There are two endorsements that have come out over the last few days that have really touched me: The Economist’s endorsement of Barack Obama and Andrew Sullivan’s post just now endorsing the same. They touch me for entirely different reasons; one because it is so unexpected and indicative of the moment, and the other because, as regular readers of this blog may know, I share Sullivan’s sense of urgency. I stand by everything I said in my own endorsement almost eight months ago, so I won’t revisit my personal thoughts here, but I think sharing these two, very different endorsements helps those who may not have made up their minds yet and reminds the rest of us why we have. And a quick note on two other resources: our Presidential election page has tons of information and this Google map of paper endorsements is fun.
Frankly, it is not the prose of The Economist endorsement that interests me as much as it is the statement that they are endorsing Obama at all. As much as I respect love The Economist’s reporting (it’s second to none as far as magazine world news goes), their editorial board is notably conservative. Perhaps not in an American fiscal and social conservative manner, but certainly in the fiscal aspect. Yet, here they are, endorsing a man that John McCain would have you believe is a socialist… it is an interesting time. Revealing part of the underlying logic of the endorsement, it begins with a discussion of how disappointing that the “real” John McCain disappeared over the course of this election:
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
And adds these kind words for Obama:
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
Now, Sullivan’s endorsement interests me for the opposite reason. We all know he loves Obama, but man does he know how to say it. His whole endorsement is definitely worth the read, but his last few paragraphs really get to the core of why I think Obama is not only the right choice, but essential for the vitality of this nation:
The truth is: we are in a war for the future of human civilization. We are fighting for a world in which destructive technology need not collide with fierce religious fundamentalism to annihilate us all; for a world in which dialogue across cultures and religions and regions (even within America) is essential if we are to survive. We need to win the argument in the developing world; we need to reach out and persuade the Muslim middle - especially the next generation in Iran and Iraq and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Western Europe - about the virtues of democracy and constitutionalism. We cannot do that if we trash our own values ourselves. It is self-defeating. We cannot be a beacon to the world until we have reformed ourselves. In this war, we are also fighting for an America that does not lose its soul in fighting our enemy. Just because we are fighting evil does not mean we cannot ourselves succumb to it. That is what my Christian faith teaches me - that no nation has a monopoly on virtue, and that every generation has to earn its own integrity. I fear and believe we have given away far too much - and that, while this loss is permanent, it can nonetheless be mitigated by a new start, a new direction, a new statement that the America the world once knew and loved is back.
It will not be easy. The world will soon remember why it resents America as well as loves it. But until this unlikely fellow with the funny ears and strange name and exotic biography emerged on the scene, I had begun to wonder if it was possible at all. I had almost given up hope, and he helped restore it. That is what is stirring out there; and although you are welcome to mock me for it, I remain unashamed. As someone once said, in the unlikely story of America, there is never anything false about hope. Obama, moreover, seems to bring out the best in people, and the calmest, and the sanest. He seems to me to have a blend of Midwestern good sense, an intuitive understanding of the developing world that is as much our future now as theirs’, an analyst’s mind and a poet’s tongue. He is human. He is flawed. He will make mistakes. His passivity and ambiguity are sometimes weaknesses as well as strengths.
But there is something about his rise that is also supremely American, a reminder of why so many of us love this country so passionately and are filled with such grief at what has been done to it and in its name. I endorse Barack Obama because I will not give up on America, because I believe in America, and in her constitution and decency and character and strength.
And the world needs that America now as much as it ever has. Can we start that healing, that rebirth, tomorrow?
Yes. We. Can.
FWIW, The Economist has a consistent record of endorsing non-incumbents.
1980: Reagan
1984: No Endorsement
1988: No Endorsement
1992: Clinton
1996: Dole
2000: Bush
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama
Their last endorsements have been quite interesting: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12499760.
But I guess the only one that surprises me there is Clinton in ‘92. Otherwise it meshes with their preference for Republicans with the big exception that they found Bush far too incompetent to endorse. If you look at the Kerry endorsement, it’s really more of an anti-Bush rationale than anything approaching a pro-Kerry one.
As a subscriber to The Economist, I was quite surprised at their endorsement of Sen. Obama considering the tone of their reporting on him during the campaign. I figured they’d go with a non-endorsement. And Matt is right, it is one of the best magazines on international reporting out there. Right up there with the BBC web site. Too bad it is so expensive — puts it out of range for many.
There are three endorsements that tell me this Obama guy might be worth a flier. Colin Powell, Warren Buffett, and Paul Voelcker. But still, I voted for John McCain because I agree with more of his positions.
What our Neighbours to the North are saying (Conrad Black, National Post):
“Senator Barack Obama, who has the most liberal voting record of any current U.S. senator, is well to the left, according to all polls, of most Americans. He is surging toward the feat recently achieved by Stephen Harper in Canada: Being elected although most of his countrymen are ideologically closer to his chief opponent.”
I think the real reality is that this country is far more moderate than they realize. The word “liberal” has been given such negative connotations, people don’t want to believe that they agree with many of the modern day principles of the democratic party. Things like pay as you go, limited government, balanced budgets and personal freedoms.
Parties flip over the course of time, and I think the republicans are no longer the party of true conservative values, unless you are talking about extreme fundamental religious views.
Barack Obama will be a wonderful president. He will bring this country together in the same way as Ronald Reagan. We need that right now.
swd -
You raise an interesting point. My wife and I had a long talk this weekend about our views (she is a moderate D and I am a moderate R). Since I’m pro-choice (really dislike the concept of aborting a fetus, but I respect the privacy between any patient and her doctor, which is was Roe v. Wade really was) and I care about environmental stewardship, I asked aloud how close I was to being a Democrat.
It all came down to two issues for me: Redistribution of Wealth, and an Activist Judicial Bench. I just can’t get on board with either one.
As for the rest of the Democratic platform, don’t tell anyone but….. I’m actually OK with most of it. (shhhhh)
Reaganomics has not been a redistribution of wealth, DantheMan?
Explain.
An “activist judicial bench” is in the mind of the beholder, DtM. I think it is an inherent complaint in any system that has a judicial check on ther remaining branch(es) of government. I’m curious as to any specific examples of activism you might have.
Nitro - Explain your question. When you tax people for the purpose of operating the government, that is not wealth redistribution. When you tax people for purposes of giving that money to another group, that is wealth redistribution.
Randy - Courts are charged with the Constitution and laws of the country to each case at hand. “Settled Law” means something.
- The SCOTUS eminent domain case, where the law somehow “evolved” to allow our government to take property for revitalization. I’m all for regentrification, but not through eminent domain.
- Obama’s comments in 2007 regarding “empathy” in our judges concerned me greatly: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” What does that mean? Feeling sorry for someone trumps the constitution and/or settled law???
- The appointment of judges should be done based on one’s ability to interpret law, without regard to what their congressional agenda would be. Can anyone tell me why Barack Obama voted against the nomination of John Roberts and Sam Alito? How were they not qualified? Meanwhile, McCain voted for both Clinton nominees because… he felt they were qualified. This is troubling to me that Obama is not simply looking for qualified judges. He is looking for judges who agree with his positions.
Ahh, I see DantheMan,
SO rolling back the tax structure that had been in place since Teddy Roosevelt that taxed the rich at a high rate until Reagan was Socialism then, huh.
How did America survive that?
How did socialist America win World War2?
Why are you crying about taxing the wealthy at the same rate Reagan did?
Could it be possible, DantheMan, that your Republican party is dominated by a bunch of EXTREMISTS?
Just wondering.
Nitro -
Sorry to not bite, but YES, the GOP is run by a bunch of extremists. The religious right has taken over. That is what is wrong with the party today. I don’t buy in to the James Dobson stuff.
And I believe in a progressive tax system. It is highly progressive today.
The question is not so much about taxes. The question is about where the money goes. Paying progressive income tax to fund infrastructure, military, k-12 education, etc. - that is all good. Here is a dirty little secret for you: If congress decided to make govt operations more efficient, cut unecessary programs, controlled or curbed entitlement spending, and at the end of all that told me I need to pay 2% more in my tax rate to pay down the debt, I’d say “Sure”.
But Obama’s proposal is to take MORE from people who earn and give it to people who pay no taxes. That is redistribution in my book.
Like Teddy Roosevelt and every President up until Reagan did.
So who pays no taxes right now DantheMan?
just wondering
Nitro -
“Like Teddy Roosevelt and every President up until Reagan did.”
What are you referring to? Your writing is cryptic.
“Obama’s proposal is to take MORE from people who earn and give it to people who pay no taxes.”
Tell me who it is who pays no taxes.
OK, Nitro. You got me on a technicality. In a paragraph where I was writing about Obama’s tax proposal, which focuses on Income Taxes, I didn’t clarify that 1/3 of Americans paid no INCOME taxes. I guess I need to be careful with my words.
Now that we got the spellcheck cleared up, you care to respond to my overall ideas?
From the nonpartisan Tax Foundation website:
“According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.
Tax Foundation estimates show that if all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of these “nonpayers” would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall.”
If, using your fraudulent and disingenuous stats, there has been a 57% increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes, it begs the question of why. Incomes have been stagnant for 8 years for those at the bottom of the economic pile. Meanwhile incomes for the top 5% have increase 150% in the last eight years. What do you suppose the economic outlook would be if those situations were reversed. How do you think the nation would be doing, deficit wise, if the middle class wages had more then doubled in the reign of Bush the lesser and the top wealthy elite class hadn’t seen a rise in their obscene incomes?
The Obama Presidency
On inauguration day there will be a feeling of optimism and accomplishment not felt by our nation in quite awhile. I’d like to believe that America has gotten past judging people by the color of their skin and this would be confirmed by an Obama presidency. I cannot imagine how gratified minorities of all kinds will feel on this day.
Two new senators will have to replace Biden and Obama. It is unlikely that their replacements will be quite as liberal.
Four to six Democratic governors will be chosen for cabinet positions which will require their replacement.
John Edwards will go away. So will Hillary Clinton.
A woman will not be in the White House for at least twelve more years. (Eight years Obama, four years the Republican successor unlikely to be a woman)
U.S. attorneys will be replaced, more than Bush 2, less than Clinton. No one will care. Congressional investigations will continue regarding U.S. attorneys removed by the Bush administration.
After four years, troops will still be in Iraq although their number will be drawn down by the agreement reached with the Iraqis by the Bush administration. Money and troops will pour into Afghanistan and they will remain there well into Obama’s second term. Afghanistan will not be referred to as “Obama’s war”.
Anti-war protests will be virtually non-existent and poorly attended despite continuation of the war on terror.
There will be no embedded reporters in Afghanistan nor daily reports as to the U.S. death toll there.
The country will be in a recession with high unemployment during the mid-term election.
Bailouts will continue with lawsuits possibly beginning against the U.S. government from those companies not receiving them citing discrimination.
Outside of a few nibbles on the edges, healthcare will continue to be a ballooning expense.
There will be nothing done towards changing, improving, or financing Medicare or Social Security.
President Bush will get the blame for most of the country’s problems for at least two more years.
The U.S. Congress, with bigger Democratic majorities in both houses will need to do what they will within the first two years of an Obama presidency as their majorities will begin to shrink with the mid-term election and continue at the next presidential election (which Obama will win).
There will be no tax cuts, although some of the Bush tax cuts may remain in place.
Few of President Obama’s plans will come to fruition as no one in the Congress will carry them, they will be advancing their own agendas.
America’s dependence on foreign oil will increase, gas prices will not be $1.99 (as they are today, the day before the election.)
The stock market will not reach the Bush 14,000 plus mark until Obama’s second term.
Conrad Black? We are talking about the Economist, are you are talking about a piece of garbage like Conrad Black? Christ, why don’t you just cite Michael Savage or the Drudge Report. Never mind that Black was sentenced to 6 years in prison after being convicted of fraud. It never amazes me the depths to which DantheMan will sink.
DtM — To answer your points in order: I didn’t like the eminent domain case, either, but when you read the opinion, the majority deferred to the judgment of the local elected officials in deciding what a “public purpose” is. That strikes me as the very opposite of judicial activism.
Empathy — yes, judges are supposed to decide on the basis of the law and the facts, but their views of hte law and the facts are unquestionably colored by personal biases. To give one example: in a search and seizure case, Justice Scalia (I think) dismissed the claims that a search was involuntary, because it is commonly known that a person does not have to open his luggage when the police asked. Fair enough, but the defendant in that case was riding a Greyhound bus that was stopped for a routine “naughty and nice” check of the passengers. A US Supreme Court justice knows what his rights are under those circumstances — would the average Dog Rider in those circumstances know?
Roberts and Alito — I can’t speak to why Senator Obama voted against them, but I thought they have dangerous views on the expansion of executive power. Our constitutional and legal history has, for the last 800 years, been a struggle to keep that power in check. Let’s not reverse that trend.
tom a. -
I find very little that I can argue with in your post.
I forgot that whichever liberal Supreme justices retire will be replaced by liberal justices. Also, the “scalpel” will not remove any government programs but some new ones will be added while government employees continue to be added to the national payroll.