Letters to the Editor
-
what sort of candidate does a real democracy foster?
Anybody who thinks they can personally know a presidential candidate is fooling themselves. A pre-requisite for running for and office is the ability to pander to whomever you are talking to, and to avoid offending them. I submit that the best we can hope for from a democracy for an idea that transends the messenger.
I think Obama's avoidence of articulating detailed plans is a calculated strategy, and well suited to his personal style. Any idea worth proposing is open to a destuctive attack from some direction or another.
Recent history will show that any statements leading up to a candidate's election might as well be scribbled on a cocktail napkin - once in office they will do what they will, and lately this power is much expanded.
In an odd way, Bush43's appeal to "character values" might actually make some sense, but from a different perspective. In this age, can we really expect our leadership to know what to do in advance? Given the complexity of the world, and the US's place in it, how can we trust anybody who starts out by saying they know the answers? It's not about the answers, but about the questions, and they change daily.
I certainly don't have my mind made up yet, nor do I expect to be able to fully support any candidate, but more than any of the others I like Obama's thoughtful approach.
For all the bluster in some quarters about the greatness of our nation, they sure seem ready to leave it in the hands of fools.
-
Target is upscale shopping?
This is news to me.
More Clinton-payroll tripe from Salon...
-
Good article, fair questions . . .
I applaud Shapiro for a fair presentation -- and for expressing his uncertainty over Obama's appeal.
From the perspective of this one voter, I would say that Obama's appeal for me rests on the following factors:
1. How does he measure up on foreign policy?
For this election the pre-invasion Iraq actions and words are something of a litmus test for me. I can vote for a candidate who voted for the 2002 AUMF, but I give greater credit to those candidates who recognized problems with the Iraq policy early on. Late adopters, I especially worry about.
I believe Obama's statements regarding the wrong-headedness of the war in 2002, the uncertain costs and indefinite nature of the occupation, and the distraction from the fight against militants are especially prescient in hindsight. I don’t think this pre-war stance can be discounted. I have also made note of the fact that Obama highlighted the oil dependence issue in 2002 as a factor that we SHOULD be focusing on in place of the Iraq invasion. Given the degree to which oil complicates our foreign policy, I am glad to see that he GETS it (and understood one big issue well before many others). If we are able to reduce oil dependence this will make life much easier for our nation from pretty much every perspective (e.g. strategic, economic, and moral). The global warming angle here makes this an even more vital issue.
It is also significant that Obama has made this issue a priority while in the Senate (the bipartisan Obama Lugar American Fuels Act). Obama has also worked with Lugar on non-proliferation issues – achieving a fairly significant piece of bipartisan legislation earlier this year (Lugar Obama nonproliferation initiative). Whether by instinct or education, Obama’s understanding of these issues is leading him in the right direction before others. I think this is significant.
We also face some significant national security and economic challenges vis a vis the developing world. I think a ground-level, first-hand understanding of the people – and not just the political leaders in these countries and regions – is likely to guide Obama in the right policy directions. He has a very broad base of life experiences to draw from – I see this as a significant asset.
2. Economic policy. Obama hits the right notes here, and as stated in the article -- the fact that he has effectively lived a middle class lifestyle in the very recent past is likely to give him a degree of sympathy for the difficulties that America's middle class currently faces – e.g. whether we are talking about a stagnant median wage, health care, or other issues (I think all of the Democratic candidates are good in this area and will represent a significant improvement over Bush). His work as a community organizer also demonstrates a commitment to public service. He’ll need to rely a bit on the advisers, but from everything I have heard Obama is a quick study. He’ll do well.
3. Constitutional issues. Obama's legal background on the Harvard Law review and as a Constitutional Law professor will allow him to identify quickly whether his legal staff is expounding policies that are consistent with precedent and American law. I’d like to think we could take this one for granted, but after the disaster that has been George W. Bush's presidency this area needs a lot more scrutiny.
Related to “structural” issues I also applaud Obama’s work in the state legislature and more recently at the federal level in concert with Senator Feingold and other to fix the electoral system. There is still plenty of work to be done, but Obama has shown a sincere and long-term commitment to this issue.
4. Management style. I’m looking for candidates who run fairly open, not too heavily packaged campaigns (e.g. denying interviews to publications that are planning to write something negative – avoiding questions as a matter of practice; getting scripted questions from audience members at “town hall meetings”!). The last two presidents have both governed in a manner that was fairly similar to the manner in which they campaigned – so I think it’s reasonable to expect the same from this current batch of candidates. Does the candidate allow him or herself to be subject to real scrutiny, or does the campaign lean almost exclusively on political sales techniques developed in 1930s Germany (or 1990s Texas)?
4. Integrity. Part of this is intuitive -- but I trust what Obama says, and realize that he is not trying to pull the wool over my eyes. His commitment to public service suggests that he will fight for my interests if elected. He also does not pander. The fact that he "tells it like it is" is a quality that I appreciate. He is able to communicate complicated issues without grossly oversimplifying the message for his audience. He does not seem to have a Manichean world-view. All pluses.
5. Intelligence. All of the Demcratic candidates are fine in this regard. Obama's particular kind of intelligence has allowed him to learn his Senatorial job very quickly -- he has made quick progress up a steep learning curve -- and achieved some legislative successes even as a first-term Senator. I think much like fellow left-handed politicos Bill Clinton and Jim Webb there will be missteps in the first year or two, but much like Bill Clinton I think he will also get up to speed about as quickly as one could hope for. I think he will be excellent in this regard.
A long post, but for those wondering why Obama is getting the attention he’s getting – this is one voter's perspective.