Reason to Vote for Obama: His Record
Ok, Ok, I know musical tastes are not proper criteria to vote for President (see my spiel on the White House blues performance), but I also know many actually vote on criteria equally trivial.
Wow! If there was ever a doubt whether I would vote for Obama again in the November election, it was dispelled last week when, as a part of an invited group of blues artists to perform in the White House, Mick Jagger of the Stones was invited (along with other greats like B.B. King and Buddy Guy)! That is exactly who I would invite to perform at the White House if I were President! Moreover, the musical director was Booker T. Jones (remember Booker T. & the MG’s?) and when Barack & Michelle entered for the performance, instead of pompous state music, Booker T. played his greatest hit “Green Onions.” How cool was that? Those of you who know me know I am dead SERIOUS about this. Vote for the guy who was sitting front row on a White House stage grooving to Mick’s “Miss You,” accompanied by Jeff Beck’s guitar, and, later, to Mick’s version of a Howlin’ Wolf classic. [February 29 at 2:03pm]
I’ve gotten many Facebook responses from Cisco-connected folk and from some of my former students expressing shock or concern that I will vote again for Obama. They flatter me by saying they consider me intelligent, but do not think any intelligent person would vote for Obama, because of his record. To these I would like to return some shock and concern.
First of all, I am shocked and concerned you think I am intelligent… No! No! that is not what I meant to say!!!… I mean, I agree that one should vote for a President (an incumbent one) on the basis of his/her record. I am shocked that these responders I’ve defined above (who I know are intelligent) are NOT voting for Obama because of what they perceive as his record!
“…what they perceive as his record…”– that is the key phrase.
Indulge me a brief walk down “Memory Lane:” In 1960, when I was a freshman in Cisco High School, we had a mock school-wide Presidential election between JFK and Nixon. Nixon won in a huge landslide, and I was one of the handful of students who voted for JFK. Why? Not only to be different (one of my many foibles, as so many of you who know me are aware), but because I refused to be suckered in by the silly, stupid political propaganda about JFK at the time. (Some of you may remember: As a Catholic, he would appoint all Catholics on his Cabinet, place Catholic priests in positions of power all over the country, consult his bishop and the Pope when making all decisions, and have a “hot-line” to the Vatican.) My propensity to be different helped me to recognize this as propaganda: As so many of you who know me also know, across the years I know probably a little too much about Nazi Germany than necessary for the normal human being — you should see some of the books in my personal library. In other words, even back then when I was a goofy HS freshman, I could recognize silly, stupid political propaganda when I heard it.
In 1960 JFK-bashers, as I will call them, used the propaganda trick of “straw-man” tactics, wherein a false version of the man JFK was built up so that he could be cut-down, destroyed, or “burned at the stake” by appealing to the patriotism of voters who, for whatever reasons, “swallowed” all or part of the propaganda. This is exactly the same tactics the Nazis used in building the “straw-men” of European Jews, only with far more sinister goals than just winning elections.
Nowadays, in 2008 and in 2012, Obama-bashers, as Bill Maher and others have correctly, I think, pointed out, are building a “straw-man” Obama, a man who does not exist, to cut-down, destroy, and burn — all so that he is not elected for a second term. Since the 2010 elections, the Republican/Tea Party-dominated Congress has held the nation in extreme partisan gridlock, so that our elected representatives, Congressmen & Senators, are reduced to a “do-nothing” Congressional session while the country’s citizens are struggling and suffering from unemployment, unaffordable health care, and a crumbling pubic infrastructure, all economically worsened by military expenses overseas. And all this motivated largely by the political agenda to make Obama look bad, to deliberately assure Obama will have an unsuccessful, ineffective Presidency.
We have had Presidencies in the past with one party in the White House and the other controlling Congress, but none with such little willingness on Capitol Hill to compromise for the good of the people. And it is not because Obama hasn’t tried. One of the reasons I am voting for him again is that part of his record is: he has made the effort to compromise, to get things done, to respond to the needs of Americans everywhere — in other words, to do the job for which he was elected. My main criticism of Obama is that he has not done this strongly enough — that he is not another Andrew Jackson. But I think we see in him recently a little more resemblance to Jackson, but, unlike Jackson, Obama has had to walk the tightrope of being the first multi-racial President. (Although, I think any of us elected President would qualify as multi-racial; I for instance, would be Scotch-Irish, Cherokee Indian, and God-knows-what-else.)
Yes, the “elephant in the room” nobody wants to talk about openly because of political correctness is that he is “dark-skinned” — “black.” Actually, he is half black. Perhaps only among African-American racists is he referred to as “half white.” Actually, he is half white. I sadly think that racism is a covert, perhaps even subconscious, engine that drives the Obama-bashers. The “straw-man” Obama is at least partially built with the fuel of racism.
It is time to compare the records of the real Obama with the “straw-man” Obama:
The “straw-man” version goes something like this: he is not an American citizen, born in Kenya; he is not a Christian, but a secret Muslim, as proven by a sojourn in Indonesia; he is a Marxist-socialist — anti-capitalism and anti-business; he blindly follows the teachings of the liberation theologist whose sermons he used to attend; he is “out to get” the oil companies; he apologizes to every foreign country for us being the United States; he is a wimp; he wants to redistribute everyone’s wealth so everybody has the same meager amount; and (my personal favorites, as these touch my very alive and well roots in Cisco) he will take away all our guns and tax all our cattle because they fart methane!
Look at the record of the real Obama — the reason to vote for him again:
- He is a native-born American, more so than John McCain (born in the Canal Zone)
- He is a Christian (probably not my brand of Christianity, but then again, I’ve not met anyone else who has my brand)
- He saved the auto mobile industry
- Despite the devastated economy left by W’s administration we are, as he predicted, slowly making our way back — seen the stock market the last few weeks?
- Unemployment is painfully and slowly getting better — how much better could it be now without Congressional gridlock? A whole lot better, I say
- He dialed up the deaths of bin Laden, other Muslim terrorist leaders, and Somalian pirate kidnappers (some “wimp”!)
- Since his election, our global credibility has rebounded remarkably. The US is held in the highest esteem since Clinton or Carter. (That means we are respected, not feared, for all you war hawks.)
- He nixed the pipe-line from Canada for environmental reasons, calling for a compromised plan that will satisfy our energy needs (I think we are getting such a line.) without trashing so much of our natural landmarks along the way.
- We have a start to a universal health plan I trust will lead us to a single-payer system we know works in other countries
- Wall Street is more regulated now, saving our wealth from the greed of out-of-control capitalists
- He has a tax reform plan even the humane super-rich (W. Buffett) would go for, helping out all us in the middle class
- He has brought home our troops from Iraq, as promised, which should prove in the long run to be a big boost in our economy
- He lead a slick observation and gentle nudging of the successes of the Arab Spring without getting us into another “hot war”
- He has presided over what appears to be a great turn-around in North Korea
- He wants to help States repair their civil infrastructures
- I think he is setting up an honorable removal of our troops from Afghanistan
- We still have all our guns
- All our cattle still fart methane on the ranches around Cisco tax free
- The “devil” in me compels me to add that he loves the blues and invited Mick Jagger to the White House to perform
I know many of you, if not Obama bashers, can add more reasons of your own.
So, I am the one shocked and concerned. Why aren’t you voting for Obama, especially when you consider the parade of poor candidates the Republicans are squabbling over? Compared to the real, not “straw-man,” Obama, it looks like a parade of clowns to me, just like the decades-long parade of Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. we’ve had to endure.
To set my personal record straight, I am not a Democrat, as the above paragraph might indicate, despite the fact I have never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in my life. Of course I am also not a Republican; I consider myself independent, of no party — a-partisan. I vote for the man (or woman, when that time comes), not a party.
Thanks to his record, it is a no-brainer for me to vote for Obama this fall.
RJH
Follow me!
I too remember the election in CHS in 1960, but I won’t claim to be that deep of a thinker then, just glad I had forward thinking parents to help guide me.
I too will vote for Obama again, and tho sometime I’m not thrilled he hasn’t been able to do as much as I hoped, I do understand the problems a President has getting his agenda across.
BUT… as you said, if for no other reason than his White House Blues Show would have cinched it! WOW, what a line up.. great show! (huge blues fan lol)
Gee Doc, I don’t know… I agree with a lot of what you said, but I still take issue with a few things.
It’s definitely true that there have been a lot of bad rumors about Obama, but I don’t consider the fact that these rumors are false to be a reason to reelect him. I think that by far the most important thing to look at is his handling of the economy. While the economy might have “turned around” now, this is not necessarily proof of good economic policy. The problem with economics is that it is not a truly testable science. If we could have two identical United States in the exact same condition as after the financial collapse in 2008 and then implement Obama’s plan for recovery in one and do nothing in the other, then we could truly see which nation would be better off. Of course this is totally impossible.
Free markets indisputably have a natural tendency to generate wealth on their own (without government intervention). The assumption that the recession would at some point end was beyond doubt among economists. Thus the vital question is whether the economy would have rebounded faster had President Obama’s policies not been enacted.
The main steps Obama took to fix the economy were his stimulus bill and his bailout of the auto industry, but he spent most of his time on healthcare. Each of these initiatives have wealth redistribution as their main theme. The goal is to take money from the productive half of society, the private sector, through taxation, or to borrow from other countries, and then give the money to industries or programs that Mr. Obama and other bureaucrats approve of. In the end he brought us from a $459 billion deficit to a $1.1 trillion deficit in four years. The biggest drain, Obamacare, has not been put into practice yet.
This gives rise to another important question: Who knows best how to spend your money? You or corporate lobbyists? Invariably, when government yields such tremendous economic power, corporations (the big ones that can afford to) clamor for a piece of the pie. Liberals often cite special interest lobbying as proof of the evils of big business. Ironically, the real problem is big government. When bureaucrats are allowed to pick winners and losers — that is when corruption thrives. Perhaps this is seen most blatantly in the “military-industrial complex” that you have mentioned before on your website. Corporations buddy-up with politicians, and politicians in turn pay them with your money. If, on the other hand, you were to pay corporations directly in exchange for a product that you yourself receive, things would go quite differently. You, instead of lobbyists, would have control over what you get, how much you spend, what the corporation does, whether or not the corporation fails, etc.
Spending is ideal when an individual spends his own money on a product for himself. This way both the quality and price of the product are taken into account by the spender. Things are worse when someone spends their own money on something for someone else. This way they do not care as much about the quality of the product, but still care about the cost. Conversely, if someone spends someone else’s money on something for himself, he cares about the quality but not the price. Finally, spending is the worst when someone spends someone else’s money on something for someone else. This way neither the quality nor the cost of the product is taken into account. Mr. Obama, and government in general, spends money the fourth way.
Thus a purely free market society without government-imposed socialist practices results in the most efficient allocation of capital. This phenomenon is similar to the first thing engineers learn that you told us about in class. The economy is like a machine. Government spending cannot “win.” It could theoretically “tie” within a degree of error, but it always loses. In other words, given ideal policy decisions, without any bureaucratic waste, government could perfectly redistribute wealth without a net loss of capital, but this never happens, and government certainly cannot CREATE capital by taking from some and giving to others.
So yes, (4, 5) the economy is improving, but this is due to natural free market forces; Obama’s policies have actually slowed growth. (3) The automotive industry is thriving, along with oil companies and the military-industrial complex, at the expense of the average American taxpayer who made it clear that he did not want to drive an American car anyway. (10) Government now has its hands in Wall Street, meaning increased public interference in private spending and dramatically increased pressure on corporations to lobby, provoking corruption. (9) The government will now spend OUR money on healthcare for US, a system that cannot be known to be beneficial in other countries due to the untestability of economics. (11) Obama plans to drain even more resources from the private sector if reelected.
Thank you for writing this article. It was well written and made me doubt what I already believed.
Tim,
Thanks for your well-written comment. I realized that Presidential politics was not an area we got to talk about a lot when you paid one of your many interesting visits to my classes back in the “good ‘ol days.”
When it comes to Presidents, false rumors ARE to me red flags; the question of why such propaganda is utilized is begged. In Obama’s case, I agree with Bill Maher that a straw man Obama has to be built by his detractors in order to cut him down, his record is so good.
I do not think the most important thing to consider in a President is the economy — far from it. We need a statesman, not a businessman. Whether it be a down-and-dirty statesman like LBJ, an idealistic statesman like Thomas Jefferson, or a mixture of both like Andrew Jackson, any type statesman is far, far better than a CEO of some sort; Donald Trump is a case in point of someone who should never be allowed near the White House. And Mitt reminds me of Donald.
A businessman cannot have the best interest of the country foremost, it seems to me, for profit, specifically personal profit, is the mantra of business and capitalism. Nothing wrong with that, except it falls far, far short of what is needed to run the Oval Office. I just named you three of my all-time favorite Presidents, none of them known for business, none requiring business for their success. Look at the great businessmen who were President — can you name them? I sure can’t.
But you insist on talking economic issues, so let’s talk: even in the issues you bring up, I think Obama trumps a guy like Romney. You would have nothing done to rescue industries like the automobile industry? Wow! Ever read up on the Great Depression?
I agree that the free market creates wealth. And that is why the “redistribution of wealth” is so misunderstood by the knee-jerk Obama-bashers. In a healthy economy, with a strong middle class, the rich get richer, an so does the middle class — all off the newly created wealth. (So your “take from the rich and give to the poor” argument — a “conservation of wealth” argument if you please, does not apply.) And this happens even when the fat cats are paying their fair share of taxes.
Clinton brought us out of national deficit into a national surplus, which George W. squandered with his policies to the brink of a disastrous recession. Bill did it by the same policies Obama is trying to install in even better form, but has been stalled by a gridlocked Congress whose agenda is to make Obama fail, ignoring the needs and issues of the people who elected them.
Just as Social Security made it possible for me to go to college, universal medical care (Obamacare) will save families life-gutting medical bills by allowing all to benefit from a regimen of preventive medicine, similar to the one I am on now under Medicare. I’ve never been healthier. That is how you test health care; it is not beyond testing. If universal medical care in places like Canada, GB, Sweden, etc. was so economically bad as you and others imply, why haven’t these countries shaken these programs off like water off a wet dog? Because, like Social Security, these programs work for the good of the people, just as they were intended.
The private sector simply cannot do the job like the public sector, because the private sector has as its priority the payment of dividends to its stockholders –not the needs and well-being of the people.
And, by the way, my experience is that my investments in the form of annuities always seem to do much better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones. And Romney wants us to return to those conditions in the economy that gutted my investments temporarily during the Bush administration? Give me a break! With only one term with Obama, my investments have completely recovered from the losses and are surging up and beyond what they were in 2008. From my perspective, Obama has not slowed down economic growth.
I trust a President who wants the economy to work for the people and who wants jobs and money to stay here instead of a profit-motivated “entrepreneur” who makes a living outsourcing business outside the US and who keeps his money in foreign bank accounts.
And we need more businessmen like Warren Buffet and fewer like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. We need a President like Barack Obama, for reasons among the least of which are his excellent economic record.
Thanks again for responding, and let’s keep up the exchange. Hope things are going well for you in higher education. I also hope you are checking out other posts here on my website; as you can see, I’m “all over the place” when it comes to topics.
Doc Hastings
Thanks for responding to my comment! I was afraid that you wouldn’t notice it since it was on such an old article.
I realize that you do cover many topics on here. This one just particularly struck me since I’ve started reading Milton Friedman’s hit book “Capitalism and Freedom.” Also the combination of a summer with nothing to do, a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, and the presidential election has also contributed to my interest in economics.
Anyway, I am liking Notre Dame a lot, and as of now I am on track for a double major in physics and economics, even though I haven’t had an economics class yet. How do you like your new group of juniors at Canterbury?
I admit that I am a little like the other ex-students you reference in the article. I hold you in such high regard that it is a little worrisome to know that you do not agree with me.
First of all I would like to distance myself as much as possible from Mitt Romney and the Republicans! God knows they have a million of their own problems, not the least of which is their public perception as ultra-rich warmongering elitists. That’s why I was so careful not to mention them in my last comment.
However, regarding any motive for trashing Obama, I think the Republicans (and the Super PACs and all the greedy corporations) just want to win by whatever means work. And it does work on certain people. It’s all very amoral, and it’s not unlike Team Obama’s characterization of Romney. They portray him as an evil, greedy business man that destroys people’s lives for profit. While Obama’s version of Romney might be less dependent on facts (For example, it is a matter of fact whether or not Obama was born in America; whether or not Romney is cold-hearted is more a matter of opinion), this is only a choice of style on Obama’s part. He simply thinks that not blatantly lying is a more effective means of being elected. I submit to you that if Obama knew he had a 100% chance of being reelected if he told a lie about Romney, he would do it in a heartbeat. Everyone knows the candidates want to win, and if they weren’t willing to do whatever it takes to win, then they wouldn’t have got this far. In the end, each party’s motive for every move they make is the same: Power. There is no hidden motive.
I consider the economy the most important issue because I think it has the most direct impact on Americans’ lives, and it is among the most fixable. Ultimately, it’s just a matter of opinion though.
If I wanted to rescue the automobile industry, I would have donated my own money, probably in the form of a car purchase. This way the quality of the product determines the success of the business — not political connections or pressure from autoworkers’ unions. Unfortunately, Obama made the decision in the individual’s stead. He decided to spend our money and future generations’ money on the cars. He needed to keep the union’s support if he wanted to be reelected.
I honestly don’t know much about the Great Depression. Could you please elaborate?
However, I don’t put much stock in historical evidence as proof of economic theory anyway. Given the untestability of economics, it is impossible to know if an economy would have fared better over the same time period had different policies been enacted. Thus all knowledge of economics must be reached a priori, not based on experience but rather through reason alone. This position complements beautifully my lack of historical knowledge.
I’m sorry if I lead you to believe that when governments redistribute wealth they “take from the rich and give to the poor.” In fact I was saying nearly the opposite. Obama’s administration has taxed the general population and turned the revenue over to massive corporations. Then the CEOs decide what to do with it. Since the rich usually pay a lower marginal tax rate (since their money comes more from investments rather than income, and they can afford to hire the best professionals to find loopholes in overly complicated tax law) a disproportionate amount of the tax revenue comes from the middle class. Effectively, wealth is taken from the middle class and given to the 1%. Then the fat cats pay themselves bonuses courtesy of BHO.
I do cede my “conservation of wealth” argument. Rather, I should have applied the same principle to government spending relative to private sector spending. So, under ideal circumstances, government can allocate wealth as efficiently as the free market, but this never happens as free market allocation is the upper limit of efficiency that any spending can achieve.
As for medical care, economically it is bad. It is perfectly rational to justify socialized medicine on moral grounds. I believe this is one of the main reasons so many countries keep it. Plus there is the fact that, after creating a public dependence on government involvement, it is incredibly hard to de-legislate a social service. That’s when they start releasing the “granny commercials” as Mr. O’Connor calls them.
I know I’ve only responded to about the first half of your comment, but this one is getting pretty long. I’ll probably finish it up later. Thanks again for the debate so far!
I hope I’ve not given the impression this is a debate, for I do not consider it such. I do not anticipate changing people’s minds — that is up to them, and, in my opinion, involves no loss or win for anyone involved. You are not the only one to approach me on these issues as if it is a debate, however.
I prefer to call these discussion exchanges, open to anyone who wants to participate, and not subject to rules beyond those of common courtesy.
A lesser intellect than you might cause one concern stating the duality of a major such as yours; of you, however, I have no fear of your sinking into some kind of schizophrenia.
This is my way of agreeing with the testability and objectivity of science compared with the untestability and subjectivity of economics (and, its sister area — politics). In the former issues are resolved into a consensus with mathematical rationality; in the latter issues are debated into an irrational stalemate.
Despite the fact I like to post on this website as rationally as possible, I know most of its issues deal with opinion and taste. It is my considered opinion, therefore, that in these two fields of physics and economics both need to watch placing the criteria of one field upon the criteria of the other. I think it is wrong-headed to think economics can be done scientifically, and I think it is wrong-headed to think of science as an economic or political endeavor.
Nonetheless, I have had to speak as a politician in front of the Texas State School Board in defense of good science inside students’ science textbooks. And, I have criticized heavily economic theory (capitalism, communism, etc.) thought of in the same way relativity theory or evolutionary theory are, as if economics makes sense and is verified by nature or “human nature,” whatever the latter is.
As an undergraduate I recall having a lively running debate (this was a debate, not like this website) with a political science major about which has been the greater contributor to the progress of civilization, science or politics (read economics). It occurred to me you can have this same debate with yourself!
All I know is I could not have equal interest in your two fields, but that is just me. You might bring some rational rigor to economic theory, and bring it out of the “dark age” of human whim, tendency, irrationality, opinion, and greed. Despite its dirty association with weaponry and occasional inhumane objectivity, to me science is far more humane, far more filled with hope and optimism through its medicine, inspiration, and awe than is economics and the politics that drive it with their dehumanizing the “have nots” in the context of limited resources and the blood of millions on their hands because, as you indicated, resolutions cannot be done rationally.
Turning to the Presidential race, to emphasize economics as the most important issue reminds me of a guy in a Great Books reading group Ms. Hoffmann and I are in here in Waxahachie. He has repeatedly said that over 2/3 of the US Constitution has to do with economics, as if the American Revolution was an economic revolt. I’ve read it twice since and called him on it, asking, “What document are you reading? It certainly wasn’t our Constitution: It is a revolutionary construction of a brand new form of government at the time, devoted to the details of the blueprints of this government.” He still maintained his position, even passing out copies of the Constitution as part of his leading the night’s topic on one occasion, and each time I read it, topics like trade, money, and commerce are but mentioned on the side (maybe not even 1/10 of the document).
The recession of 2008 was caused by the deregulation of banks and Wall Street by the Bush Jr. administration. Only the bipartisan bail-out of the new Obama administration kept the recession from devolving into a full-blown Depression such as began in 1929, in which deregulated banks and Wall Streeters irresponsibly “bet” on paper assets not backed up by actual wealth. When the banks were “called” on these bets, they collapsed, and people’s savings disappeared, just like the value of our annuities began disappearing in 2008. FDR in the 30’s and Obama in 2009 both restored regulation on the banks, and the recovery from a recession by Obama was easier than that from the Great Depression. The stimulus you think was so bad not only saved the banks, these banks have all but repaid the government the “loan” given them, and people like myself have seen our annuity investments return to levels even higher than they were in 2008 at a remarkably fast rate, all because confidence in the economy was back on the rise.
The Republican economic agenda, to me, is a call to return to the conditions that have proven themselves responsible of bringing us down into a recession. To return like this is a step backwards, which seems pretty stupid to me.
I sense a healthy cynicism from you concerning the realm of politics. This I share, as I am a child of the 60’s, the Vietnam era, out of which I came up with the mantra, “Do not trust priests, preachers, and politicians.” The “3-P’s.” The first two P’s are another subject, but the last one indicates the conviction inside me that politicians, all of them, can and do lie. When I support a President or Presidential candidate, like I have Clinton and Obama, it is a selection of the lesser of two evils. I am not sure it can be any better than that, so subjective and full of human foibles is the dirty business of politics.
Again, my personal criterion: who of the two candidates is most like Jefferson or Jackson? In this election of 2012, the answer to that is a no-brainer. This criterion has resulted in my never voting for a Republican runner for President in my life, which in turn has erroneously labeled me a Democrat; I think of myself as an independent, associated with no party — a-partisan, if you please.
Let me stop here for now. Thanks for you input, and I hope you are enjoying the exchange.
Doc Hastings