The Antiplanner rarely listens to speeches, preferring to rely on written documents. I’ve never listened to a speech by Obama, but I decided to listen to his acceptance speech last night. What I heard did not give me much hope.
P.J. O’Rourke once said, “Democrats believe government can work. Republicans believe it can’t, and then they get elected and prove it.” Certainly George Bush fulfilled O’Rourke’s expectations. But it nonetheless remains true that the fundamental political debate in America remains the role of government.
Obama admitted that “Government cannot solve all our problems.” But the only thing he suggested that government can’t do is turn off the television at night and make children do their homework. He did make a lot of promises that government under President Obama will do a lot of things that most experts believe it really can’t do.
He promised “to protect Social Security for future generations.” How is he going to do that? Social Security is going to run out of money in about a decade. Meeting its obligations after that will cost more than $10 trillion dollars. The only way to meet that obligation, and the $60 trillion Medicare obligation, is to impose huge tax increases on everyone.
Obama promised to “end our dependence on oil from the Middle East” in 10 years, and chided McCain and others for making this promise in the past and failing to keep it. But the reason they failed to keep it is that it can’t be kept. As numerous writers have shown, it simply can’t be done.
Obama believes we can afford to reduce health insurance rates for people who already have it and give those who don’t “the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.”
Obama promised to give every child “a world-class education.” How? “I’ll invest in early childhood education. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers and pay them higher salaries.” But we’ve raised teacher salaries many times without improving educational results.
He also promised to “take out Osama bin Laden” by sending more troops to Afghanistan. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to capture bin Laden, but given the terrain in Afghanistan and the porous border with Pakistan, that is going to be a lot more difficult than Obama implies. Plus, just “taking him out” is not going to end the grievences many in the Middle East have with the American empire, which means it won’t end terrorism.
Typically found in Korea, northeast China, north http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/07/07/dem-bones-dem-bones-dem-beautiful-bones/ viagra buy no prescription America, Bhutan and eastern Siberia, ginseng has 11 different species. Take this polo medicine only during sexual motivation not on daily basis. cheap cialis generic Kamagra tablets should be ingested 30 minutes before your sexual intercourse with foreplay to make her aroused. cheap viagra from india It is a prescribed medicine generally purchase cialis on line used in the treatment of migraine headaches.
In essence, Obama promises to solve all your problems (except how to turn the tv off) by throwing money at them. Yet he promised to cut taxes “for 95 percent of all working families” and “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.”
How is he going to pay for all these things? He says he is going to close corporate loopholes. That might save a little money, but nowhere near the trillions of dollars his promises will cost.
Oh yes, he is also going to “go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.” The Clinton administration tried that with their reinventing government program. It didn’t work.
Even if these ideas were doable, which they aren’t, they can’t be done by the president. Instead, they all require Congressional action. As the Antiplanner’s faithful friend Gene Healy reminds us in his new book, Cult of the Presidency, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, while the president merely carries out those laws.
And Congress is not going to be interested in cutting line items in the federal budget. Every line in the federal budget has a special interest group whose main mission is to protect that line item. For the same reason, it is going to be pretty hard to cut corporate loopholes — all of which were put there by the same Congress that will have to close them.
Naomi Klein has chided Obama for saying he supports free markets and being influenced by the Chicago school of economics (since Milton Friedman taught at the same University of Chicago where Obama once taught). Obama’s speech certainly went a long way to refute Klein’s fears. But if Obama thinks that supporting Klein’s anti-market, pro-big government views is centrist — and any successful acceptance speech has to stake out a centrist position — he is pretty confused.
Finally, Obama got a lot of hits in against John McCain, many of which were justified. But his statement that McCain thinks “middle class” is under $5 million is below the belt. McCain obviously said that as a joke, as the left-wing web site Crooks and Liars admits. It is no more fair to criticize McCain for making a joke than it is to accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
Obama has many good and fascinating qualities. It is too bad they didn’t appear in his acceptance speech.
“Obama promised to “end our dependence on oil from the Middle East†in 10 years, and chided McCain and others for making this promise in the past and failing to keep it. But the reason they failed to keep it is that it can’t be kept. As numerous writers have shown, it simply can’t be done.”
It is exactly this “Negative Nancy” attitude that is holding us back from making real advances in the world today. I can’t believe it’s coming from Randal, considering he constantly harps on “increasing MPG” instead of trying to do anything else to ameliorate America’s current energy problem. Saying it “can’t be done” when we know we have methods to make our current means (fossil fuel based) more efficient, when we know we have nuclear power and are hardly implementing it, when we know we have projects that have been popping up for over 30 years with potential new energy sources, sounds to me like the pessimistic world view that is holding America back.
How can you be so pessimistic about ending foreign energy dependence, yet use your MPG argument for more fuel-efficient cars as a retort to those who want other means to change our lifestyle?
I’d rather have someone promise me gold and get me a bronze than someone who tells me they’re not going to win the race and then fulfills that promise by not even trying.
Obama has many good and fascinating qualities. It is too bad they didn’t appear in his acceptance speech.
The GF was there (I couldn’t get in in time) and isn’t much of a politics fan, not really into the science of power relations. She was very impressed with the power and grace and dignity behind Obama’s words.
And I presume folks who are self-regarding won’t be moved by the speeches over the past several days, as none of them were directed toward these sort of people (wait ’til the RNC for that). Those that are other-regarding were blown away. The buzz around here is palpable.
Had I written that Obama speech or been in the inner circle, I would have strongly emphasized the idea of ‘enough’ and I would have ended the speech with ‘enough’ repeated at least a half-dozen times: enough of the politics of fear and smear, enough of your government lying to you, enough of our brave men and women overseas being away from their families for the wrong war, enough of divisiveness, enough of Bin Laden walking around at will, enough of government suppression of science, enough of government listening to your phone calls, enough of tax breaks for big corporations, enough of war profiteering … etc. and a big point to the crowd with each ‘enough’ so they say it too.
Otherwise, what is telling about the speech was that the Republicans didn’t have an answer right away. The speech did all that needed to be done, and the only halfway legit talking point that the Republicans had – inexperience – they fumbled away with their VP choice. They have nothing to say anymore and their candidate has way too many negatives, and poor Sarah Palin hitched her wagon to an old, lame gelding. I don’t see how Rove & Co
The R’s are wobbling badly on their axes and provided the Democrats don’t run their campaign like the last two and implode (and I’m not convinced, today, that anything is different), this should be an easy election. Too bad the Dems’ history of cr*ppy campaigns and weak stances is at the front of all who wish to get rid of this corrupt, self-serving, self-enriching crew.
So, anyways Randal, statements made during political theater aside, enough of BushCo and the politics of fear. You should be glad Darth Cheney’s NeoCons look to be on their way out. It’s a start.
Maybe the small marginalized minority can stop complaining and do something when this is all over.
DS
After two consecutive elections won by George W. Bush, I don’t see why the country would all of a sudden vote for the other party. If 4 years of Bush wasn’t enough to make people change affiliations, there’s no reason to believe that 8 years will be any different.
McCain will probably win, which has its advantages. Given the current status of the country (and the world) being left by Bush, winning this election is essentially a boobie prize. Whomever takes over is set up for failure, and on some level it’s only right that Bush’s party be the ones to pay for his incompetence.
But yet, for some reason, you support Obama. Despite the growth of government under Bush and the Republicans, McCain is the much better candidate. Unfortunately, the media worships the other guy.
I’m far more impressed with Obama than I am with the appalling behavior of the Bush bashers. It’s almost impossible to bring myself to reward both.
Oh, yes – forgot: ‘enough’ of pointing out we were lied into invading a sovereign nation being called ‘Bush-bashing’. Suuuure.
Enough of pointing out the invasion is an abysmal failure as ‘Bush-bashing’ or appalling behavior (or appeasement or cut-and-run or unpatriotic or whatever the Rove e-mailed phrase is this week). Enough of pointing out that 6 years wasted with NK is ‘Bush-bashing’. Enough of wondering why Bush plays gee-tar and says heckuva job while NOLA drowns is called appalling.
Say, where’s bin been? Oh, wait: ‘Bush-bashing’. Sorry.
G*d I hope the Dems can focus for once, sack up, focus for a minute and oust this raid-treasure-and-give-to-Neocons-and-donor-pals crew. An average campaign will do it. Please. Just average – not hard to do for any other party.
DS
All of the Bush-bashers like to complain that the war in Iraq was “illegal” What about the 1998 Congressional Resolution that President Clinton signed calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force, if necessary? And, don’t forget U.N. Resolution 1441 in 2002 called for “regime change” in Iraq by force, if necessary. All the Iraq complainers forget the fact that Democrat Slick Willie set a precedent by going to war in Yugoslavia, a stupid, pointless war if ever there was one.
All the Iraq complainers forget the fact that Democrat Slick Willie set a precedent by going to war in Yugoslavia, a stupid, pointless war if ever there was one.
Ah. That makes the ~500K Iraqi extra dead and our ~4150 dead/scores of thousands languishing so much better – Clinton did it too!!!!!!!! *
Nonetheless, dismissing the weak hand-wave and back to my point, calling out the multifarious incompetencies is only Bush-bashing if you have nothing else to offer (you can’t offer BushCo’s record, f’r instance).
We’re talking about finally getting rid of vast gummint increases in spending, deep corruption, war profiteering, repairing our greatly diminished stature in the world, and ousting Darth Cheney.
You should be rejoicing. Sad that you’re not.
I don’t wish to spam this thread, BTW.
DS
* I have lots of gripes about Clinton & am registered Independent for almost three decades now.
So Osama Bin Laden will finally meet his nemesis: Obama bin Biden 🙂
I wonder if the two would really be different in terms of federal funding of transportation. Obama-rama-lama-ding-dong is, of course, a Big Govt lib so we know he’ll support pork barrel spending on light rail boondoggles, etc.
McCain has a justified reputation as fighting pork barrel spending but he also likes the maverick image and posits himself as a Teddy Roosevelt type enviro-Republican. I suspect he will buy into the BS about rail transit as an environmentally friendly/sustainable transportation alternative … and therefore support, not oppose special interest funding for it, sorta like his support for ethanol and opposition to ANWAR drilling.
Maybe the Antiplanner can educate him between now and inauguration.
I find interesting the collectivist cliché whereby “how much you care†is indicated by how big of a government you support. So, “the bigger the government you support, the more you careâ€Â. So, communists must care the most followed by socialists etc. Capitalists do not care at all. Marx, Lenin and Chavez care, Adam Smith does not.
Is it perhaps not so? Couldn’t it be that proponents of smaller government care enough about the people to not subjugate them to the sole mandatory choices made by the collective? “You shall participate in the common retirement program, the common energy independence program, the common health plan, the common housing plan etc. whether you want to or not. Or if you do not like it perhaps we will let you pay for the common plan and then perhaps let you buy another one on top of it.â€Â
I agree with AP that luckily, the political debate in America is still to a large extent about the size of government. In most other countries the hope that government can ever be rolled back has long faded away (I’d put most of Europe in that category). In those countries the only debate remains, not how much, but WHAT will government do, and the voter’s principal fight is to be the recipient of as many government handouts as possible. So, the state sucks away 30 units of productivity and hands out 10 units of goodies. The political debate is then about becoming the recipient of as many of the 10 handouts as possible.
Hugh wrote:
“All of the Bush-bashers like to complain that the war in Iraq was “illegal†What about the 1998 Congressional Resolution that President Clinton signed calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force, if necessary? And, don’t forget U.N. Resolution 1441 in 2002 called for “regime change†in Iraq by force, if necessary. All the Iraq complainers forget the fact that Democrat Slick Willie set a precedent by going to war in Yugoslavia, a stupid, pointless war if ever there was one. ”
Signing a congressional resolution doesn’t make a war legal. A UN resolution is required. 1441 was supposed to authorise war, but the Syrians negotiated it down to threatening war, but without authorisation, although it was passed. Resolution 1442 authorised war, but was not passed. Then the UK and USA governments argued that they didn’t need 1441 or 1442 anyway, which was a bizarre argument.
The war is Iraq was and is illegal. Together with the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state, it makes it impossible to stop Russia interfering in Georgia, or anywhere else for that matter. I don’t think we’ve heard the last of these decisions.
As far as Yugoslavia goes, it was started and finished by the USA. This will also have repercussions, although not all of them negative. Russia is seriously annoyed by what happened, but the weakness of the EU may finally prod someone into sorting the mess out.
Ettinger wrote:
“So Osama Bin Laden will finally meet his nemesis: Obama bin Biden :-)”
Barack Obama has a name which will not be an asset for him, as it sounds foreign. Unlike McCain (does he wear kilts?)
“It is exactly this “Negative Nancy†attitude that is holding us back from making real advances in the world today. I” –hkelly1
It has nothing to do with attitude and everything to do with reality. Look at Japan, they’ve been wanting to do this sort of thing for 1/2 century. They have plenty of money, plenty of people (10th largest in the world), plenty of intelligence, plenty of technology, more than plenty of density and even more “need” to reduce imports & consumption since Japan essentially has no oil. Israel while much smaller than Japan is in a similar position (they’ve got the wealth, the intelligence, etc). Heck, you could argue they have even more incentive to “end dependence on foreign” oil since the very existence of their country is threatened by petro dollars. Neither Israel nor Japan nor any other country has. It’s not about will-power, desire, attitude, etc, etc, etc. It’s about reality.
To add to it, this isn’t a goal the US nor any other nation should have. But that as a whole is better said in Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence by Robert Bryce.
Last politics thing:
Unfortunately, the media worships the other guy.
This rhetoric, too, is old and tired and few believe it any more. Why? Besides whining about the media being disrespectful to white guys being soooo Campaign 2000, and besides most know that the major media outlets are owned by just a few large corporations, it is demonstrably false. Rocky Mt News front page print edition yesterday (after DNC closed): picture of empty I-25. Rocky Mt News front page print edition today: 1/3 page above and below the fold pic of ill-fated VP pick with old white guy in background, and headline of “McCain back in spotlight”.
So anyways, this old, tired media argument was buried long ago. Why resurrect it – zombie-like – now when it is still not true? Unless you are a comedy writer trying out your lines here, then I didn’t laugh.
The (admittedly impressive and effective) media noise machine and message control infrastructure* only works when people aren’t sick of the results. The experiment failed. That is not to say the alternative will be the best thing evarr! but it makes the alternative more likely to succeed. The success will be because of the resounding failure, not because the corporate media acts like an old campaign tactic.
DS
* look – the italicized at the top is still being deployed by the foot soldiers and unwitting.
The Iraq War was certainly illegal if you consider the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass its responsibility for declaring war to the president. Period.
I finally read Obama’s speech. To me it just read more or less like the same speech given over and over by proponents of collective action (big government) throughout all time in all parts of the world. Apparently after many wars and enormous suffering many people still hope that collectivism will one day work – if we only had the right leaders.
If McCain evokes some images of Big Government, Obama certainly seems like a proponent of even Bigger Government. After all, many countries through history have sent troops to expensive failed wars but they were able to eventually cut their losses or patch things up at some point and eventually withdraw. But few countries have ever been able to backtrack from New Deal type much more expensive and inefficient collectivist schemes. So, in a few words, McCain seems perhaps the lesser of two evils at this point. The slower path to collectivism. The fewer steps down the one-way road to serfdom.
And BTW, while in hindsight the Iraq war was a lot of effort, pain and questionable legitimacy for moderate benefit, one would still have to consider the possibility that a hasty withdrawal at this point may squander the few overall benefits that were achieved at great cost.
Behind Obama’s rhetoric of change, I see little new. It may be new for America but socialist policies are nothing new to the rest of the world. Once you analyze his proposals, what does Obama really bring to the table other than being black, young and cute? Socialism?
The change Obama is talking about is essentially a return to the past, a turn towards socialism. To me his campaign motto sounds: “For change, vote socialist this time!†Yes indeed that would be some change! It would make the US (so far still the most successful economy in the world) converge to the more statist collectivist European government model. Except that, unlike Europe, the US does not have the competent human capital that Europe has (sorry average Americans). Europe can, to some extent, afford to squander its superior human capital in a collectivist political system; although, in the end, it is still barely able to compete with the US. An America that converges to the same collectivist government model is an America that will fall behind Europe. The only inherrent advantage that the US has left compared to the rest of the world is a less collectivist form of government. Obama is the quicker path to erasing that advantage.
Looked from the outside, it is absurd how the US, having won the cold war, is now poised to copy the failed collectivist policies of its ex (failed) rivals. Unless you wish the US harm (which BTW correlates with a lot of the European support for Obama – “we cannot compete with you so we hope you also adopt the collectivist policies that have gummed up our worksâ€Â). Perhaps the revenge of the ghost of communism?
Ettinger wrote:
“It would make the US (so far still the most successful economy in the world) converge to the more statist collectivist European government model.”
Collectivism disappeared with communism. The European model attempts to balance economic efficiency with social justice. Each country takes its own position on this, from (at one extreme) Sweden to (at the other extreme) the UK (which is starting to adopt US welfare policies).
“Unless you wish the US harm (which BTW correlates with a lot of the European support for Obama – “we cannot compete with you so we hope you also adopt the collectivist policies that have gummed up our worksâ€Â).”
Barack Obama does himself a favour by talking to Europeans, rather than at them, as George Bush does. Many Europeans are becoming very annoyed that their leaders keep apologising for their existance, particular at the times when George Bush and his bestest friend YoBlair have engaged in their sickly self-righteousness.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
Dan, your use of liberal stereotypes to describe Republicans/Conservatives vs. Democrats/Liberals as “Self-regarding vs. Other-regarding” does not hold its own weight.
What exactly are Obama’s good qualities? Beyond giving a good speech, he seems to be the same old pro-big government politician. Is there anything in his political career in the Illinios Senate that would indicate he seems to not be inclined toward collectivism?
“We’re talking about finally getting rid of vast gummint increases in spending, deep corruption, war profiteering, repairing our greatly diminished stature in the world, and ousting Darth Cheney.” –Dan
Ummmm, if the corruption is actually deep, the ceremonial changing of whom is in charge at the top of the vast government bueracracy most likely won’t bring about it’s end.
For the most part I couldn’t give a rat’s butt if it’s McCain or Obama. It’s like asking me to get excited that I get to die from a painful gunshot to the gutt over the period of several days instead of the KGB pulling off some weird poisoning over a few deaths. Either way I’m dead.
Mr.O’Toole seems to love big government more than any one else I know!