Posts
Barack Obama for President
By Daniel Koffler / January 4, 2008
It won't come to readers as a particular surprise that Barack Obama is my candidate for 2008, but at Mike's invitation, I'll lay out the reasons why. After all, as I've acknowledged, a lot of the good press Obama receives, fueled by and fueling the rationale the Obama campaign puts out for itself, trades in uplifting, but seemingly insubstantial qualities. "Stand up for change" sounds great. What does it mean?
In fact, underneath the rhetorical flourishes — and by the way, when was the last time a Democratic crowd was moved to spontaneously break into "USA! USA!" cheers? — there is a great deal of substance, which represents concrete and promising change from both orthodox liberal and orthodox conservative approaches to foreign and domestic policy. This fact is obscured by the media's focus on judging candidates' positions, especially on domestic issues, exclusively in terms of campaign pledges and proposals, when in reality, very few if any policy or position commitments can be translated from the campaign to governing in unchanged form. A far better proxy for judging where a candidate stands is looking to his or her advisors — these are the people who are going to craft policy if the candidate wins, and their predilections are a lot more salient an indicator than campaign posturing. On this score, Obama shines.
His lead economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee, a behavioral economist from the University of Chicago, who is at the forefront of a movement in economics and public policy away from traditional welfare state liberalism, and towards market-oriented policies that expand the scope of personal choice, while at the same time being structured so as to create rational incentives for individuals to address long-term and systemic concerns like low-income financial insecurity, disparate access to education, etc.
Call it left-libertarianism if it needs a name. This is the root ideological difference between Obama and Clinton that leads to the quarrel they're having over whether or not to include mandatory subscription in their health care proposals. Both of them are sensitive to the problem of having 45 million or so citizens without health care; Obama is also sensitive to the need to preserve personal freedom, not to mention the futility of proposing orthodox liberal welfare policies that have a decades long track record of failing to deliver results, and of being repudiated at the ballot box.
Similarly, here is George Will's gloss of Goolsbee's position on free trade:
"Globalization" means free trade and various deregulations that supposedly put downward pressure on American wages because of imports from low-wage countries. Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says that "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; so do auto mechanics, dentists and many others.
Free trade: a good thing at home and abroad. Likewise, I would assume, with the free movement of labor. Compare that to John Edwards presenting himself as the love-child of Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, recoiling in horror from a free-trade agreement with Peru, a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica if there ever was one. Let's not even mention the nativist lunacy sweeping through the GOP.
Similarly, in foreign affairs, Obama stands for something new and different from all the other candidates, along with his top foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, about whom it's difficult to say enough good things. Alone among all the candidates, Obama grasps the dangerous uselessness of the hawk/dove dichotomy as an analytic tool. Those trapped on one side of that conceptual framework see a disposition to be belligerent as a token of "seriousness" about foreign policy and a disinclination to make war as an indication of foolish naivete and idealism; those trapped (admittedly a much smaller and less influential cadre) on the other side simply will not engage with cogent cases for the utility and occasional moral necessity of military interventions under certain circumstances, as in the Balkans, Rwanda, and today Darfur. Obama's rightness on both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and his attention to Darfur, place him in a league of his own among all the candidates on foreign policy questions.
"Stand up for change"? Sounds good to me.
POST A COMMENT
Amin is happy to see Brezinski as an Obama advisor, believing that Zbig will temper the influence of pro-Zionist types.
But Obama's chief Middle East advisor is the oleaginous Dennis Ross, who currently labors for Marty Indyk's WINEP and who also works for an Israeli think tank funded by the Jewish Agency, whose main raison d'etre appears to be the codification of those tendencies in Israel which systematically deprive 20% of that nation's population of full citizenship rights. Ross's cringingly self-serving account of the Camp David charade should be reason enough for any knowledgable observer to forsake any hope that he will lead Obama even a micron away from the AIPAC trough.
Hope I didn't bring you down.
Given Lisa's challenge, it is clearly disturbing that Barack Obama could easily be the Dem nominee for President and this figures to be an ominous sign for the Jews of America and the state of Israel. This is a conclusion that is widespread because it is based on a wide variety of facts. First, I am clear to grant Lisa the point that the fate of the Jews follows the fate of America–this is OUR point. Obama will not only be bad for the Jews–he threatens to be a very risky choice for the nation. Of course, this is the point of his nomination in the first place. The Dems love to go for that risky choice and this is why they nominate McGovern, Dukakis, Carter, Kerry, Clinton, Gore–etc.–a bunch of wild-eyed and largely unproven people–always left of the center of the Democratic Party and ready and willing to do divisive things to the nation.
In truth, to some extent, we may be only guessing about him since he is so unknown and has done so little in his life. What we do know is good reason to worry.
He harbors a reckless disregard for how America is viewed by our enemies by threatening to withdrawl from the war on terror the moment he takes power. If Kerry received the endorsement of Bin Laden, Obama will get an even bigger endorsement. AlQueda will cheer Obama and then be much more agressive in its attacks, knowing he will not punish the violence. Hence, by misunderstanding the threat of our enemies, Obama figures to be a man of violence and not the kind of peacemaker the nation will continue to require.
Part of the trap is his alleged "caring for people" — this is a brain-dead calculus until you realize that people have competing interests and then one must adjudicate. Amin chimed in on this blog right ahead of me–that we need a President who is even-handed and not a slave to "Zionist interests." This is a common belief in the African American community and in the Islamic communities–both are his heritage. The sad reality is that Israel requires one-sided support and this is no bias since America should always be one-sided in support of our friends and not "even handed" in the face of murderers. Obama will quickly declare how much he cares for the Palestinians, after he says he cares for the Jewish Israelis. The point remains who does he care for first and the most? I have no doubt about Romney or any of the GOP candidates.
Like all liberals and contrary to the policies of Pres. Bush who cut taxes for all Americans in an insanely "progressive" system that allows 50% of taxpayers to pay only 5% of total taxes and 10% to pay over 70%–Obama wants to make the system ever more punitive by making that 10% pay much more and it is easy to see that the Jewish American community is largely in that tax bracket. Even if the Jews were in the lower 50%–the fact that this is a man who looks at some people as his friends who he wants to give favors and others as his foes he wishes to punish is damnable. Interestingly, this inequity is admitted in the rhetoric of the Left that is willing to see an across the board tax reduction that benefits everyone as a "gift to the rich"–even when the rich ended up paying more.
Lisa's complaint is a projection of the truth–I am here to defend the preponderance of the Jews and the interests of the Jewish state and not to guard some narrow bit of ideology. This is Lisa's reality and the left is under the false impression that what is good for the Daily Kos is good for America. This is why the radical left is the radical left and not the mainstream.
Consider the following, cut and pasted from a recent article:
Obama
“fails to understand the totalitarian politics and sensibilities of the folks
over there, who are not well meaning,” said E.J. Kessler, a New York Post
editor who’s a longtime observer of American-Jewish politics. “His approach
will appeal to a lot of lefty Jews, but it won’t appeal to the serious
players,” she said, referring to the better-organized and better funded groups
like the American Israel Public Affairs Council, AIPAC, at whose conference
Obama put in an appearance earlier this month.
One of
the attendees at that conference, in fact, said he was taken aback by elements
of Obama’s rhetoric in an unscripted address to an evening reception.
“It was
mystifying to me when [Obama] said that one of the reasons there isn’t peace in
the Middle East is because of ‘cynicism.’ Cynicism? That’s the reason?” asked
Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, a
hard-liner who often gives voice to sentiments other Jewish leaders are more comfortable
whispering “It makes me think that Barack Obama doesn’t understand the
continuing Arab war against Israel.”
In those
remarks, Obama worked his domestic assault on cynicism and hopelessness into an
address on the Middle East. His attack on cynicism, and another line about the
“cycle of violence” struck hard-line supporters of Israel as suggesting that
the Israeli and Palestinian sides are equally to blame – something Obama
himself has rejected in other, prepared remarks.
Klein
said he found the notion of an Obama presidency “frightening.”
Obama is
regularly rated the “worst for Israel” of leading American presidential
candidates by a panel assembled by the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz. But
Klein’s remarks, an open letter to Obama from an Iowa Jewish leader concerned
that Obama had spoken of Palestinian suffering, and a host of more quietly
expressed concerns, produce a certain weary frustration in Obama’s Jewish
backers, who include prominent supporters of Israel. Obama has explicitly rejected
any moral equivalence between the two side of the conflict. He has made his
support for Israel’s government abundantly clear, and even voted for a
resolution in support of the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
I like the idea of Zbignew Brezinski as an advisor to Obama. It will save him from being a zionist water boy like the other candidates. I assume Jimmy Carter will back Obama as well, since he is not a slave to zionist interests
I would certainly have to agree with that comment.
What has convinced me on that is the fact that Obama is relying on Zbigniew Brezinski as an advisor, who is decidedly anti-Israel among other things. I personally consider him to be an anti-semite.
Obama is bad for the Jews. He is not at all pro-Israel. He will not
depend on the advice of individual Jews. He is not sympathetic to the
contributions of Jews in our nation. He is willing to normalize
relations with America's biggest enemies and he will bring the
likelihood of terror attacks on this nation way up.
Whoa. I smell a Podhoretz junkie. I'm a Jewish American who believes that what's good for American democracy and foreign policy is good for the Jews, who depend on an enlightened society to survive as a tiny minority. I think it will always be good for Israel, too–if not necessarily good for all Israeli parties. (Israel itself is divided on many issues. How can any American policy be in synch with all Israeli perspectives at once?) If you want to say Obama won't please certain sectors of the Jewish American political scene, fine. But don't pretend to speak for all Jews because his policies don't match up with your own political ideas. Okay, Norm? Uh, I mean David. Can't you and Rudy just take it down a notch?
DK is not old enough to remember John Lindsey.
That's what its all about, not if it's good for America.
"Obama is bad for the Jews. He is not at all pro-Israel. He will not
depend on the advice of individual Jews. He is not sympathetic to the
contributions of Jews in our nation. He is willing to normalize
relations with America's biggest enemies"
Seems likely. It's unbelievable how many Jews are falling for this guy. Not most Jewish Dems, they seem to still want Hillary. But look at the reasoning of Koffler,
"and by the way, when was the last time a Democratic crowd was moved to spontaneously break into "USA! USA!" cheers?"
Who gives a fuck? We want a president, not a rock star. It's John Lindsay all over again, this time as president instead of mayor. Awful. Just awful.
"Let's not even mention the nativist lunacy sweeping through the GOP."
The normative paleos are hardly lunatics. See if dismissive, arrogant name-calling shuts up their concerns, Jew.
"a behavioral economist from the University of Chicago"
Can we please have an economist team led by someone from ANYWHERE but the U of Chicago?
Obama has all the momentum and has dealt Hillary a clear blow. He is the Dem model–inexperienced, not very smart but very strong on superficial appeal. This is why I stuck my neck out and said 10 months ago he would be the candidate. Hillary can still win this, very obviously. At this point, as a conservative, I would prefer Hillary as the opponent.
But this is a disaster in waiting since the GOP field looks so weak and unable to articulate anything, at this point, it could even be a blow-out for Obama–especially if the GOP nominates McCain or Huckabee.
Obama is bad for the Jews. He is not at all pro-Israel. He will not depend on the advice of individual Jews. He is not sympathetic to the contributions of Jews in our nation. He is willing to normalize relations with America's biggest enemies and he will bring the likelihood of terror attacks on this nation way up.
Obama, if the nightmare comes true and he is elected, will bury our nation's real and substantial problems and be vulnerable to kill the economy by taxing everything he can and swallowing the myth of global warming hysteria in a hard-core way.
An average Dem could have taken the Presidency from Bush. Al Gore and John Kerry are so radical and so extreme, the independents had no choice but vote for the honest but ineffective, moderate Bush.
Obama is greeted by wild crowds attracted by his chin in the air motioning left and right and has very good speaking skills. Obama is no better than the lying Al Gore, a man so disgraced it is a shear miracle he can even show his face–and Obama is even a greater peacenik than the crazed Kerry. With a good percentage of the nation finally on board with allowing our noble troops to get the job done in Iraq–Obama has promised an immediate pullout.
The chin in the air and the nice intonation of his voice is the difference. The Dems require the emotional appeal of "enthusiasm" "change" "passion", "energy" –empty bromides that cry out for policy specifics. Now in the lead for the short-term, Obama will take the role of the leader and shut up and continue to sit pretty.
I have lost my confidence that the people can see through this charlatan and see the disaster that is coming. At least McCain is not going to give away the store.
"makes oodles of sense", of course. Saturday nights, a beer or two…ah well.
Aarian Pope is more appropriate poet for the Obama inauguration than Baraka. Pound to Frost/Baraka to Pope doesn't makes oodles of sense, since we're Hoping for a New Frontier, um, I mean, Change. DK doesn't even have to credit me for the suggestion. He can let Samantha Power think it's all his.
Explain please Obama's "rightness on Iraq". Do you refer to his opposition to authorizing this criminal bloodbath in 2002 as a Senatorial candidate, or to his consistent funding of the fait accompli since his election?
Amiri Baraka shares some things in common w/ Ezra Pound, of course. So, change "respectable" to "highly-regarded" in the above.
Note the condescension from a Speculative Hipster. Baraka's a good, respectable American poet. Wouldn't it be courageous of Obama to have him read at the inaugural. Wouldn't it inspire us with Hope and Change? Anyway, Clinton took Maya Angelou. Obama might want to keep it really real. DK's old boss Matt Welch's thesis is flawed, and revealing. McCain's a traditional American conservative. He's only a "maverick" to Movement conservatives and hacks aiming to discredit traditional American conservatism by ignoring distinctions. Traditional American conservatism is no less anathema to folks Hoping for Change than it is to folks Waiting for Rapture, so it's no surprise pwogwessives and Creationists alike break bread, as it were, at the "McCain's a fraud" table. As for Blair, the Third Way meant very little practically, but achieved much through branding. That's a more honest, though less pithy, definition of the Barack Obama campaign than "Stand for Change".
Note the condescension from a Speculative Hipster. Baraka's a good, respectable American poet. Wouldn't it be courageous of Obama to have him read at the inaugural. Wouldn't it inspire us with Hope and Change? Anyway, Clinton took Maya Angelou. Obama might want to keep it really real. DK's old boss Matt Welch's thesis is flawed, and revealing. McCain's a traditional American conservative. He's only a "maverick" to Movement conservatives and hacks aiming to discredit traditional American conservatism by ignoring distinctions. Traditional American conservatism is no less anathema to folks Hoping for Change than it is to folks Waiting for Rapture, so it's no surprise pwogwessives and Creationists alike break bread, as it were, at the "McCain's a fraud" table. As for Blair, the Third Way meant very little practically, but achieved much through branding. That's a more honest, though less pithy, definition of the Barack Obama campaign than "Stand for Change".
On the contrary, KB, as my old boss Matt Welch has helpfully explained, John McCain's entire career is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
I'm not sure what the Tony Blair comparison is based on or supposed to achieve; Blair's triangulations consisted specifically and purposefully in constraints on personal liberty.
As for the Amiri Baraka remark, really, what can one possibly say? Is the idea that black people are all secretly militant communist racist crazies? I think that's the idea. Besides, Amiri Baraka is irrelevant; I want to know more from KB about Obama's secret adherence to Wahabbism. I also want to know when KB stopped beating his wife.
This is the root ideological difference between Obama and Clinton that
leads to the quarrel they're having over whether or not to include
mandatory subscription in their health care proposals.
Yeah, unlike Clinton, Obama won't actually end up doing a damn thing about all the uninsured.
Oh, how refreshing.
DK is too clever to fall for the Obama cult per se, so he saves his gushing enthusiasm for a couple of academic superstars attached to the campaign. JFK ushered in the phenomenon of hiring high profile eggheads for vicarious gravitas, so Obama's trick serves as well to remind the susceptible of the ol' Camelot magic. The less susceptible know the Kennedy comparisons do not flatter Obama, but this is an election. American Democrats want the Historic Hope and Delivering Change myth provides. With a nod to Hitchens' comments about Stalin and religion, Obama would be a fool not to exploit this. After Amiri Baraka reads some stirring poem or other at the Obama inauguration, the new president's accountant should make sure to write a royalty check to Tony Blair, who pioneered the Third Way. America could do worse than an empty suit surrounded by op-ed page PhD's at cabinet meetings. But it could also do better: John McCain, for instance, who, as Abe Greenwald points out, neither falls for nor engages in calculated insults to the American people's intelligence.
Harry, it was Henry Kissinger who called Chile a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica; I was stealing a line. Maybe I should have called it a dagger pointed at the heart of the Galapagos.
Sorry to be a pedant, but i think you're confusing Peru with Chile. (Chile is the long thin one that points to Antartica, Peru is the one Queen Victoria had inked out of her atlas)
But yes, fair point, since when did Americans become so pathetic that they are scared of economic competition from Peru!
Oh, and anti-illegal immigration does not conflict with free trade any more than belief in the right to private property conflicts with the freedom to communicate with your neighbours.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/1752
Samantha Power's idea of intervention is more useless lip-services.
So you want to invade Pakistan?
Whether or not you want universal, mandatory health insurance, let's at least be honest and call it what it is:Medicare for everyone.
You seem to think Medicare is an "orthodox liberal welfare polic[y] that ha[s] a decades long track record of failing to deliver results and of being repudiated at the ballot box." I think most voters (particularly the elderly, who have the most experience both using Medicare and paying MANDATORY Medicare taxes) would disagree.
–Z
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!