[Op/Ed] Economist: Obama

[Surlethe]

Linka

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017

The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

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.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

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.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Leaving aside their antiquated and wrong spelling of words like "fulfil" and "centre" (:P), I find it interesting how a right-wing magazine like the Economist can still find it in themselves to endorse him. He really seems to be able to unite and reach across the aisle.

[The Dark]

The Economist isn't really right-wing. They've backed both the Conservatives and the Labour Party in the UK, and both Republicans and Democrats in the US. They're really more of a neo-liberal group - socially liberal, open-market with limited regulation (as an example, they've backed carbon taxes, but also support globalization, guest worker programs, and oppose capital punishment). They endorsed Clinton, Clinton, Bush, and Kerry over the last four elections in the US, so this makes 4 Democrats in the last 5 elections that they've endorsed.

[Stargate Nerd]

The Economist isn't really right-wing. They've backed both the Conservatives and the Labour Party in the UK, and both Republicans and Democrats in the US. They're really more of a neo-liberal group - socially liberal, open-market with limited regulation (as an example, they've backed carbon taxes, but also support globalization, guest worker programs, and oppose capital punishment). They endorsed Clinton, Clinton, Bush, and Kerry over the last four elections in the US, so this makes 4 Democrats in the last 5 elections that they've endorsed.

Even endorsing Clinton would make them right-wing. America's politics are tilted so far to the right that to many Obama is a Socialist.

You can see that in this entire write up too, Unions = bad, Democratic Congress = bad, regulation (now cleverly called over-regulation) = bad, the center of the democratic party = bad. It's pretty evident that The Economist is right wing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They were pretty right wing when Russian retaliation response to Georgia's invasions. It was like "Oh No! The Evil Russians are coming! Georgia must be protected!" They are pretty right of the middle, to be frank, constantly extolling democracy as the right of nations.

[Samuel]

Oh yeah- they are right wing in the neo-liberal camp at least. They fear the social conservatives, which is why they are for the Democrats.

Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk.

For example, they say this. I mean, it isn't like he has shown himself able to organize large numbers of people, posts his beliefs on the internet or is facing opponents who are willing to take down the government to stop the opposition... oh, wait!

So yeah, they are a bit to the right... and idiots.

A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article).

I think SitNram debunked this one. Ask him for why it is wrong.

Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

Okay, I take it back- the Economist is in La-La land.

Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

I think this line is true. Of course, given the craziness in the rest of the article, it might be the only one. I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one.

We had a 40 page thread about it. Of course, aside from the Russians being in the right, it is never a good idea to piss of people who have control over natural gas and oil supplies, nukes pointed at you and are a major regional power.

Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein;

And the Economist demonstrates a complete detachment from the world. Yep, all Muslims are Arabs, right? Or maybe not.

Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

Which weren't problems for about half of America's presidents. As for too far to the left... Hitler would be too far to the left for these people.

Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Left and right are not about military muscle! Argh.

Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress?

Because it would be terrible if the US moved industries back to the states or tried to raise revenue that way- why, we might even force them to raise their standards!

His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

They are assuming neo-liberalism works... which the current crisis says "no".

[Stargate Nerd]

And the Economist demonstrates a complete detachment from the world. Yep, all Muslims are Arabs, right? Or maybe not.

Huh? I'm pretty sure Hussein is not a name solely used by Arab Muslim. Kurds and Turks definitely use it.

[Terralthra]

As for too far to the left... Hitler would be too far to the left for these people.

Well, he was the head of the National Socialist party...

[K. A. Pital]

Left and right are not about military muscle! Argh.

It's "the Economist". Not "the Politician". I guess that's why they show remarkably piss-poor quality when discussing anything outside their little scope of financial operations or market analysis.

Specialization, heheh.

[ray245]

Left and right are not about military muscle! Argh.

It's "the Economist". Not "the Politician". I guess that's why they show remarkably piss-poor quality when discussing anything outside their little scope of financial operations or market analysis.

Specialization, heheh.

The problem is, most debating societies and clubs in universities and so on, encourage us to use the economist when having to read up on political/social/economic issues.

Other magazines like Times and newsweek don't really go in depth on all those issues, or so we was told.

[Samuel]

Ah Stas- proving you can be agressive and left wing... actually, the entire existance of the Soviet Union, French Revolution and Venezula do that as easily.

What is the distinguishing criteria for that scale? Hawk vs Dove? Realist vs idealist? Nuke vs conventional? Preparedness vs buildup?

Huh? I'm pretty sure Hussein is not a name solely used by Arab Muslim. Kurds and Turks definitely use it.

Oh. They are Middle Easterners though. Most of the worlds Muslims live to the East of Iran.

Well, he was the head of the National Socialist party...

Please don't joke. You see, there are people that are stupid enough to believe that. I won't link it because it would lower the IQ of everyone on the board by 10 points...

But since you need proof:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 0385511841

Of course, for idiots who believe this stuff, go here. And, before you ask, I suck at debating. Especially against opponents who refuse to play fair.
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000400.html

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The problem is, most debating societies and clubs in universities and so on, encourage us to use the economist when having to read up on political/social/economic issues.

Other magazines like Times and newsweek don't really go in depth on all those issues, or so we was told.

You are talking about a population that regularly deludes itself. What is new?

[Samuel]

Americans are a paranoid lot, only trusting those who give them orders.

[ray245]

The problem is, most debating societies and clubs in universities and so on, encourage us to use the economist when having to read up on political/social/economic issues.

Other magazines like Times and newsweek don't really go in depth on all those issues, or so we was told.

You are talking about a population that regularly deludes itself. What is new?

Not just singapore's debating clubs, debating clubs from other nations use the economist as well.

By the way, a population that deludes itself is no exception to any other nation. Come on, personally, I have yet to see an opposition party here that a political position beyond saying 'we need an opposition' and 'we need to lower the tax'. I have yet to see those parties actually proposing or pushing for any new ideas and policy singapore needs to adopt, and how are they going to ensure singaporeans can be well off, with lower tax and so on.

Unless the opposition actually seeks to improve themselves, and bring in some positive arguments and idea of what kind of policy and political standpoint they adopt , don't expect me to vote for anyone.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Not just singapore's debating clubs, debating clubs from other nations use the economist as well.

By the way, a population that deludes itself is no exception to any other nation. Come on, personally, I have yet to see an opposition party here that a political position beyond saying 'we need an opposition' and 'we need to lower the tax'. I have yet to see those parties actually proposing or pushing for any new ideas and policy singapore needs to adopt, and how are they going to ensure singaporeans can be well off, with lower tax and so on.

Unless the opposition actually seeks to improve themselves, and bring in some positive arguments and idea of what kind of policy and political standpoint they adopt , don't expect me to vote for anyone.

The quality of the PAP campaign is itself atrocious. What makes you think any of the politicians can do any better? Have you heard anything new from the PAP beyond "We will do it right, they will always do it wrong", "We promise more upgrading", "Vote for us, we will definitely do it right.", "No you are wrong, we are right, minus the reason" and the usual scapegoat? You want positive arguments in response to a bloody negative campaign?

Yeah, who's delusional now?

[ray245]

Not just singapore's debating clubs, debating clubs from other nations use the economist as well.

By the way, a population that deludes itself is no exception to any other nation. Come on, personally, I have yet to see an opposition party here that a political position beyond saying 'we need an opposition' and 'we need to lower the tax'. I have yet to see those parties actually proposing or pushing for any new ideas and policy singapore needs to adopt, and how are they going to ensure singaporeans can be well off, with lower tax and so on.

Unless the opposition actually seeks to improve themselves, and bring in some positive arguments and idea of what kind of policy and political standpoint they adopt , don't expect me to vote for anyone.

The quality of the PAP campaign is itself atrocious. What makes you think any of the politicians can do any better? Have you heard anything new from the PAP beyond "We will do it right, they will always do it wrong", "We promise more upgrading", "Vote for us, we will definitely do it right.", "No you are wrong, we are right, minus the reason" and the usual scapegoat? You want positive arguments in response to a bloody negative campaign?

Yeah, who's delusional now?

So you are saying it is impossible to bring in positive matter and solutions in a negative campaign? And did I even say I supported the PAP at all?

If the PAP makes so many mistakes, I wonder why the opposition cannot bring in positive solutions and plans during the election cycle , telling us how they want to improve and solution that they can come up with. The only party that even talks about political/social issues on a national level, is the WP, which is rather vague in my opinion.

Please, the opposition spend half the time on rebutting the PAP, instead of bringing in their arguments into the election cycle and rallies.

If I remember things correctly, as long as you hold a minority in the parliment and you don't have the ability to show that the public is going to vote your party in as the government, you don't have much impact in the overall policy being made. Which means, if you want to change singapore with a new mindset and adopt a new direction, you have to be the new government. In Singapore, the opposition parties are being formed to be the opposition, as compared to a party willingly to run the nation as a whole. I mean come on, why should a political party be content by being an opposition party? If all they seek to do is to critize the government, isn't that wasting our tax money to a certain extend?

Seriously, if jokes like the SDP and their supporters continues to exist, spending half the time criticizinga government without being able to offer a counter-solution, why should I vote for any opposition party? The only reason a political party can be useful as an opposition party, is one that is able to threaten the the ruling party.

Just because a political party has more voice, it does not matter unless it has the ability to show the ruling party and the people, that it can run the country better, and be our next government. It must have the arms or ammunitionto back up its position and threats.

What happens when the ruling party is able to listen and corrects its policy due to the opposition pointing out its flaws? If the ruling government in the end is able to make the correct decision as a whole? Which party should we support to be our government? The ruling party or the opposition party?

[Terralthra]

Well, he was the head of the National Socialist party...

Please don't joke. You see, there are people that are stupid enough to believe that. I won't link it because it would lower the IQ of everyone on the board by 10 points...

But since you need proof:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 0385511841

Of course, for idiots who believe this stuff, go here. And, before you ask, I suck at debating. Especially against opponents who refuse to play fair.
http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000400.html

What the fuck...? Please calibrate your facetiousness meter. I was making a joke at the expense of the US Republican Party, which seem to use "socialist" as a word for "not a laissez-faire capitalist." The idea that they'd jump on Hitler for being a socialist instead of any of his crimes is amusing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So you are saying it is impossible to bring in positive matter and solutions in a negative campaign? And did I even say I supported the PAP at all?

No I never said you supported the PAP. I pointed out that saying the Opposition doesn't suggest any solutions is just another PAP propaganda nonsense that the PAP throws out at every election to discredit the opposition.

If the PAP makes so many mistakes, I wonder why the opposition cannot bring in positive solutions and plans during the election cycle , telling us how they want to improve and solution that they can come up with. The only party that even talks about political/social issues on a national level, is the WP, which is rather vague in my opinion.

Have you bothered to watch any of the parliamentary sessions? The way the PAP argues is akin to taking the legal jackhammer and whacking someone left right center with plenty of veiled threats of legal suits. How does one fight with a party that crafts the entire law for its own use? Plus, how does one get access to the necessary data to fight the PAP on even ground when the government refuses to release salient statistics, or massages them?

Please, the opposition spend half the time on rebutting the PAP, instead of bringing in their arguments into the election cycle and rallies.

Isn't htat the fucking point of an electoral campaign? Rebutting the opponent's points? Are you in lalala land?

If I remember things correctly, as long as you hold a minority in the parliment and you don't have the ability to show that the public is going to vote your party in as the government, you don't have much impact in the overall policy being made. Which means, if you want to change singapore with a new mindset and adopt a new direction, you have to be the new government. In Singapore, the opposition parties are being formed to be the opposition, as compared to a party willingly to run the nation as a whole. I mean come on, why should a political party be content by being an opposition party? If all they seek to do is to critize the government, isn't that wasting our tax money to a certain extend?

What the flying fuck are you dreaming? Of course they are there to criticise the government policy and point out the flaws. IF you want to GRUMBLE about government wasting money, you should grumble about the fact that the PAP MPs are only good for outdoing each other in the praise of the government.

Seriously, if jokes like the SDP and their supporters continues to exist, spending half the time criticizinga government without being able to offer a counter-solution, why should I vote for any opposition party? The only reason a political party can be useful as an opposition party, is one that is able to threaten the the ruling party.

COunter Solution? How about disbanding the PAP for starters? Will anyone dare to say that openly OR risk sedition? Of course the point of an opposition party is to criticise the government? COming up with solutions? How does one do so without the relevant data? And does the PAP flying fuck cares about other opinions?

Just because a political party has more voice, it does not matter unless it has the ability to show the ruling party and the people, that it can run the country better, and be our next government. It must have the arms or ammunitionto back up its position and threats.

Yes, and where the flying fuck does anyone get the ammunition? Ask the government for it?

What happens when the ruling party is able to listen and corrects its policy due to the opposition pointing out its flaws? If the ruling government in the end is able to make the correct decision as a whole? Which party should we support to be our government? The ruling party or the opposition party

Now I know you are living in a dream land. THis is akin to saying "Please sir, you did it wrong." "Oh Oh, sorry about that." If you bloody pay attention to foreign politics, you would know for a certain that politicians do not get to the top without monstrous egos. They will never fucking back down without a fight.


This is in any case out of topic and I have no wish to waste time with a naive moron on local politics which I regard as a waste of time.

[Samuel]

What the fuck...? Please calibrate your facetiousness meter. I was making a joke at the expense of the US Republican Party, which seem to use "socialist" as a word for "not a laissez-faire capitalist." The idea that they'd jump on Hitler for being a socialist instead of any of his crimes is amusing.

Oh, I know you are joking. The problem is there are people who seriously argue that Hitler was a leftist.

It would be funny if it wasn't so insane.