In a pivotal election year like this, the real issues, like the economy and foreign policy, count. The non-issues, like whether Sarah Palin abused her power to get a state trooper fired, do not. And then there’s character.
John McCain, realizing that a growing number of voters prefer Barack Obama’s economic policies to his own, has decided on his latest change of subject for his campaign, and has attempted to shift the discussion to the character of the candidates. Ironically, this decision has highlighted a big difference between McCain and Obama that has developed over the past few months: Obama has conducted himself and his campaign in an even handed, considered, thoughtful, and, dare I say it, presidential manner, and John McCain has not.
Don’t believe me?
Ever since January, Obama has been both liberal and unifying in his message to Americans. To paraphrase him, our country is great, but it has gone astray, and we can make it better. His economic policies promise to focus more on those who have been hurt the most by recession, and he represents a foreign policy that fully accepts that mistakes were made by invading Iraq. And he is, if anything, the best statesman to appear on the national scene in a long time. He has been honest about race in America in a way that we need a president to be, neither shying away from discussion nor dwelling on past wounds. Facing off against Hillary Clinton, political knife-fighter extraordinaire, Obama consistently took the high road, running his campaign without frequently resorting to the negativity that characterized the Clinton political machine. He has continued that pattern to a considerable extent against McCain. Obama devotes most of his time to discussing the issues at hand rather than wading into personal attacks that have characterized the McCain campaign. Yes, cheap shots were taken, most notably the negative ads that tried to associate McCain with arch conservatives opposed to immigration from Mexico, (and included an out of context clip from Rush Limbaugh) and the mini-documentary rehashing the Keating Five scandal McCain was involved in during 1989, but the central Obama argument has been that McCain is too much like George W. Bush and his policies won’t help America climb out of the rut we’re in. When the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign (as it correctly accused Hillary Clinton) of ignoring key issues while engaging in petty personal attacks to distract the voters, it has been correct.
McCain, on the other hand, has lurched from one message to the other. With his foreign policy predictions coming apart around him in the summer of 2008 when the Iraqi government suggested a timeline for withdrawal of US troops, and America started to put out feelers towards the Iranians, McCain decided to go negative. After July, most of what he talked about was how Obama wouldn’t make a good president, and that McCain’s experience would best suit America. Then, for reasons best known to himself, the McCain campaign turned around and papered “Reform” over “Experience” on their campaign letterhead, and selected a young, ultraconservative journalism major from Alaska as his running mate. Not only does Sarah Palin lack the sort of experience John McCain undoubtedly has, but she appears to have never given much thought to any political issues beyond tax cutting, oil drilling, and a general support of Jesus.
McCain responded to the Wall Street collapse by “suspending” his flagging campaign to go to Washington, though his action didn’t seem to accomplish anything, especially since his campaign was promptly un-suspended a short time later. Realizing that he failed to win America’s trust as steward during an economic crisis, McCain decided to change the subject and talk about Bill Ayers instead. Oh yeah, and he decided that since Experience and Reform hadn’t worked, he would run the remainder of his campaign on anger and fear. The hilarious part is that after angry, bigoted, and occasionally violent outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies began to appear on the nightly news cycle, the McCain campaign spokesman tried to blame the Obama campaign for creating this negative atmosphere by not agreeing to have town hall style debates earlier in the season.
The McCain who has appeared over the past few months is not presidential. Erratic, angry, impulsive, and dishonest, McCain has run a dirty campaign unbefitting a man of his record. And there isn’t an excuse for it. Either McCain thought these strategies up, or he was pushed into doing them. Either way, after seeing his campaign spin out of control, I have certainly lost faith in his ability to judiciously run a nation.
Specifics and links will be added to this post, but the verdict is clear as of the end of Debate #3 on 10/15. Obama has been displaying the qualities of a leader. McCain has showed a side of him that is anything but: angry, unfocused, and seemingly overwhelmed by events. The McCain campaign has tried to turn the focus of this election away from the economy and onto the character of the candidates. He may have done so, but I have a feeling the outcome will be the opposite of what the Arizona senator hoped for.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
We're #1! Why? Because we say so.
Once again, Eric has taken the common neoconservative argument that to expect America not to behave like an obnoxious ass on the international stage is somehow weak, softheaded and wishy-washy. No, I’m not taking the Code Pink “Make Love Not War” position. Rather, the Democrats like Obama are advocating a genuinely more workable foreign policy.
Yes, the UN needs a thorough overhauling for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that it still behaves like the political situation is still in the 1940s, giving France a permanent seat on the Security Council when many other nations would better qualify (India, anyone?). And yes, allowing Libya to have a say on human rights is a recipe for inaction. But the UN can only become a more effective body when superpowers like the United States reinforce rather than undermine its authority. The United States, especially under the Bush administration, has taken a policy of American exceptionalism. The International War Crimes court in The Hague has authority to investigate and punish war crimes—but not if the offender is an American. Escapades at Guantanamo have made a mockery of US claims that American doesn’t practice torture.
Powers come and powers go, and it would be in the interest of the US to help mould the UN into a body which shares our commitment to freedom, international cooperation, and democracy, something that it can not be said to fully support today, judging by many of its member states.
As for the failure of diplomacy with regards to North Korea and Iran, one of the big reasons for this failure was not just intransigence by the Koreans and Iranians, but American over commitment in Iraq. The blustering stupidity that was the Bush foreign policy managed to simultaneously repel our allies while weakening our capacity for further unilateral action (a potential that is necessary to back up tough diplomacy) by plunging into the resource sinkhole that is Iraq. The problem with the neoconservative, unilateral, triumphalist approach to world affairs is that it is hypocritical, at time inhumane, and downright unsuccessful.
As for Eric taking issue with my referring to the regimes of Mao and Fidel as moderately more humane than their predecessor, what I meant by that is quite straightforward. While with hindsight, those Communist movements brought misery and oppression to their people. But in their early days, those regimes actually promised to better the lot of the common peasant, something that the pro-American dictatorships of Batista in Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in China were not doing. Many average people joined the Communist revolutions in those countries because it promised something better than they had. The tragedy was when that promise was broken. And yes, Eric is technically correct that Communism killed more of its own people in China and Korea than fascism ever did. But this was only because the Communists had more time in power.
Not to dwell on health care and economics in Europe again, but Eric’s criticism of European healthcare systems reveals his biases yet again. It is very true that for some things, American healthcare is better, shown by the fact that, as he says, “the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the US for their health care.” But that’s the catch. Most people aren’t wealthy, for so everyone else except for the rich, the European system works better. If European socialized medicine is so terrible, why are so many nations in Europe enjoying longer life expectancies than Americans?
To simply say America is the greatest place on earth doesn’t make it so. Yeah, we’ve got it good. So do Canada, the UK, Australia, much of Europe, Japan…you get the point. Since Awesomeness is not a quality that can be quantified, this constant assertion sounds to me like we’re compensating for something. Maybe that nagging thought that the greatest place on earth sucks up 40% of the world’s resources with scarcely more than 10% of the population? That there isn’t enough metal, fuel, and other resources to allow the worlds population to live like an American?
To me, the incident that sums up the Republican approach to criticism of America can be found at their national convention. When the (admittedly, very very annoying) Code Pink activist tried to interrupt in the name of antiwar protest, she was shouted down by chants of USA! USA! USA!
Unfortunately, global problems can’t be simply shouted away by a chorus of flag wavers forever.
Yes, the UN needs a thorough overhauling for a number of reasons, one of them being the fact that it still behaves like the political situation is still in the 1940s, giving France a permanent seat on the Security Council when many other nations would better qualify (India, anyone?). And yes, allowing Libya to have a say on human rights is a recipe for inaction. But the UN can only become a more effective body when superpowers like the United States reinforce rather than undermine its authority. The United States, especially under the Bush administration, has taken a policy of American exceptionalism. The International War Crimes court in The Hague has authority to investigate and punish war crimes—but not if the offender is an American. Escapades at Guantanamo have made a mockery of US claims that American doesn’t practice torture.
Powers come and powers go, and it would be in the interest of the US to help mould the UN into a body which shares our commitment to freedom, international cooperation, and democracy, something that it can not be said to fully support today, judging by many of its member states.
As for the failure of diplomacy with regards to North Korea and Iran, one of the big reasons for this failure was not just intransigence by the Koreans and Iranians, but American over commitment in Iraq. The blustering stupidity that was the Bush foreign policy managed to simultaneously repel our allies while weakening our capacity for further unilateral action (a potential that is necessary to back up tough diplomacy) by plunging into the resource sinkhole that is Iraq. The problem with the neoconservative, unilateral, triumphalist approach to world affairs is that it is hypocritical, at time inhumane, and downright unsuccessful.
As for Eric taking issue with my referring to the regimes of Mao and Fidel as moderately more humane than their predecessor, what I meant by that is quite straightforward. While with hindsight, those Communist movements brought misery and oppression to their people. But in their early days, those regimes actually promised to better the lot of the common peasant, something that the pro-American dictatorships of Batista in Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in China were not doing. Many average people joined the Communist revolutions in those countries because it promised something better than they had. The tragedy was when that promise was broken. And yes, Eric is technically correct that Communism killed more of its own people in China and Korea than fascism ever did. But this was only because the Communists had more time in power.
Not to dwell on health care and economics in Europe again, but Eric’s criticism of European healthcare systems reveals his biases yet again. It is very true that for some things, American healthcare is better, shown by the fact that, as he says, “the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the US for their health care.” But that’s the catch. Most people aren’t wealthy, for so everyone else except for the rich, the European system works better. If European socialized medicine is so terrible, why are so many nations in Europe enjoying longer life expectancies than Americans?
To simply say America is the greatest place on earth doesn’t make it so. Yeah, we’ve got it good. So do Canada, the UK, Australia, much of Europe, Japan…you get the point. Since Awesomeness is not a quality that can be quantified, this constant assertion sounds to me like we’re compensating for something. Maybe that nagging thought that the greatest place on earth sucks up 40% of the world’s resources with scarcely more than 10% of the population? That there isn’t enough metal, fuel, and other resources to allow the worlds population to live like an American?
To me, the incident that sums up the Republican approach to criticism of America can be found at their national convention. When the (admittedly, very very annoying) Code Pink activist tried to interrupt in the name of antiwar protest, she was shouted down by chants of USA! USA! USA!
Unfortunately, global problems can’t be simply shouted away by a chorus of flag wavers forever.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Quick Facts and Insights
Oh where to begin?
First, I do not have complete disdain for the UN. A forum that the countries of the world can debate and dialogue is much more preferable to a world of isolation. The problem lies in the fact that the UN as a body has NO authority to enforce its charter and its members on the Security Council can pass any resolution they want, but those resolutions can be ignored by any nation. To pretend that this body has a lot of clout you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. A prime example is the recent resolution that passed on the 27th of September re-resoluting a prior resolution for sanctions against Iran for continuing to pursue its nuclear program. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Iran gave us the finger after the UN imposed sanctions on them for the third time and the 'new' resolution, which is just an affirmation of the 3rd and last resolution, will result in Iran suddenly dropping its nuclear program? Gimme a break. Russia and China did not want tougher sanctions placed on Iran since they do extensive business with them. China is Iran's biggest importer of oil. They wouldn't want to rock the boat and potentially damage any business or future business with the Islamic Republic.
Second, withholding payments is not for the UN refusing to bow to U.S. demands, but a protest because of the UN's Human Rights Council, which was founded in 2006, because it singled out Israel and no other country for human rights violations. At the same time the council removed independent investigators from Belarus and Cuba, which are not bastions for human rights. Indeed, the council has Cuba as one of its members, which is hilarious given the councils purpose.
Third, Ian concedes that diplomacy has failed with regards to Iran, North Korea and Darfur. Since this is the case I ask Ian, what should we do about these continued threats? I am all ears. My point in the last post was that we can see changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not perfect but we have two democracies established and hopefully two future allies.
Forth, with regards to Europe, I was merely commenting on the fact that the US shoulders the lion’s share of the burden for NATO. This being the case the European countries use money they used to appropriate for defense for social programs since the U.S.A subsidizes their protection. Thank God for the new French President Sarkozy for promising to step up to the plate and take more responsibility in NATO and Europe's defense.
Fifth, with regards to Ian's side note on taxes and spending priorities, healthcare may be universal under European socialism, but it is universally subpar to American healthcare on so many levels that the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the U.S for their healthcare. As a matter of fact, many Canadians buy American insurance! Also, along with the higher taxes, longer vacations, etc., Europe also has higher unemployment, especially for young people. France has such stringent laws on hiring and firing that an employer needs to jump through so many hoops to get rid of an employee that isn't useful to the company. This results in an employer who is scared to hire because he can't get rid of the employee if he turns out to be a bad investment and also poorer job performance since the employee has such ridiculous protections from the government.
Sixth, I can't believe Ian called the regimes of Mao Zedong and Fedel Castro "somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people." Ian you know your history! They were all bad. Why do thousands of Cubans flee to the shores of Florida? Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of millions of people. Indeed, communism killed many many millions more than fascism ever did. Karl Marx's ideals led to gulags, forced starvations, the killing of intellectuals and walls that were made to keep their populations from escaping to freedom. Indeed, North Korea has minutemen on their borders too. Contrary to our minutemen, they have orders to shot to kill. The minutemen on the Korean border aren't there to stop the influx of South Koreans trying to embrace communist utopia, they are there to kill North Koreans who want to chose their own destinies. Imagine if America shot at Mexicans trying to come in! Oh, the outrage! Imagine all the angry letters the UN would send us! Communism, "somewhat more humanitarian," bah. The 'somewhat' was put in because Ian knew that he was on shaky ground with that statement. At least he added that.
Seventh, Iran and the hostage crisis took place under the Carter administration, which couldn't save the hostages, despite all that diplomacy. However, as soon as President Reagan took office, they were free that very day. Hmm, maybe they knew that a Republican with some balls to stand up to such an act with force might actually put his money where his mouth was.
Think about that when you go to VOTE!
Oh, and while we aren't perfect, this is the greatest place on Earth to be! Why else would people flock to our shores from all over the world to live here, including my father?
First, I do not have complete disdain for the UN. A forum that the countries of the world can debate and dialogue is much more preferable to a world of isolation. The problem lies in the fact that the UN as a body has NO authority to enforce its charter and its members on the Security Council can pass any resolution they want, but those resolutions can be ignored by any nation. To pretend that this body has a lot of clout you must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. A prime example is the recent resolution that passed on the 27th of September re-resoluting a prior resolution for sanctions against Iran for continuing to pursue its nuclear program. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Iran gave us the finger after the UN imposed sanctions on them for the third time and the 'new' resolution, which is just an affirmation of the 3rd and last resolution, will result in Iran suddenly dropping its nuclear program? Gimme a break. Russia and China did not want tougher sanctions placed on Iran since they do extensive business with them. China is Iran's biggest importer of oil. They wouldn't want to rock the boat and potentially damage any business or future business with the Islamic Republic.
Second, withholding payments is not for the UN refusing to bow to U.S. demands, but a protest because of the UN's Human Rights Council, which was founded in 2006, because it singled out Israel and no other country for human rights violations. At the same time the council removed independent investigators from Belarus and Cuba, which are not bastions for human rights. Indeed, the council has Cuba as one of its members, which is hilarious given the councils purpose.
Third, Ian concedes that diplomacy has failed with regards to Iran, North Korea and Darfur. Since this is the case I ask Ian, what should we do about these continued threats? I am all ears. My point in the last post was that we can see changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not perfect but we have two democracies established and hopefully two future allies.
Forth, with regards to Europe, I was merely commenting on the fact that the US shoulders the lion’s share of the burden for NATO. This being the case the European countries use money they used to appropriate for defense for social programs since the U.S.A subsidizes their protection. Thank God for the new French President Sarkozy for promising to step up to the plate and take more responsibility in NATO and Europe's defense.
Fifth, with regards to Ian's side note on taxes and spending priorities, healthcare may be universal under European socialism, but it is universally subpar to American healthcare on so many levels that the wealthy people of Europe and Canada come to the U.S for their healthcare. As a matter of fact, many Canadians buy American insurance! Also, along with the higher taxes, longer vacations, etc., Europe also has higher unemployment, especially for young people. France has such stringent laws on hiring and firing that an employer needs to jump through so many hoops to get rid of an employee that isn't useful to the company. This results in an employer who is scared to hire because he can't get rid of the employee if he turns out to be a bad investment and also poorer job performance since the employee has such ridiculous protections from the government.
Sixth, I can't believe Ian called the regimes of Mao Zedong and Fedel Castro "somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people." Ian you know your history! They were all bad. Why do thousands of Cubans flee to the shores of Florida? Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of millions of people. Indeed, communism killed many many millions more than fascism ever did. Karl Marx's ideals led to gulags, forced starvations, the killing of intellectuals and walls that were made to keep their populations from escaping to freedom. Indeed, North Korea has minutemen on their borders too. Contrary to our minutemen, they have orders to shot to kill. The minutemen on the Korean border aren't there to stop the influx of South Koreans trying to embrace communist utopia, they are there to kill North Koreans who want to chose their own destinies. Imagine if America shot at Mexicans trying to come in! Oh, the outrage! Imagine all the angry letters the UN would send us! Communism, "somewhat more humanitarian," bah. The 'somewhat' was put in because Ian knew that he was on shaky ground with that statement. At least he added that.
Seventh, Iran and the hostage crisis took place under the Carter administration, which couldn't save the hostages, despite all that diplomacy. However, as soon as President Reagan took office, they were free that very day. Hmm, maybe they knew that a Republican with some balls to stand up to such an act with force might actually put his money where his mouth was.
Think about that when you go to VOTE!
Oh, and while we aren't perfect, this is the greatest place on Earth to be! Why else would people flock to our shores from all over the world to live here, including my father?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama: Restoring Diplomacy to the Oval Office
Besides discussing the legacy of the war in Iraq, Eric addressed the state of the US national image abroad and what sort of effect the neoconservative Bush administration had on it. Eric’s previous post was filled with disdain for the UN, which, although “primarily funded by the US,” has become “a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is for going it alone.”
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
To begin with, every UN member has dues to pay, and the USA is conspicuous in that we have been withholding payments to the tune of roughly $1.3 billion. The usual excuse for this is that America refuses to pay its bills unless the UN cooperates more fully with US initiatives. Although Eric is true that diplomacy alone has failed to achieve decisive results from the UN with regards to Iran, North Korea, and the crisis in Darfur, the unilateral American invasion of Iraq in 2003 exacerbated all of those problems by drawing the bulk of American finances and manpower into that country. It is also partially true, as Eric alleges, that international opposition to the invasion of Iraq was partially “fiscal in nature” but the embarrassingly tactless US conduct that doesn’t deserve to even be called “diplomacy” played a big role as well. Some stellar examples are Donald Rumsfeld’s casual insulting of France and Germany in early 2003 when they questioned the necessity of diving straight into Iraq, which served no positive purpose. Even more inexplicably, George Bush decided to appoint John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN in 2005. Bush’s selection of Bolton, who was on record as openly questioning the usefulness of the UN, and had a history of being an all around dislikeable jerk, was tantamount to appointing an atheist to the papacy. In light of stunts like these, is it surprising that America is mocked and scorned in so many countries? When we behave like the obnoxious, fat, know-it-all in the room, what do we expect?
Eric continues along with his orthodox conservative complaint that Europeans talk too much and don’t fight enough, while throwing in a jab about their proclivity to spend money on “social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves.” I don’t see how choosing to invest money in health care instead of assisting America’s invasion of Iraq, after being told they should shut up and get on board is a statement of “pacifist” behavior. Maybe Europeans don’t’ need to spend as much money to “defend themselves” because they don’t do things like invade Iraq, or maybe they save their military budgets for projects that further their national security, like fighting terrorism where it exists, rather than creating it where it previously didn’t, as we did in Iraq. They might also argue that NATO is a common alliance for defence, not merely a posse to unswervingly answer to America’s beck and call. (As a side note, Eric may criticize European taxing and spending priorities, but some nations don’t mind paying higher taxes in exchange for greater healthcare benefits, somewhat greater government work oversight, and longer vacations. Of course, America is entitled to exchange lower taxes for a higher poverty rate, lower minimum wage, and a longer average work week than most of western Europe, but to each their own.)
I realize that stating these facts makes me one of the “America bashers” conservative pundits like to talk about, but I’ll survive. Call me crazy, but I think any country that insists that “We’re the greatest country in the history of the world!” should aspire to a foreign policy that lives up to that standard and reflects those aspirations.
Finally, Eric makes the somewhat America-centric argument that the French must like America now because they elected President who is pro-American, perhaps assuming that opinion on America is the be all and end all of world elections. President Sarkozy was elected primarily in a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, which is sweeping much of Europe now. This is not to say that there aren’t pro-American nations in Europe, and even pro-American people in countries with leaders who don’t fawn over Bush. The American relationship with the international community is more complicated than that in any case.
But to come full circle, Obama represents a strain of thought arguing that “soft” power (i.e. actual diplomacy, cooperation, alliance, and non-military pressure) is a much more appropriate tool for most situation. McCain, on the other hand, hails from a political tradition that continues to ignore the mistakes of the past, and demonstrates a lack of understanding that America isn’t always right because we’re the Good Guys. The my-way-or-the-highway” uncompromising nonsense of the past eight years has proven to be expensive and counterproductive. Will diplomacy always solve our problems? No. But Obama is far more willing to give it a good try first than McCain is. Has the Bush diplomatic “revolution” worked? We’re piling up debt higher than any time in history, we’re the laughingstock of the democratic world, Bin Laden remains at large, and we’ve set a dangerous precedent that it’s ok to invade a sovereign nation without proving sufficient cause.
When you vote on November 4, think about that.
-Ian
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Neoconservatives on Foreign Policy: The War on Nuance
As Eric points out, what is probably the most instructive aspect of the candidates’ differences on Iraq is what it shows about their strategic worldview. Obama’s early and continued opposition to the second invasion of Iraq demonstrates his larger rejection of the Bush Doctrine as a whole. McCain, no doubt unwilling to publicly agree with President Bush’s policies and their corresponding unpopularity, has been much less vocal, but his speeches indicate that he is in at least partial agreement with the Bush Doctrine. Furthermore, McCain’s pattern of impulsive decision making (last minute selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate, his campaign “suspension” and flip-flops over whether or not to debate at all Friday night, to name a few of the most recent examples) lends weight to suspicions that President McCain would happily continue the disastrous Bush foreign policy.
The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, and the neoconservative worldview as a whole, is a distorted worldview terrifyingly short of perspective, history, and context. Eric reminds us that the “War on Terror” didn’t start with 9/11, and points out terrorist attacks on the USA during the 1990s
Actually, Eric doesn’t go back far enough in time. The terrorists of the 1990s were not attacking Americans for no reason at all, or because they hated freedom. On the contrary, America has a bipartisan history of bungling, selfish policies in the Middle East that helped create the situation we’re in today. Since World War II, American foreign policy has rested on the principle of backing countries whose leaders were friendly to us, regardless of how they treated their people. In most of the world, this meant supporting anti-Communist crooks like Batista in 1950s Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in pre 1949 China, both cases that soured our relations with those nations when popular Communist regimes that were somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people took power. In the Middle East, this realpolitik strategy meant supporting pro-American dictators instead of Arab Nationalists or Muslim Fundamentalists. The classic case was in Iran, where America backed the highly oppressive Shah (King) who was finally overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revolutionaries. Although with hindsight, their theocratic oppression seems worse than the Shah’s secular brand, the revolutionaries of 1979 were responding to many legitimate grievances and offering relative freedom to many Iranians. Since America had helped the Shah to obtain power via coup, and backed his military forces that kept him on the throne, the US was seen as an enemy to Iran, leading to the burning of the American embassy and that famous hostage crisis.
Responding to the threat from Iran, America supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein, who's dictatorship in Iraq was seen as a useful spoiler to Iranian power in the region. The bloody war instigated by Saddam against Iran lasted for most of the 1980s. By the time it was over, millions were dead. Meanwhile, America had given weapons to Iran as well, deciding that it was best to keep both nations fighting each other, cynically betting that they’d be too busy to bother America while they were slaughtering each other. Obviously, when word of this leaked out, American standing in the region fell considerably.
America’s national image is not only tarnished for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, but for all the other cynical interventions and misadventures carried out by presidents of both parties over the years. Anyone who is surprised people dislike America needs to read their history.
That covers two of the members Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Leaving aside North Korea for the time being, Afghanistan should be mentioned. Eric is correct that the Clinton administration did not take the opportunity to nab Osama Bin Laden in Sudan during the 1990s when it could have. But the Bush administration is responsible for ignoring the memos left by the Clinton policymakers warning that Bin Laden was the #1 threat to US security in 2001. Instead, Bush’s cabinet myopically focused on China until 9/11. Worse, Bush is guilty of obsessing over Iraq when in reality it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Islamists like Bin Laden and secular thugs like Saddam do not get along. But it’s probably too much to expect such subtleness from an administration that invented the Axis of Evil. The kindergarten simplicity of linking the mortal enemies of Iran and Iraq together with Kim Jong Il’s crackpot regime is stupefying, though typical.
As far as Eric’s claim that “wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced more tangible results” than anywhere else turns logic on its head. The reasons Iran and North Korea are able to pursue nuclear weapons more freely now is because America got entangled in the ridiculous sideshow that is Iraq. We’ve severely harmed our moral authority by invading an independent country—however mean their leader was—without sufficient proof of danger. We’re too busy to effectively threaten Iran and North Korea now, and much of the world is busy pointing that out. How can we tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia with a straight face? Not being a blatant hypocrite is a big advantage in foreign policy. Eric mentions the crisis in Darfur. Had America not been involved in Iraq, we could have intervened in Darfur for humanitarian reasons, doing a good deed and clamping down on a country that breeds terrorism.
The choice of Barack Obama as president would represent a break with the almost unprecedentedly stupid policies of the Bush administration, and perhaps a break with the diplomacy of the post World War II era. Having a president who admits when America screws up, as every country does sometimes, would go a long way toward repairing the American image abroad. It would also put a man in the White House who understands that you can’t fight international terrorism by alienating most of the world through arrogance and stupidity, and that you need a sophisticated, subtle strategy to fight Al Qaeda, not the crude, bludgeoning tactics of the over simplistic neoconservatives. The Bush approach failed, and we need a chief executive who can appreciate that and move on.
Eric covered a great deal in his last post, and I’ve said a lot here, so I’ll respond to the rest of his comments about Europe, NATO and the UN in a separate post.
In the meantime, register to vote, people! The deadline in most states is between October 4 and 7.
-Ian
The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, and the neoconservative worldview as a whole, is a distorted worldview terrifyingly short of perspective, history, and context. Eric reminds us that the “War on Terror” didn’t start with 9/11, and points out terrorist attacks on the USA during the 1990s
Actually, Eric doesn’t go back far enough in time. The terrorists of the 1990s were not attacking Americans for no reason at all, or because they hated freedom. On the contrary, America has a bipartisan history of bungling, selfish policies in the Middle East that helped create the situation we’re in today. Since World War II, American foreign policy has rested on the principle of backing countries whose leaders were friendly to us, regardless of how they treated their people. In most of the world, this meant supporting anti-Communist crooks like Batista in 1950s Cuba and Chiang Kai Shek in pre 1949 China, both cases that soured our relations with those nations when popular Communist regimes that were somewhat more humanitarian towards their own people took power. In the Middle East, this realpolitik strategy meant supporting pro-American dictators instead of Arab Nationalists or Muslim Fundamentalists. The classic case was in Iran, where America backed the highly oppressive Shah (King) who was finally overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revolutionaries. Although with hindsight, their theocratic oppression seems worse than the Shah’s secular brand, the revolutionaries of 1979 were responding to many legitimate grievances and offering relative freedom to many Iranians. Since America had helped the Shah to obtain power via coup, and backed his military forces that kept him on the throne, the US was seen as an enemy to Iran, leading to the burning of the American embassy and that famous hostage crisis.
Responding to the threat from Iran, America supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein, who's dictatorship in Iraq was seen as a useful spoiler to Iranian power in the region. The bloody war instigated by Saddam against Iran lasted for most of the 1980s. By the time it was over, millions were dead. Meanwhile, America had given weapons to Iran as well, deciding that it was best to keep both nations fighting each other, cynically betting that they’d be too busy to bother America while they were slaughtering each other. Obviously, when word of this leaked out, American standing in the region fell considerably.
America’s national image is not only tarnished for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq, but for all the other cynical interventions and misadventures carried out by presidents of both parties over the years. Anyone who is surprised people dislike America needs to read their history.
That covers two of the members Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Leaving aside North Korea for the time being, Afghanistan should be mentioned. Eric is correct that the Clinton administration did not take the opportunity to nab Osama Bin Laden in Sudan during the 1990s when it could have. But the Bush administration is responsible for ignoring the memos left by the Clinton policymakers warning that Bin Laden was the #1 threat to US security in 2001. Instead, Bush’s cabinet myopically focused on China until 9/11. Worse, Bush is guilty of obsessing over Iraq when in reality it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Islamists like Bin Laden and secular thugs like Saddam do not get along. But it’s probably too much to expect such subtleness from an administration that invented the Axis of Evil. The kindergarten simplicity of linking the mortal enemies of Iran and Iraq together with Kim Jong Il’s crackpot regime is stupefying, though typical.
As far as Eric’s claim that “wars in Iraq and Afghanistan produced more tangible results” than anywhere else turns logic on its head. The reasons Iran and North Korea are able to pursue nuclear weapons more freely now is because America got entangled in the ridiculous sideshow that is Iraq. We’ve severely harmed our moral authority by invading an independent country—however mean their leader was—without sufficient proof of danger. We’re too busy to effectively threaten Iran and North Korea now, and much of the world is busy pointing that out. How can we tell the Russians to stay out of Georgia with a straight face? Not being a blatant hypocrite is a big advantage in foreign policy. Eric mentions the crisis in Darfur. Had America not been involved in Iraq, we could have intervened in Darfur for humanitarian reasons, doing a good deed and clamping down on a country that breeds terrorism.
The choice of Barack Obama as president would represent a break with the almost unprecedentedly stupid policies of the Bush administration, and perhaps a break with the diplomacy of the post World War II era. Having a president who admits when America screws up, as every country does sometimes, would go a long way toward repairing the American image abroad. It would also put a man in the White House who understands that you can’t fight international terrorism by alienating most of the world through arrogance and stupidity, and that you need a sophisticated, subtle strategy to fight Al Qaeda, not the crude, bludgeoning tactics of the over simplistic neoconservatives. The Bush approach failed, and we need a chief executive who can appreciate that and move on.
Eric covered a great deal in his last post, and I’ve said a lot here, so I’ll respond to the rest of his comments about Europe, NATO and the UN in a separate post.
In the meantime, register to vote, people! The deadline in most states is between October 4 and 7.
-Ian
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Bush Doctrine Defended: Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
The war has been a major subject of debate in recent years which, I believe, peaked with the 2006 Democratic sweeps of the House and Senate. Their victories were a direct result of lack of support for the war among the population. Since then, however, the war has taken a back seat to gas prices and the economy due mainly to the fact that things are much better in Iraq than two years ago. This is mainly the result of the surge that McCain was a strong advocate for. On a side note, there would not be a need for a surge if Bush would have have an adequate amount of troops for the campaign in the first place. So on that note, he dropped the ball big time on that one. If you're going to fight a war, fight it.
While I would like to focus more on what our current policy should be, I must devote some time to dispel some myths and talk about results of the Bush doctrine and our national image abroad.
The Myths:
First, we must remember that the war on terror did not start on September 11th 2001. There were the US embassy bombings, Khobar Towers Bombings, USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. For so long America's response was weak in response to these attacks. Osama bin Laden was offered to the United States by Sudan during the Clinton administration but the President chose not to bring him into custody.
Second, the whole mantra "Bush lied, people died" is poppycock. He never lied about the weapons. He made the wrong assessment on whether they existed but he never lied. If he lied, then Hillary Clinton lied, John Kerry lied and a whole host of Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators lied too. They had the intelligence briefings that Bush had and they authorized Bush to go to war in the first place. Remember, Congress controls the power of the purse. By the bye, if the Democrats want to leave Iraq so bad, they could have left in 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate by cutting off funding. We still have yet to leave Iraq even though that was the platform the Dems ran on in 2006 to win, so who's kidding who?
Third, this is not a war for oil. If it was, we would be reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil which now abundantly flows and has provided Iraq with an $80 billion dollar surplus.
Bush Doctrine and National Image:
The Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. President Bush made a statement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress saying, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." As I write to this day, I concede that world opinion has fallen for the United States. Many countries and leaders do not like our "Cowboy Diplomacy" and they have used the United Nations, primarily funded by the U.S., as a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is by going it alone. However, we only need to look as far as Iran, North Korea and Darfur to see how well diplomacy works. Iran is giving the world the finger and pursuing the bomb. North Korea, in light of their leader Kim Jong Il's current problems is firing up its nuclear plants and already has tested a bomb. Darfur is in crisis thousands are dead and millions are displaced. So, on the whole, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced more tangible results than any other diplomatic means recently.
As far as our national image is concerned, if the world is going to call us bad for getting rid of Saddam in the course of looking of the weapons that we haven't found, I say, who cares? The reason they oppose us is basically fiscal in nature, as all things are. The U.N. had the oil for food scandal with Saddam. The French had contracts to build reactors in Iraq and that would hurt them financially. Europeans can talk all they want. It's easy for pacifist nations that are protected by the U.S. through NATO to criticize. They use the money they don't have to spend defending themselves on social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves and they aren't better off for it. We should stop funding a disproportionate amount of money for NATO if the other member counties continue to bite the hand that feeds them. Not all the world hates us, though. One only need to look as far as France to see Nicolas Sarkozy elected as a strong pro-American reformer bent on curbing the welfare state that has left France stagnant.
-Eric
While I would like to focus more on what our current policy should be, I must devote some time to dispel some myths and talk about results of the Bush doctrine and our national image abroad.
The Myths:
First, we must remember that the war on terror did not start on September 11th 2001. There were the US embassy bombings, Khobar Towers Bombings, USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. For so long America's response was weak in response to these attacks. Osama bin Laden was offered to the United States by Sudan during the Clinton administration but the President chose not to bring him into custody.
Second, the whole mantra "Bush lied, people died" is poppycock. He never lied about the weapons. He made the wrong assessment on whether they existed but he never lied. If he lied, then Hillary Clinton lied, John Kerry lied and a whole host of Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators lied too. They had the intelligence briefings that Bush had and they authorized Bush to go to war in the first place. Remember, Congress controls the power of the purse. By the bye, if the Democrats want to leave Iraq so bad, they could have left in 2006 when they took control of the House and Senate by cutting off funding. We still have yet to leave Iraq even though that was the platform the Dems ran on in 2006 to win, so who's kidding who?
Third, this is not a war for oil. If it was, we would be reaping the benefits of the Iraqi oil which now abundantly flows and has provided Iraq with an $80 billion dollar surplus.
Bush Doctrine and National Image:
The Bush Doctrine supports preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. President Bush made a statement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress saying, "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." As I write to this day, I concede that world opinion has fallen for the United States. Many countries and leaders do not like our "Cowboy Diplomacy" and they have used the United Nations, primarily funded by the U.S., as a pulpit for telling the rest of the world how bad America is by going it alone. However, we only need to look as far as Iran, North Korea and Darfur to see how well diplomacy works. Iran is giving the world the finger and pursuing the bomb. North Korea, in light of their leader Kim Jong Il's current problems is firing up its nuclear plants and already has tested a bomb. Darfur is in crisis thousands are dead and millions are displaced. So, on the whole, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have produced more tangible results than any other diplomatic means recently.
As far as our national image is concerned, if the world is going to call us bad for getting rid of Saddam in the course of looking of the weapons that we haven't found, I say, who cares? The reason they oppose us is basically fiscal in nature, as all things are. The U.N. had the oil for food scandal with Saddam. The French had contracts to build reactors in Iraq and that would hurt them financially. Europeans can talk all they want. It's easy for pacifist nations that are protected by the U.S. through NATO to criticize. They use the money they don't have to spend defending themselves on social programs that encourage people not to take responsibility for themselves and they aren't better off for it. We should stop funding a disproportionate amount of money for NATO if the other member counties continue to bite the hand that feeds them. Not all the world hates us, though. One only need to look as far as France to see Nicolas Sarkozy elected as a strong pro-American reformer bent on curbing the welfare state that has left France stagnant.
-Eric
Final Remarks on Economy and Taxes
Well Ian and I decided to go on to a new topic after his last entry on taxes and the economy, but I need to offer just a few stats. The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of income taxes while the top 5% pay another 20%. So we have the top 5% of wage earners paying 60% of the federal taxes. The top 10% pay 87% of taxes while the bottom 40% in the country pay ZERO, nothing, nada. And Obama wants to give THEM tax credits which amount to a redistribution of wealth. Yeah, maybe the rich should be better neighbors and pony up some more and be patriotic!
As far as earmarks go, Ian makes the the earmarks of Obama seem good and worthy of taxpayer money. I have no problem with funding for many of the earmarks that are passed. I am upset with the practice of putting a bill in after debate with no name attached. If it deserves federal money then debate it's merits on the floor for a vote like any other bill. And the only reason Hillary and Obama voted against earmarks was because it was politically expedient for them to do so since they were running for President. In practice, they are among the worst culprits.
Finally rich, middle class, and poor go into the military and they can all die serving our country. The military provides great opportunities for advancement in society so maybe those enlisting realize that they can get ahead in life serving in our armed forces.
These articles provide some good information on taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html
href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/">http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/
-Eric
As far as earmarks go, Ian makes the the earmarks of Obama seem good and worthy of taxpayer money. I have no problem with funding for many of the earmarks that are passed. I am upset with the practice of putting a bill in after debate with no name attached. If it deserves federal money then debate it's merits on the floor for a vote like any other bill. And the only reason Hillary and Obama voted against earmarks was because it was politically expedient for them to do so since they were running for President. In practice, they are among the worst culprits.
Finally rich, middle class, and poor go into the military and they can all die serving our country. The military provides great opportunities for advancement in society so maybe those enlisting realize that they can get ahead in life serving in our armed forces.
These articles provide some good information on taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html
href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/">http://www.airforcetimes.com/careers/second_careers/military_income_gap_070521/
-Eric
Sunday, September 21, 2008
McCain's "earmark" could be your city's sewage treatment plant
In last Friday’s post, I did not respond to Eric’s submission about the candidates’ records on earmark spending due to time and space constraints, so I’ll take care of that now. Eric is absolutely correct that McCain has a fantastic personal record of standing up against earmark spending. This is one of the aspects of the Arizona senator’s career that has reflected his integrity in politics for so long. (Or at least until recently, I would argue.) However, as I said in my last post, it is easy to rail abstractly against “wasteful spending” and “pet projects,” but one person’s pork is another person’s shelter for victims of domestic violence or rural health center clinic. These are two of the things that make up Obama’s earmark requests. By far the largest item on the bill is the $62 million requested to fund the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy Project, which is a new specialized aircraft fitted with a telescope and programmed to fly at 45,000, surpassing the ability of any ground-based aircraft. Oh, and the project is endorsed by, and affiliated with, NASA.
As Eric pointed out, McCain is one of five senators who don’t request earmarks. It is a shame that so many of them do, but to write off all of their requests as simply “wasteful spending” and “pet projects” oversimplifies the problem. The truth is that most Americans don’t pay much attention to how their representatives secure funding for local needs; they just want the research grant/sewage treatment facility/bridge to nowhere. In the meantime, officials should be judged both on the size of their earmark requests and the sort of programs they support. Obama’s earmark record, linked at the bottom of Eric’s previous post, is for the most part devoted to funding research initiatives, infrastructure renovation, and educational programs.
Obama and McCain were one of only 29 senators who voted to end earmark spending, making that issue a thoroughly bipartisan difficulty. If Americans truly want to change that, they’ll have to start voting for whichever candidates—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—who promises to drop the habit. Obama will not be asking for any earmarks in 2009, and this issue looks like one of those—like immigration—which the candidates largely agree upon. McCain undoubtedly will treat earmarks as a higher priority, but this alone won’t even come close to balancing the budget. McCain’s heavy tax cuts for the wealthy and continued commitment to heavy military spending on forces in Iraq will prevent that.
If that isn’t enough, most people may be anti-earmark in principle, but in practice, they’d rather get the new highway than quibble about ways and means. Reform will have to be systemic and total, and will require massive public pressure on politicians. McCain should be lauded for his stance on earmarks, but his overall economic plan remains irresponsible. McCain can just as easily lead the charge against earmarks from the senate in 2009, and spare us the consequences of his reckless plan. While he complains of “tax and spend” Democrats, he’s gearing up for a “don’t tax but still spend” fiscal policy. And that’s a mistake we don’t need to make.
As Eric pointed out, McCain is one of five senators who don’t request earmarks. It is a shame that so many of them do, but to write off all of their requests as simply “wasteful spending” and “pet projects” oversimplifies the problem. The truth is that most Americans don’t pay much attention to how their representatives secure funding for local needs; they just want the research grant/sewage treatment facility/bridge to nowhere. In the meantime, officials should be judged both on the size of their earmark requests and the sort of programs they support. Obama’s earmark record, linked at the bottom of Eric’s previous post, is for the most part devoted to funding research initiatives, infrastructure renovation, and educational programs.
Obama and McCain were one of only 29 senators who voted to end earmark spending, making that issue a thoroughly bipartisan difficulty. If Americans truly want to change that, they’ll have to start voting for whichever candidates—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—who promises to drop the habit. Obama will not be asking for any earmarks in 2009, and this issue looks like one of those—like immigration—which the candidates largely agree upon. McCain undoubtedly will treat earmarks as a higher priority, but this alone won’t even come close to balancing the budget. McCain’s heavy tax cuts for the wealthy and continued commitment to heavy military spending on forces in Iraq will prevent that.
If that isn’t enough, most people may be anti-earmark in principle, but in practice, they’d rather get the new highway than quibble about ways and means. Reform will have to be systemic and total, and will require massive public pressure on politicians. McCain should be lauded for his stance on earmarks, but his overall economic plan remains irresponsible. McCain can just as easily lead the charge against earmarks from the senate in 2009, and spare us the consequences of his reckless plan. While he complains of “tax and spend” Democrats, he’s gearing up for a “don’t tax but still spend” fiscal policy. And that’s a mistake we don’t need to make.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Not-So-Straight-Talk Express--Riding Economy Class
Having now seen several good points from Eric defending continued, and, in some cases, increased, deregulation of the economy and increased overall tax cuts, it’s important to highlight several problems with this argument. Alongside some hard facts are some lines straight out of the Republican playbook that they’re hoping you’ll take at face value. First of all, I have to take issue with Eric’s assertion that Obama is practicing “class warfare” to secure the democratic base. (see the first paragraph of “Obama moving right on taxes”, sept. 16th). Based on the figures released by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, (TPC) Obama is in fact increasing taxes for the wealthiest tax bracket by under 2% of their income, averaging $19,000 more for them. This is done to enable Obama to cut taxes for the vast majority of the rest of taxpayers while still paying for increased services such as healthcare for all U.S. children. (Handily enough, the TPC also compares the candidates’ health care proposals in the same report.)
I fail to see how a slight increase in taxes for those who can easily afford it that enables a more substantial fiscal “safety net” for everyone else constitutes class warfare. This has been a common throwaway conservative line when attacking any increase in taxation of the wealthiest. “Wealthy” is not a dirty word if that’s what you are. If there were any class warfare going on today, I would have to argue that the rich, as always, would win it. Wealth determines all whole host of quality of life issues in America. Let’s compare a child born to parents in the top 10% income bracket vs. one born into the bottom 30%. The wealthy kid will probably receive better health care and go to a better school. Wealthy children can take expensive courses that teach you how to beat the ACT and SAT tests. Poor children are more likely to join the military as a career, and hence to die in whatever the latest war is. People across the spectrum break the law, but money buys better lawyers. The victims of Obama’s “class warfare” have far more choices open to them, and a much better safety net should they get sick or lose their job.
Eric’s insistence that raising the minimum wage is “inflationary in nature” and is merely a “political ploy to garner votes from the working class” (“McCain’s plan more sensible…” paragraph 3) neglects to mention that inflation has been almost constant, with or without a rising minimum wage. I could go on, but this simple chart from the folks at Wikipedia demonstrates two things. 1) Real value of the Federal minimum wage has been falling since the late 1960s, and 2) minimum wage raises have happened AFTER periods of inflation, rather than merely causing them. (Oh, and the disparity of wealth in this country has been reaching heights not seen for decades, which isn't a good sign if you want a vibrant middle class.)
Lest I be accused of class warfare or compared to Chairman Mao, I shall say this: I am against any sort of misguided attempt to punish the wealthy. After all, they are often our most productive citizens. But, to paraphrase Obama when he was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly in late August, the wealthiest citizens can afford a slight increase in taxes, and that it was time to be “good neighbors.”
It should also be pointed out that Eric—like the McCain campaign, attempts to gloss over the fact that Obama’s plan gives more money back to the vast majority of taxpayers than McCain’s does. Almost all of the money McCain boasts about giving back to who Eric simply calls “taxpayers”(paragraph 1 of “McCain’s tax plan more…”sept. 17) is in the nearly 10% tax cut he will give to the wealthiest taxpayers. Why won’t McCain just say that up front, if this is really the fairest and best plan? Instead, McCain has repeatedly—and falsely—claimed that Obama will raise most Americans’ taxes, despite non-partisan analysts assertions to the contrary.
As for Obama’s supposed strangling of small businesses via taxation, that too, is a distortion. For the full breakdown, see this excellent, concise analysis by Factcheck.org. What it essentially establishes, however, is that many small business owners will receive tax credits for providing health insurance for employees. Many others legally file their taxes as individuals, and would therefore only be significantly affected by Obama’s tax increases if they clear over $250,000 a year. Eric claims that the economy would be harmed by raised income taxes in the top bracket, even though they will remain below the level they were during the Clinton years. By the way, if Clinton’s taxes were too high, why were his two terms so great for the economy? That doesn’t seem to make sense, like most of the rest of McCain’s tax plan.
Never mind that economists like Alan Greenspan (a guy who supported the Bush tax cuts) warn that McCain’s plan won’t work, that cutting taxes so much without sufficient spending reductions will be terrible in the long run, and this plan won’t balance the budget, let along made a dent in the deficit. Like so much else of his campaign message, John McCain’s economic statements have cut loose from their moorings in reality and are adrift in a sea of cynicism, negative advertising, and overplayed Alaskan folksiness.
-Ian
I fail to see how a slight increase in taxes for those who can easily afford it that enables a more substantial fiscal “safety net” for everyone else constitutes class warfare. This has been a common throwaway conservative line when attacking any increase in taxation of the wealthiest. “Wealthy” is not a dirty word if that’s what you are. If there were any class warfare going on today, I would have to argue that the rich, as always, would win it. Wealth determines all whole host of quality of life issues in America. Let’s compare a child born to parents in the top 10% income bracket vs. one born into the bottom 30%. The wealthy kid will probably receive better health care and go to a better school. Wealthy children can take expensive courses that teach you how to beat the ACT and SAT tests. Poor children are more likely to join the military as a career, and hence to die in whatever the latest war is. People across the spectrum break the law, but money buys better lawyers. The victims of Obama’s “class warfare” have far more choices open to them, and a much better safety net should they get sick or lose their job.
Eric’s insistence that raising the minimum wage is “inflationary in nature” and is merely a “political ploy to garner votes from the working class” (“McCain’s plan more sensible…” paragraph 3) neglects to mention that inflation has been almost constant, with or without a rising minimum wage. I could go on, but this simple chart from the folks at Wikipedia demonstrates two things. 1) Real value of the Federal minimum wage has been falling since the late 1960s, and 2) minimum wage raises have happened AFTER periods of inflation, rather than merely causing them. (Oh, and the disparity of wealth in this country has been reaching heights not seen for decades, which isn't a good sign if you want a vibrant middle class.)
Lest I be accused of class warfare or compared to Chairman Mao, I shall say this: I am against any sort of misguided attempt to punish the wealthy. After all, they are often our most productive citizens. But, to paraphrase Obama when he was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly in late August, the wealthiest citizens can afford a slight increase in taxes, and that it was time to be “good neighbors.”
It should also be pointed out that Eric—like the McCain campaign, attempts to gloss over the fact that Obama’s plan gives more money back to the vast majority of taxpayers than McCain’s does. Almost all of the money McCain boasts about giving back to who Eric simply calls “taxpayers”(paragraph 1 of “McCain’s tax plan more…”sept. 17) is in the nearly 10% tax cut he will give to the wealthiest taxpayers. Why won’t McCain just say that up front, if this is really the fairest and best plan? Instead, McCain has repeatedly—and falsely—claimed that Obama will raise most Americans’ taxes, despite non-partisan analysts assertions to the contrary.
As for Obama’s supposed strangling of small businesses via taxation, that too, is a distortion. For the full breakdown, see this excellent, concise analysis by Factcheck.org. What it essentially establishes, however, is that many small business owners will receive tax credits for providing health insurance for employees. Many others legally file their taxes as individuals, and would therefore only be significantly affected by Obama’s tax increases if they clear over $250,000 a year. Eric claims that the economy would be harmed by raised income taxes in the top bracket, even though they will remain below the level they were during the Clinton years. By the way, if Clinton’s taxes were too high, why were his two terms so great for the economy? That doesn’t seem to make sense, like most of the rest of McCain’s tax plan.
Never mind that economists like Alan Greenspan (a guy who supported the Bush tax cuts) warn that McCain’s plan won’t work, that cutting taxes so much without sufficient spending reductions will be terrible in the long run, and this plan won’t balance the budget, let along made a dent in the deficit. Like so much else of his campaign message, John McCain’s economic statements have cut loose from their moorings in reality and are adrift in a sea of cynicism, negative advertising, and overplayed Alaskan folksiness.
-Ian
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain's anti-Earmark and pork record
Ian and I are from Chicago. Chicago is infamous for its corruption and Cook County and Illinois have their own issues. Being from a city, county and state wrought with such government largess and waste, why would I settle for someone who will do nothing to stop it at the federal level? And why should you? Obama is a product of the Chicago machine. Thus apt embody many similar aspects as other Chicago politicians. One thing is for sure, he wants to play fast and loose with taxpayer money. Something Congressmen and Senators utilize to dole out money to their constituencies is earmarking. Earmarks are attachments to federal spending bills that are inserted after all debate has concluded and can be added anonymously. John McCain has attacked waste and has been against earmarks and pork barrel spending from his early days in Congress and maintains this stance today. He promises to use the power of his pen to veto any bill that contains earmarks. He boldly states on his website: "as President, John McCain would shine the disinfecting light of public scrutiny on those who abuse the public purse, use the power of the presidency to restore fiscal responsibility, and exercise the veto pen to enforce it" (). Obama makes no such claim to veto earmarked legislation. As a matter of fact, Obama had a long list of pet projects for the fiscal year 2006-2007. In the Fiscal Year 2008, so far, Obama has had 112 projects that totaled $330 million dollars. McCain as had 0 projects totaling, you guessed it, $0 dollars. He is one of only five Senators to do so. If you want someone who will reign in spending and restore fiscal discipline to our federal government, McCain's your man.
Here is the link to the list:
Barack Obama earmark requests
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/
-Eric
Here is the link to the list:
Barack Obama earmark requests
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/
-Eric
McCain's plan is more sensible AND more genuine
Ian really set the tone with a thoughtful article that attacks much of the criticism that Republicans face with regards to the economy. I am happy to note that Ian did point out that the Tax Policy Center estimates a McCain Administration would take 1.4 trillion dollars less over ten years from the pockets of taxpayers. As far as Iraq goes, Obama does want to pull troops out on a date that coincides with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's timetable. As a fiscal conservative, I am not opposed to American troop withdrawal if the Iraqis want it. We should honor the Iraqis' sovereignty. With peace becoming more prevalent and the Iraqi's taking more control of their own security, withdrawal doesn't seem that far away even for McCain. But, before I digress too much, we will address Iraq later.
Ian's second point was that Republicans have a terrible record of funding public schools. First, I am assuming he means federal funding for public schools. This being the case, No Child Left Behind has been the punching bag of Democrats who say Bush destroyed public education with the flick of his pen on the bill. As a matter a fact, NCLB was co-Authored by Democratic Rep. George Miller of California and Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. President Bush signed into law the largest single increase of federal funding for schools in the history of the country. Ian is correct when he says people with good educations are less likely to go to jail or need welfare. However, he is wrong in his insistence that more money solves the problem of education. Strong family situations and involved parents are a much bigger factor than the increase of money.
Concerning minimum wage, I am glad Ian supports high school students working summer and part time jobs to climb the economic ladder. They make up the vast majority of minimum wage earners and most of them are looking for extra spending money, not to pay a mortgage. By the bye, if Democrats are all about having a minimum wage, why stop at the current $6.55 per hour? Why not go to $10 or even $20 an hour? Don't all the workers deserve a better wage than $6.55? The truth is a minimum wage is inflationary in nature. It collectively lowers the value of the dollar because producers will raise the cost of their good or service that they provide to cover the increase in wage they must pay, thus negating any increase that the workers received. It is a simple political ploy to garner votes from the working class who think the government controlling wages will result in greater prosperity for them. And no Ian, the increase in the minimum wage does not qualify as pork barrel spending. McCain has a history of being against earmarks and pork barrel spending, which will be the topic of my next address. So Stay Tuned. Touché Ian with regard to Governor Palin and her pork. I am not a fan of it, Democrat or Republican, and she has been a bit disingenuous with her anti-pork rhetoric. But I don't believe for a moment that McCain's rhetoric is just for the sound bite. He has a history against waste and I believe him when he says he will veto any bill that has earmarks attached to it. With regards to Obama's tax plan I have a response in the works that will be available shortly.
-Eric
Ian's second point was that Republicans have a terrible record of funding public schools. First, I am assuming he means federal funding for public schools. This being the case, No Child Left Behind has been the punching bag of Democrats who say Bush destroyed public education with the flick of his pen on the bill. As a matter a fact, NCLB was co-Authored by Democratic Rep. George Miller of California and Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. President Bush signed into law the largest single increase of federal funding for schools in the history of the country. Ian is correct when he says people with good educations are less likely to go to jail or need welfare. However, he is wrong in his insistence that more money solves the problem of education. Strong family situations and involved parents are a much bigger factor than the increase of money.
Concerning minimum wage, I am glad Ian supports high school students working summer and part time jobs to climb the economic ladder. They make up the vast majority of minimum wage earners and most of them are looking for extra spending money, not to pay a mortgage. By the bye, if Democrats are all about having a minimum wage, why stop at the current $6.55 per hour? Why not go to $10 or even $20 an hour? Don't all the workers deserve a better wage than $6.55? The truth is a minimum wage is inflationary in nature. It collectively lowers the value of the dollar because producers will raise the cost of their good or service that they provide to cover the increase in wage they must pay, thus negating any increase that the workers received. It is a simple political ploy to garner votes from the working class who think the government controlling wages will result in greater prosperity for them. And no Ian, the increase in the minimum wage does not qualify as pork barrel spending. McCain has a history of being against earmarks and pork barrel spending, which will be the topic of my next address. So Stay Tuned. Touché Ian with regard to Governor Palin and her pork. I am not a fan of it, Democrat or Republican, and she has been a bit disingenuous with her anti-pork rhetoric. But I don't believe for a moment that McCain's rhetoric is just for the sound bite. He has a history against waste and I believe him when he says he will veto any bill that has earmarks attached to it. With regards to Obama's tax plan I have a response in the works that will be available shortly.
-Eric
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Obama moving right on taxes
Senator Obama has been proclaiming vociferously since the primaries that he would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the 'wealthy.' He used class warfare from the Democratic arsenal to secure the far left constituency who make up the majority of primary voters. His mantra was to first repeal all the Bush tax cuts that would be tantamount to a tax increase. Secondly, he would lift the cap on wages that can be subject to a payroll tax. Third, put the top marginal rate up to 39.8% and if that didn't grind the economy to a halt, he would raise taxes on capital gains and to at least 25% from the current 15%. His desire to have Uncle Sam reach ever deeper in our pockets served him well during the primaries, but he has since back-pedaled now that the general election campaign is in full swing. His position shifted and his tax on capital gains went from 25% to 20% perhaps to appeal to moderate voters, or maybe he was starting to realize that high taxes result in lower growth. Either way it is a step in the right direction.
The latest and greatest shift in his tax policy comes on the heels of his sinking poll numbers against Republican challenger John McCain. Obama originally wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy fat cats, which provides fodder for his base bent on wealth redistribution, but the truth of the matter is top individual income earners aren't the only ones to feel the pain if income taxes rise. Entrepreneurs and businessmen who have businesses that file under Subchapter S pay rates on their businesses as if their business was an individual. These businesses are called S Corps and they make up a major part of our small business community that employs the most people in this country. By the bye, raising taxes on small business only serves one purpose: to raise the cost of the product or service being rendered by that business. Businesses don't pay tax increases. They pass the cost on to the consumer, which effectively lowers the purchase power of the dollar that you labor so hard to earn and that is what we should be wary of. It can only serve to lower productivity and reduce demand if we work longer for Uncle Sam and less for ourselves.
Digression finished, since we have established some reasons why raising taxes is bad for the economy, Obama said on ABC's "This Week" to George Stephanopoulos that if the economy is doing poorly in January when he might be taking office, he wouldn't raise taxes that would be detrimental to job growth and our GDP. If Obama isn't just making campaign promises with his finger crossed behind his back, kudos to him for seeing the light on taxes.
-Eric
The latest and greatest shift in his tax policy comes on the heels of his sinking poll numbers against Republican challenger John McCain. Obama originally wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy fat cats, which provides fodder for his base bent on wealth redistribution, but the truth of the matter is top individual income earners aren't the only ones to feel the pain if income taxes rise. Entrepreneurs and businessmen who have businesses that file under Subchapter S pay rates on their businesses as if their business was an individual. These businesses are called S Corps and they make up a major part of our small business community that employs the most people in this country. By the bye, raising taxes on small business only serves one purpose: to raise the cost of the product or service being rendered by that business. Businesses don't pay tax increases. They pass the cost on to the consumer, which effectively lowers the purchase power of the dollar that you labor so hard to earn and that is what we should be wary of. It can only serve to lower productivity and reduce demand if we work longer for Uncle Sam and less for ourselves.
Digression finished, since we have established some reasons why raising taxes is bad for the economy, Obama said on ABC's "This Week" to George Stephanopoulos that if the economy is doing poorly in January when he might be taking office, he wouldn't raise taxes that would be detrimental to job growth and our GDP. If Obama isn't just making campaign promises with his finger crossed behind his back, kudos to him for seeing the light on taxes.
-Eric
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wait, Obama is the elitist?
Historically, American elections have usually hinged upon how the economy was doing unless there was a crisis year involving war, terrorism, or the much-vaunted Gay Attack on American Families of 2004 that helped Bush hang on for a second term. If Americans pay attention to the facts and take a good hard look at the Obama and McCain economic plans, then the Republican bid to for the votes of “average Joe” Americans seems all the more strange.
Despite plenty of Republican warnings about Obama being a tax-raising liberal, his economic plan involves an overall tax cut for most Americans. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the Obama tax plan will cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-18. True, McCain will reduce taxes by $4.2 trillion over the same period of time, but the cuts benefit most Americans differently. Obama’s plan will involve cuts for middle and low income tax payers. The average middle class family would see about $2,200 in annual savings under an Obama plan, versus $1,400 in the McCain plan. The bottom 40% of taxpayers would be even more dramatically affected, percentage-wise. The McCain plan would cut those taxes by hardly anything, while Obama’s plan would add an extra 6% to low income family finances. The biggest difference would be for the top 1% of taxpayers, who would pay an average of $19,000 more in taxes (1.5% increase) under Obama as opposed to an average of $125,000 less (9.5% decrease) under McCain.
I still haven’t figured out how Obama is the elitist candidate of this election.
By itself, neither candidate’s tax plan will do anything to reduce the federal deficit, which has hit a new peak at $10 trillion as of August. The interest payment alone will cost taxpayers $232 billion in 2008. As a rule, most governments have a bad track record with spending, so I don’t have particularly high hopes for either candidate. For what it’s worth, McCain has promised to balance the budget by 2013, while Obama has promised no more than $400 billion in excess spending by that year.
So far, this one looks good for McCain. The problem is that McCain’s plan is based upon hopes that his tax cuts for the rich will boost the economy at some future date Obama’s plan will raise money by closing tax loopholes, and, among other things, taxing companies that send jobs overseas. As things now stand, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the government will take in $600 billion less over ten years with McCain, as opposed to $800 billion more with Obama. Two problems stick out with the McCain plan for me. One is that the war in Iraq has a $10 billion per month price tag, and with the Arizona’s favorite maverick in the white house, that won’t be changing anytime soon. Obama’s scheduled troop withdrawal promises to lighten that part of federal spending sooner.
Second, the conservative financial approach at large seems horribly short sighted. After all, people who receive a decent education are far less likely to need welfare or go to jail, and the Republicans have a terrible record with funding for public schools. It gets hard to climb the economic ladder if President McCain voted twice against raising the minimum wage in 2007 during his time in the senate. (Obama voted for it.) Is that the pork barrel spending sort of legislation McCain has promised to veto when he’s in the white house? In fact, McCain hasn’t really offered much more than vague promises on the economy. Vowing to reduce pork spending in your nomination speech is about as controversial as promising to be tough on crime or to fight enemies of freedom. How about some specifics? Is anyone vocally pro-pork? One senator’s pork is another Alaska governor’s request for $2 million to study Bering sea crabs. (Yes, in Alaska, the governor has a lot of power over budget request, so this one didn’t just slip by Palin.) But the pork is just a sound byte. The substance is that McCain will give big tax cuts to major corporations, and thanks to his unbridled defence of free trade—environment, human rights, and American job loss be damned— the middle and lower classes will have to be running hard to catch the trickle down from this scheme.
So, which is the responsible plan? The one that severely cuts taxes all across the board, and then hopes for a Hail Mary of prosperity without directing energy towards making the middle class a more viable part of the economy, or the plan that taxes those who can afford it and tries to keep the middle and lower classes from being even more marginalized by the globalizing economy?
Despite plenty of Republican warnings about Obama being a tax-raising liberal, his economic plan involves an overall tax cut for most Americans. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the Obama tax plan will cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-18. True, McCain will reduce taxes by $4.2 trillion over the same period of time, but the cuts benefit most Americans differently. Obama’s plan will involve cuts for middle and low income tax payers. The average middle class family would see about $2,200 in annual savings under an Obama plan, versus $1,400 in the McCain plan. The bottom 40% of taxpayers would be even more dramatically affected, percentage-wise. The McCain plan would cut those taxes by hardly anything, while Obama’s plan would add an extra 6% to low income family finances. The biggest difference would be for the top 1% of taxpayers, who would pay an average of $19,000 more in taxes (1.5% increase) under Obama as opposed to an average of $125,000 less (9.5% decrease) under McCain.
I still haven’t figured out how Obama is the elitist candidate of this election.
By itself, neither candidate’s tax plan will do anything to reduce the federal deficit, which has hit a new peak at $10 trillion as of August. The interest payment alone will cost taxpayers $232 billion in 2008. As a rule, most governments have a bad track record with spending, so I don’t have particularly high hopes for either candidate. For what it’s worth, McCain has promised to balance the budget by 2013, while Obama has promised no more than $400 billion in excess spending by that year.
So far, this one looks good for McCain. The problem is that McCain’s plan is based upon hopes that his tax cuts for the rich will boost the economy at some future date Obama’s plan will raise money by closing tax loopholes, and, among other things, taxing companies that send jobs overseas. As things now stand, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the government will take in $600 billion less over ten years with McCain, as opposed to $800 billion more with Obama. Two problems stick out with the McCain plan for me. One is that the war in Iraq has a $10 billion per month price tag, and with the Arizona’s favorite maverick in the white house, that won’t be changing anytime soon. Obama’s scheduled troop withdrawal promises to lighten that part of federal spending sooner.
Second, the conservative financial approach at large seems horribly short sighted. After all, people who receive a decent education are far less likely to need welfare or go to jail, and the Republicans have a terrible record with funding for public schools. It gets hard to climb the economic ladder if President McCain voted twice against raising the minimum wage in 2007 during his time in the senate. (Obama voted for it.) Is that the pork barrel spending sort of legislation McCain has promised to veto when he’s in the white house? In fact, McCain hasn’t really offered much more than vague promises on the economy. Vowing to reduce pork spending in your nomination speech is about as controversial as promising to be tough on crime or to fight enemies of freedom. How about some specifics? Is anyone vocally pro-pork? One senator’s pork is another Alaska governor’s request for $2 million to study Bering sea crabs. (Yes, in Alaska, the governor has a lot of power over budget request, so this one didn’t just slip by Palin.) But the pork is just a sound byte. The substance is that McCain will give big tax cuts to major corporations, and thanks to his unbridled defence of free trade—environment, human rights, and American job loss be damned— the middle and lower classes will have to be running hard to catch the trickle down from this scheme.
So, which is the responsible plan? The one that severely cuts taxes all across the board, and then hopes for a Hail Mary of prosperity without directing energy towards making the middle class a more viable part of the economy, or the plan that taxes those who can afford it and tries to keep the middle and lower classes from being even more marginalized by the globalizing economy?
-Ian
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Welcome to the Purple Nation
Hey all,
Welcome to the Purple Nation, an online debate in blog form between Eric Di Silvestro and Ian Saxine. After a particularly long, thought-provoking discussion that drew a number of listeners, we decided to take our argument to the internet. Until election day, Eric and I will be waging our own political struggle, as he attempts to make a McCainiac out of me, and I try to fill his head with Obama-rama. Although we differ over who we think would make a better president, we do agree on a few important points, above all….
Not enough meaningful, informed debate is going on in this country.
There are genuine reasons to support and oppose both candidates. These reasons have little to do with speculation over whether Sarah Palin’s youngest child was birthed by her teenage daughter, or Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. There are real issues at stake this year. The candidates are offering two very different plans of action that are worthy of real discussion. The economy, the situation in Iraq, other likely foreign policy trouble spots, energy policy, education, and various social issues are all on the table.
Eric and I will alternate posts on this blog, taking the debate one issue at a time. We’re going to keep these debates to a reasonable length while including enough detail to appeal to that rare, coveted demographic—the undecided voter. Readers are encouraged to suggest future topics. No matter what happens, we promise that this friendly argument will remain classy, rational, and, unlike most writing out there, will try to explain positions without resorting to words like “hope” and “maverick.” Also, unlike so many other commentators out there, we’ll be sticking to substance rather than strategy as much as possible. So if you want to see the latest polls, or which candidate is doing the best with middle-aged Latina Protestant women, you’ll have to look elsewhere. The best place for the latest poll data, by the way, is www.fivethirtyeight.com. They seem to root for Obama, but their site is a composite of hundreds of polls nationwide.
But if you crave an exchange of cold hard facts flying back and forth at the speed of truth, then you’ve come to the right place. Welcome to the Purple Nation.
First post coming out tomorrow: two views of the economy, and why McCain’s view won’t help you, and, crucial to this blogger, why it won’t help me.
-Ian
Welcome to the Purple Nation, an online debate in blog form between Eric Di Silvestro and Ian Saxine. After a particularly long, thought-provoking discussion that drew a number of listeners, we decided to take our argument to the internet. Until election day, Eric and I will be waging our own political struggle, as he attempts to make a McCainiac out of me, and I try to fill his head with Obama-rama. Although we differ over who we think would make a better president, we do agree on a few important points, above all….
Not enough meaningful, informed debate is going on in this country.
There are genuine reasons to support and oppose both candidates. These reasons have little to do with speculation over whether Sarah Palin’s youngest child was birthed by her teenage daughter, or Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. There are real issues at stake this year. The candidates are offering two very different plans of action that are worthy of real discussion. The economy, the situation in Iraq, other likely foreign policy trouble spots, energy policy, education, and various social issues are all on the table.
Eric and I will alternate posts on this blog, taking the debate one issue at a time. We’re going to keep these debates to a reasonable length while including enough detail to appeal to that rare, coveted demographic—the undecided voter. Readers are encouraged to suggest future topics. No matter what happens, we promise that this friendly argument will remain classy, rational, and, unlike most writing out there, will try to explain positions without resorting to words like “hope” and “maverick.” Also, unlike so many other commentators out there, we’ll be sticking to substance rather than strategy as much as possible. So if you want to see the latest polls, or which candidate is doing the best with middle-aged Latina Protestant women, you’ll have to look elsewhere. The best place for the latest poll data, by the way, is www.fivethirtyeight.com. They seem to root for Obama, but their site is a composite of hundreds of polls nationwide.
But if you crave an exchange of cold hard facts flying back and forth at the speed of truth, then you’ve come to the right place. Welcome to the Purple Nation.
First post coming out tomorrow: two views of the economy, and why McCain’s view won’t help you, and, crucial to this blogger, why it won’t help me.
-Ian
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)