.
The article you used to show how Iraqi’s and surrounding nations don’t want us there was written 2 years ago at the height of one of the bloodiest periods in the Iraq War, the Samarra shrine had been blown up a few months earlier and over 1,400 Iraqis had been murdered by insurgents that month alone. All this to say, I don’t think it is the best representation of the current feelings of Iraqis.
As you said earlier regarding health care, name one survey that shows Iraqis want the U.S. to leave and I’ll show you one that shows they want us to stay and finish the rebuilding and training of security forces. Also, while not the most scientific, simply talking to soldiers who have returned from Iraq paints a much different picture than is often portrayed in the media. Most I have talked to say the Iraqi’s were glad to see the U.S. kick out Saddam and have slowly grown to trust that we only want to help them get back on their feet, not take their country from them.
So much progress has been made under the leadership of Petraeus in the past year that it would be a shame for Obama to come into office and ruin it all by pulling out all troops in 16 months as he has promised.
Yes, it depends on how you interpret the numbers, but my resource for health care spending is from the Brookings Institute:
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/0228useconomics_aaron02_Opp08.aspx
True, there are numerous studies on socialized health care, some favoring while others disfavor it but I would like to see some facts to back up your claim that health care professionals favor nationalized health care. I know several doctors and nurses and they all strongly oppose socialized health care. Secondly, I do not think you can argue with the fact that taxes will have to be drastically raised to pay for nationalized health care. Basic economic theory proves unnecessarily high taxes restrain economic growth. With our economy already slowing and in danger of being eclipsed by China and India in the coming years, I hardly think this is a desirable road to travel from an economic standpoint. Thirdly, I do not think you can deny the reason the U.S. has the best health care(by best I mean the most highly trained and educated professionals) in the world is due to the free market system allowing the supply to meet the demand for highly skilled professionals. The best doctors come to America because people are willing to pay millions for the best treatment available.
On Iraq, as far as I know, we still have a currently all volunteer military. Men and woman continue to enlist knowing full well they will be sent to Iraq. Yes, the Army and Marine Corps have struggled at times to fill their recruiting goals, but we are no where near needing a draft to fill the ranks.
One of the major reasons Hitler rose to power in Germany in the 1930’s was because the allied nations failed to rebuild Germany following WWI. Leaving the Germany government and economy in ruins created the fertile ground for a totalitarian regime to sprout. Compare this to our rebuilding of Japan and Germany following WWII. Today they are both democratic, prosperous and industrialized nations. You tell me which is the right way to deal with a nation after we have ruined it.
As for Obama’s vote against the war, that is irrelevant. I applaud him for standing up and voting for what he believed in. Its never easy to stand against the majority but the issue of going to war with Iraq has come and gone. The current situation at hand is what needs to be dealt with. Iraq is a mess and needs to be fixed. In addition, the desires of the majority come and go. The majority of people supported the Iraq war in the beginning.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq4.htm
Does that mean it was the right decision? According to your logic, yes.
I do not see how you can assert Obama’s presidency would be a return to government representation instead of government manipulation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437
Obama voted “present” 129 times during his career in the Illinois legislature. How does this equate representation? That is not how I want my voice to heard in Congress.
Lastly, my reference to teenage pregnancy was a side note to help prove my point of our “immediate satisfaction” culture in the younger generation. In no way did I infer a vote for Obama was a vote for teenage pregnancy. Thanks for reading.
Cory-
We as a country are morally obligated to finish what we started in Iraq. We cannot go into a country, remove its dictator, and then simply leave. It would be a greater atrocity to let Iraq fall victim to terrorism and civil war as groups would surely vie for power of an ‘open’ country. We must finish the job, and finish it correctly.
I can assure you the majority of the military doesn’t want to see their brothers, sisters, husbands, and friends die in vain. In that sense, it’s in their best interest to stay on and complete the job. Anything short of that would be a slap in the face to all those who’ve gone and paid the price for the freedom of Iraq.
“Here’s a shocking thought: some of the presidents who did the most good for our nation would likely not have been elected today. Abraham Lincoln read his speeches straight off a sheet of paper with virtually no emotion. ”
My guess is that Lincoln was smart enough to adapt just fine. We might disagree there – but no one knows whether he could get elected today.
What we DO know is that a black man like Barack Obama was property when Lincoln ran for President, and a woman had no right to participate in political life.
I think it’s a little shocking to decry our political system in contrast to Lincoln’s.
Leave a Comment