Why I support Barack Obama

I was an early adopter of the Barack Obama presidential candidacy. The fact that Obama won the nomination, and has a good chance of winning the presidency, is a greater shock to me than to anybody else. It is rare that a candidate I support actually wins.

The United States at large is very evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, red and blue. Until 2006, the balance tilted ever so slightly in favor of the conservatives. In the 2004 Democratic primaries I supported Howard Dean. He lost (though I also supported him for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party, and he won!). In the general election I supported John Kerry, and he lost. My candidate for the U.S. Senate lost to Tom Coburn of all people. Believe me, I hate losing. The criticisms of the liberal supporters of Adlai Stevenson, that they would “rather lose gallantly than win pragmatically”(1) , could not be said of me. I believe democratic politics require compromise, and I was willing to make pragmatic compromises with other factions in the Democratic Party. Sadly, it seems like there are a lot of Democrats who would rather lose than to compromise.

Barack Obama initially attracted me because of his apparent use of George Lakoff’s framing techniques, as described in Lakoff’s book Don’t Think of an Elephant. One of Obama’s speeches was featured as a model of correct framing in Lakoff’s Thinking Points. As a fan of Lakoff’s (as much as anybody can be a “fan” of an academic), I felt that a new approach to political communication was vital for the future of the dwindling Progressive movement in the United States. Conservatives, it seemed, could still win no matter how badly they drove the country into the ground.

As Obama’s momentum began to build, it became apparent that the nomination battle would be between him and Hillary Clinton. I had problems with Clinton, particularly with her claim that she had already survived all the Republican attacks, so she was ready to defeat any Republican candidate. This rang false in my ears. Her husband had only barely survived years of Republican attacks. I remember Hillary being an object of conservative hatred in the 1990s, but their attacks against her were just the side show. The Limbaugh’s of the world were more eager to catch Bill with his pants down. Hillary, for her part, ran for the Senate in a relatively safe state, where she faced a token Republican challenge. Worse, her campaign style seemed to be of the old variety, the style that did not work in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I have the utmost respect for Hillary Clinton, but I was reluctant to relive the Clinton wars of the '90s.

Obama won the nomination, much to my surprise. He also parted with Lakoff’s techniques at times during the campaign, much to my disappointment.

To the extent that Obama stuck with his inclusive campaign strategy, he attracted a large number of independent and young voters. So much so that he developed a large following that came off to some liberals as rather creepy. Jonathan Chait observed, “we don't like personality cults, which is why you never see any bronze busts of Clinton in anybody's den.”(2) The McCain campaign has tried to capitalize on Obama's broad appeal, to turn a strength into a weakness. Chait concludes, as do I, that this criticism is nonsense, born more of Republican jealousy than anything else. Conservatives have no problem elevating Reagan to sainthood. If their candidate could fill a 70,000 seat stadium, they would book him there.

I think it is fair, though, to ask the supporters of any candidate to provide rational reasons for their choice. I have yet to see a rational explanation for the support of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s vice-presidential nominee. In the name of fair play, I will state my reasons for supporting Barack Obama. I will focus mostly on policy, since I believe policy should always outweigh politics and personality. In a campaign, though, there is a limit to how specifically a candidate can go into policy questions. I do have some political reasons for supporting Obama. I will tackle the political reasons first, lest I end this article with them and leave you the impression that they are the most important.

Beyond the possibility of making history as the first African-American president, Barack Obama can also spearhead a new movement in the Democratic Party. It is a repudiation of the “Third Way”, which to most liberals seemed like a capitulation to the conservative wing. Bill Clinton, for all his populism, focused more on balancing the budget than investing in Americans. As I said, I am capable of compromise, and Bill Clinton is my idea of a compromise candidate. Obama, on the other hand, is a true liberal. He is a pragmatic liberal, to be sure. Though intelligent, he is not an academic. He has experience applying liberalism in the real world, as we have seen in his community organizing and in his career in the Illinois legislature and the U. S. Senate. Barack Obama knows how to get things done.

The new wave of Democrats aims at persuading independents and moderates toward the liberal point of view, instead of adopting a hybrid liberal-conservative stance. I call this new group the Young Turks. By framing the debate in liberal terms, the Young Turks can counter the relentless conservative framing on FOX News, and they can argue the merit of their ideas to all Americans. It is an offensive strategy, not the defensive strategy to which the Democrats have resorted in the past. The Young Turks recognize that the old dependence on Democratic voting blocs does not work anymore. The only way we can win in the future is to bring more voters to our side. We can only do that by talking directly with them, using language they understand. This was the impetus of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. (3)

It is important that the Young Turks win in the Democratic Party, but it is also important that a Democrat win the White House in 2008. After Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992, Democrats enjoyed eight years of power, interrupted by the Republican revolution in Congress and personal scandals. Nonetheless, it resulted in years of economic prosperity, and an increase in American prestige and influence around the world. Al Gore could not sustain the winning streak, and George W. Bush brought the conservatives back to power. He won again in the mid-terms, and in 2004. The Democrats took a step forward in 2006, but a Republican victory in 2008 would make the conservative resurgence look less like a fluke and more like a trend. For those waiting for the pendulum to swing back to the left, consider this: the conservatives have already wrecked the economy, wrecked foreign policy, wrecked their own reputations, yet they still have a chance of winning. If the pendulum were to swing on its own, it would have swung by now.

A loss in 2008 would appear to be a generational shift in American politics—a shift to the right. It would be a shift that liberals would consider irrational, since it is clearly not in the interests of the voters who willingly accept conservative rule. I would not consider such a shift irrational, only a failure of the left to make its case. Even so, generational shifts are difficult to stop. It could snowball into Karl Rove’s dreamed-of permanent Republican majority. (4)

As weighty as are these political reasons to support Obama, the policy reasons are more urgent.

First and foremost, Barack Obama will resume the war against terrorism, shifting resources back to Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al-Qaeda are gaining a foothold. This cannot be done with the current troop commitments in Iraq. On his website, Obama says,

The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. (5)

Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden will not end the war against terrorism, but it is a prerequisite to defeating the Islamist terrorists. We may make him a martyr, but he is far more dangerous as a living hero, proof that terrorists can attack America and get away with it. The next president must focus on bringing bin Laden to justice and destroying al-Qaeda. The Bush/McCain war in Iraq ties our hands in the fight against the real enemy.

In the broader area of foreign policy, Obama appears to have an informed, sophisticated, nuanced understanding of the world. His tour of Europe was well received, and cleared up any questions of whether he would be accepted and respected by our allies. Ironically, McCain criticized the trip, despite having previously criticized Obama’s lack of foreign policy credentials. The RNC produced an ad mocking Obama’s European appeal. (6) Obama was damned-if-he-did and damned-if-he-didn’t. In this case, I would prefer that he be damned-if-he-did.

For all John McCain’s supposed experience in foreign policy, his positions are troubling. With respect to McCain’s heroic service in Vietnam, his pathological support of the war in Iraq smacks of someone who learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. He could learn something from Robert McNamara's documentary Fog of War. It is difficult to imagine that Barack Obama would need Joe Lieberman to correct him about Iran’s terrorist training. (7) McCain’s criticism of Obama’s outreach to Europe is troubling for a presidential prospect who would be working with European leaders on important issues. McCain has no shortage of tough talk, but when I imagine a McCain presidency, I tremble for the nation’s security.

The choice of Joe Biden as Obama’s vice-presidential nominee was clearly intended to shore up Obama’s foreign policy credibility. Using a twisted logic, you could call this a political choice, since his foreign policy background on the ticket is certain to gain more votes. I, on the other hand, do not see the pick as an attempt to get votes, but a sincere effort to ensure that the person who will be a heartbeat away from the presidency is one who knows his way around the world.

Contrast this with McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running-mate. It was a purely political choice. She was chosen for her appeal to radical conservative voters. You have to do more than twist logic to see any policy reason for choosing Palin. Executive experience? John McCain has none, so by that criteria she should be at the top of the ticket! Let’s call the Palin pick what it is: a sell-out to the extreme regressive factions of the Republican Party, the end of McCain’s attempt to appeal to moderates, and a vain attempt to draw a few disaffected Clinton supporters. Sarah Palin has no expertise that could help a President McCain in any way. Nor would she have the slightest idea what to do if McCain, already of advanced age and questionable health, were to become unable to serve.

On the domestic policy front, the choice is stark. McCain, while still trying to cloak himself in the mantle of “change”, promises more supply-side tax cuts of the Bush variety. The Bush policies have produced a skittish economy that is weak in the best of times. Supply side economics does not work, despite conservative dogma and the myth of Reagan’s success. McCain’s economic policy, since very early in the campaign, appears to be influenced by Phil Gramm. (8) Gramm is the patron saint of conservatives who think George W. Bush’s economic policies were, *ahem*, not conservative enough. Again, this is a repudiation of McCain’s “maverick” persona and a sell-out to the extreme wing of his party.

For his part, Obama promises economic reform in a myriad different ways. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he promised to cut taxes “for 95 percent of all working families”; “eliminate capital gains taxes for… small businesses and start-ups”; “stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas”; close “corporate loopholes and tax havens”; and eliminate government programs that “no longer work.” (9) That’s a tall order. If he accomplishes half of that, it will be better than the Bush Administration, and far better than anything McCain could hope to produce.

Fiscal policy is something Obama has talked about, but he has said little about the holy grail of fiscal policy: the balanced budget. He does talk about fiscal responsibility on his website, which includes the reinstatement of some of the sound fiscal policies of the Clinton administration. Perhaps he is unsure if he can reach a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but the Clinton example gives hope. Re-instating PAYGO could help him reduce the deficit, at least. No doubt McCain wants to balance the budget, too, but Obama is willing to do one thing that McCain is not: roll back the Bush tax cuts. As noted before, supply side economics does not work. The Laffer Curve does not reflect the real behavior of the economy. While Obama’s fiscal policy does not precisely mimic Clinton’s, McCain’s looks a lot like Bush’s, which looked a lot like Reagan’s. Echoes of the past.

McCain’s answer to joblessness appears to be re-training unemployed workers for new jobs which, I guess, will magically appear out of nowhere. In his acceptance speech, McCain said,

…for workers in industries that have been hard-hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage. (10)

Obama’s health care plan, while initially expensive, is vital for getting medical costs under control. At present, the cost of health care is primarily driven by the insurance companies, not by a “free market” of medical services, or even by the need of patients. Obama’s plan will be criticized as “socialized medicine”, but it is really only an extension of Congress’s health plan to the general population, with a tax break for anyone who can’t afford it. It is a voluntary plan, a point that was contentious in the primaries, but it has a greater chance of passing the legislature without major alteration. A national health care plan is long overdue, and the lack of one has been a drag on the economy. Obama represents a chance to get it done. McCain would ensure that the problem would be passed on to the next generation.

Historically, the American economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans. Even during the Great Depression, where the conventional wisdom says that World War II, not the New Deal, saved the economy, there was actually marked improvements in nearly every aspect of the economy in response to Franklin Roosevelt’s programs. Of course, the country did not fully recover until WWII, when the flower of America’s youth was drafted into the military and made government employees, and both taxes and government spending shot through the roof. The war effort was like the New Deal on steroids. If the WWII ended the depression, it also ends any arguments that the free market was our savior.

That does not make the New Deal a liberal dogma. Democrats have succeeded in many different ways. John Kennedy helped the economy with a demand-side tax cut. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, for all its shortcomings, managed to get the unemployment rate down to 3.6% in 1968. (12) Clinton’s economic boom was spurred by deficit reduction, which made more credit available for private enterprise. Obama does not represent a return to the past—be it the recent Bush past, the less recent Clinton past, or the older Democratic successes of previous decades—but an improvement on all of the above.

On almost all issues, Barack Obama’s opinion is very similar to mine. My opinions on these issues were formed long before Obama began his campaign, so I cannot be accused of post hoc conforming to his ideas. Obama is not a compromise candidate for me; he is the candidate I wanted to win from the beginning. He is the candidate that I believed was necessary for the future of Progressivism in American. My support is not based on mania, or on sheepish following of the Democratic line. Most important of all, I believe the policies that Obama plans to implement will be good for the country.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: