I was just about to go to bed, but I need to put down a few reactions that I had to Election Day before that day gets too far away.
As most of you know, I was a huge Obama proponent from the primaries onwards, so of course I'm thrilled that he beat McCain/Palin (especially because of Palin *shudders*). Unlike 2004, when I got involved in volunteering for Kerry's campaign, I was not involved in Obama's campaign in any way, beyond some activity during the primaries. However, that wasn't because of a lack of trying: I reached out to the Young Democrats in Arlington, but beyond receiving some literature from them, they never asked for my help. As it turns out, they didn't need it, but there's a bit of me that regrets not being more involved in this historic campaign (yes, I know that phrase is already a cliché, but it is appropriate).
And while I despised the fear mongering campaign that McCain ran (admittedly, the Obama campaign ran its share of negative ads, but they never stooped to the "guilt by association" tactics that the McCain campaign used), he couldn't have been more gracious in his concession speech, so I am grateful for that. I still am worried that there's a lot of simmering anger from the results of this election; the campaign got very heated, especially towards the end (in particular, I'm thinking about the McCain/Palin rallies where some shouted out about Obama "terrorist" or "kill him"; I'm unaware of any similar outbursts at Obama rallies). But with any luck, those who opposed Obama will realize that he has the best interests of the country in mind, just as McCain did.
Among my friends who did not like Obama, the main concern I heard was that they feared that Obama's rhetoric was a siren song: designed to entice the listener into false hope and masquerading ill-thought-out policies that could have dangerous consequences. Even though I personally think that persepctive is overly paranoid and largely unwarranted, I'm not so trusting as to believe that Obama will do everything he said, or that his policies will even work as well as they're intended.
However, here is what I would ask of those who are skeptical: wait and see. Now that he's been elected, there is no point in protesting Obama's potential flaws; in a few months, we will actually get to see what sort of president Obama really is. When that happens, you have every right to come to whatever conclusions you want. But let's not pre-judge him and start proclaiming that the end is near, simply because he was elected. Despite wanting Gore to win in 2000, I gave the same benefit of the doubt to Bush (and quickly revoked it after the Patriot Act/invasion of Iraq); I ask that those who opposed Obama do the same now.
If nothing else, we should be able to agree that we have tough years ahead of us. Credit is scarce, thus suppressing the economy; jobs are dwindling; our armed forces are still in two wars; and the potential for a future crisis with another country like Iran or North Korea (maybe even Russia?) is high. And in times like these, more than ever, it's important for us to try and look past partisanship. So as we approach January and the inauguration of a new president, let's approach it with an open mind. For myself and other Obama supporters, that should mean that we should not blindly approve of every policy that Obama and the Democratic Congress choose to pursue; rather, we should look at each proposal with a critical eye and judge it on its merits and on its flaws. And for those who supported McCain, that should mean not automatically opposing any measures that Obama or the Democratic Congress introduces simply because they come from Democrats; rather, be willing to compromise and to admit that liberals, just like conservatives, have good ideas that are worth considering.
Measures banning gay marriage that passed in several states suggest that we are not yet out of the "culture wars" mentality and that we have a long way to go in terms of respecting each other's differences. But I think that we are moving slowly but surely away from those attitudes. And I hope that, over the next 4 or more years, we can continue to make progress in that area. Because if we can come together as a people, and learn to treat each other equally despite our cultural differences, I think we can do amazing things. *cue dramatic pose in front of waving American flag*
Ok, enough ruminating/lecturing. Those are my hopes for the coming years, however inadequately expressed they may be, and I hope that you'll share them with me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'll share one of the main concerns I've heard about Obama: his policies and ideas seem quite a bit socialist. My mom sent me an e-mail (she hated Obama) about this exact point with a nice little story that I'll reproduce now.
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
"Once in the restaurant my server had on an 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine
the coincidence.
"When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
"I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the server inside, as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
"At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, without his
consideration of whether I should have even done that; though in my
opinion the actual recipient needed the server's money more.
"I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
I think that in sending this e-mail, my mom has a very valid point. Especially after reading his remarks in Ohio: http://www.barackobama.com/2008/11/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_153.php
Responses? Retorts?
I'm totally going to squeeze in before Jay comments on this one.
While Obama did say the phrase "spread the wealth around" in his discussion about his tax plan in Ohio, his intention was to point out the "unfairness" of the way the current taxes are set up. He was speaking about eliminating the tax cuts that were granted to the rich during the Bush Administration, eased the tax burden on very wealthy Americans, shifting it onto middle class Americans. What Mr. Obama wants to do is shift the tax burden upwards, so that the wealthy (those who will be able to afford it, those who don't have to worry about putting food on the table and sending their kids to college) will be taxed more, and the less wealthy will be taxed less (freeing up their income so that they can support themselves).
The US has a progressive tax system, not a flat tax, it always has. While one can argue the merits of a flat tax all day, we don't have one and that's not going to change. The wealthy have always been asked to pay more in taxes, because they can afford to do so.
As for the homeless guy, he isn't going to get a tax handout, he doesn't work, he has no income, he isn't filing an income tax return, Obama isn't helping him by adjusting the tax law.
Yep, I couldn't have put it any better than Phil. Hooray for having friends who actually understand economics. :-)
Plus, I don't think the situation is analogous. As Phil said, the homeless guy won't be getting anything from the tax cuts (unless he does work full-time but is still homeless, in which case, he probably deserves some help). And chances are, the server doesn't make over $200,000 or $250,000 (the bar at which people stop getting tax cuts under Obama's plan) and so the government wouldn't be "taking" any more money from the server than it already does. If anything, the server will also get some money back from the government. It's the wealthy who will see their taxes increase under Obama's plan.
That begs the question, is that socialist? I think socialism means much more than a progressive tax system (and it would take more than this comment to get into a full definition of socialism), and frankly, I like a progressive tax system. If I'm ever fortunate enough to be wealthy, I want to give back to this country that has given me so much.
Libertarians and the like might argue that private charity can do a better job of allocating aid than a government can, but for things that all of us deserve (healthcare, for example), the government has to be involved (at least in a minimal way, like the lowering of costs/subsidies that Obama's plan involves) to ensure that everyone benefits. For all that markets can do, they can not do that. Markets are concerned primarily with the generation of wealth, not its distribution.
So if it's socialist or "redistribution of wealth" to raise taxes on the wealthy (or, more accurately, to remove tax cuts they received under the Bush administration) in order to fund public services, so be it. As long as the taxes aren't particularly burdensome (and since we're talking about the wealthy, chances are they can handle some extra taxes) and as long as those revenues aren't used simply to throw money at problems but rather to wisely fund programs that benefit all (and preferably, use solutions that involve the private sphere in order to make sure that the programs are efficient and effective), I think we can do better things for our country while not scaring away the wealthy whose taxes will be needed to help(but only help!) fund these programs. It’s a tricky balance, but I think it’s worth trying, in conjunction with conservative (i.e. cautious) spending and other cost-cutting measures to keep taxes as low as possible.
One last thing: it’s simply naïve to act as if we are a purely capitalist system right now. We’re not; we subsidize all sorts of things (for example, agriculture) and impose tariffs and other trade barriers on various services and products. It’s not a question of socialism versus capitalism; it’s a question of how much, and what types of, socialism we are willing to tolerate.
Post a Comment