Ruminations,October 26, 2008

The Obama presidency

It appears increasingly likely that an Obama presidency may be in our future. Conservatives are a bit apprehensive but, while an Obama presidency may not be good from a conservative perspective, it maynot be as bad as many fear.

Lookat Obama’s performance during the campaign. He’s a political pragmatist and not an ideologue.

• Obama had agreed to a series of 10 town-hall-style debates with John McCain. When Obama realized that this style of debate was McCain’s forte and that he (Obama) had a lead in the polls, he decided that the additional debates wouldn’t help him and backed out.

• Obama had agreed with McCain to use public financing for their campaigns. When Obama realized that he could draw much more in campaign donations than could McCain and that public financing would restrict that ability, he backed out of that agreement.

• Obama made a speech defending his relationship with the reverend Jeremiah Wright. He said, "I could no more disown him [Wright] than I could my white grandmother." Then when Wright became more strident and it became clear that he was a political liability, Obama disowned him.

So,given his performance during the campaign, we can infer that his performance as president will be equally pragmatic and not as ideological as many conservatives fear. Here are some positive indications (for conservatives) of an Obama presidency.

• Obama had said that as president, during his first year of office, he would meet with "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition." When criticized as naïve, he amended his statement saying that there would have to be “preparations.” It seems obvious that the word “preparations” is a synonym for “preconditions;” so he has backed off his naïve position.

• Obama has spoken against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Austan Goolsbee, senior economic advisor to Barack Obama, last February met with Georges Rioux, Canadian consul general. A memo written after the meeting reported that Goolsbee said Obama’s statements opposing free trade and NAFTA are just political campaign rhetoric and should be ignored, and that Obama really is in favor of NAFTA.

• On Iraq, Obama has pledged to pull American troops out and completely revamp President Bush’s policy. On Iran, Obama has expressed a willingness to negotiate and has been critical of President Bush’s handling of Iran. Last June, according to The Middle East Media Research Institute, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Obama's campaign managers assured him that, if elected, Obama “will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iran and will take into account the opinions of the [American] commanders in [Iraq].” 

• One of Obama’s chief economic advisors is Paul Volker, chairman of the Federal Reserve under presidents Carter and Reagan. Volker is widely credited with making a significant contribution to the ending the economic “stagflation” that began during the Carter presidency. Volker also served on the task force that investigated the UN/Saddam Hussein Oil for Food scandal and uncovered wide-spread corruption within the international organization. Although a Democrat, he is generally liked by conservatives (after all, Reagan re-appointed him).

• Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s senior economic advisor, is considered a centrist and not a liberal. For a conservative, that makes the glass half-full (or empty) – but only half.

• While Obama attacks McCain’s health plan as “radical,” his advisor, Jason Furman, economic advisor to Obama, sees things differently. Furman, who was also an advisor to Gore, Kerry and erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, said that the 2007 Bush health care plan, which has similarities with McCain’s, was “a step in the right direction.” Further, the selection of Furman as an Obama advisor was criticized by unions because Furman sees benefits in globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart.

• Given the current economic climate, it is unlikely that Obama will be able to implement all the spending programs that he has envisioned. The fact that revenues will be reduced and spending has already increased – dramatically – will be a brake on Obama’s spending plans.

Yes,there are other concerns that conservatives have: Supreme Courtselections (where Obama says that he will place an emphasis on“empathy” over jurisprudence), the elimination of the secretballot in authorizing union representation, uncertainty regardingObama’s military perspective (he asserted that not only would the“surge” in Iraq fail but it would be counter-productive) and theprospect that the world will test Obama with an international crisis(see below) are not good signs.

Theglass may not be full or even half full. But, at least it’s notempty.

Endorsements

TheWashington Post and the New York Times endorsed BarackObama for president. Impressed?

Toput things in perspective, for the Times, you have to go backto 1956 to find them endorsing a Republican. For the Washington Post,it’s over 80 years.

 Impressed?

Bidenendorses McCain

Democraticvice presidential candidate Joe Biden this week endorsed John McCain– indirectly.

“Markmy words,” Biden said, if Obama is elected “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama…. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch,we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, totest the mettle of [Obama].”

Youcan read something into Biden’s remarks. At the time he said them,was he talking about any new president? Was he talking about Obama or McCain being tested? But – he didn’t say “the next president”or “either Obama or McCain” – he said “Barack Obama.” Didhe mean to say “the next president” or “either Obama orMcCain?” Maybe but I don’t think so. I think he said, consciouslyor subconsciously, exactly what he meant to say.

Wecan safely assume that if George W. Bush were to serve a third term,he wouldn’t be tested. For good or ill, the world knows him. If Bush thinks it is necessary to respond with force, he will do so.With Bush, all options are on the table.

And,courtesy of the Obama-Biden campaign, the world believes that McCainis cut of the same cloth as Bush. By logical extension then, if McCain thinks it is necessary to respond with force, he will do so.With McCain, all options are on the table. McCain will not be tested.

So,who would you rather have as president? A man who will be tested withan international crisis and, according to Biden, who may react unpredictably? Or would you rather have a president for whom there isno need to test?

Biden concluded his warning with, “I promise you [the international crisis] will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s going to happen.”

Therefore,is it wise to vote for man who will precipitate an international crisis? Or, is it wiser to vote for the man who won’t precipitate an international crisis. Hmmm. Tough choice.

Whatis Charles Schumer?

Weknow that Charles Schumer (D, NY) is a senator. But what of his character? What is he?

A little background may be helpful. Last June, Schumer did something that was considered to be irresponsible. He publicly raised the prospect of the IndyMac bank failing. As a direct result, a run onthe bank occurred within three days of the Schumer remarks. IndyMac depositors withdrew $100 million and the bank failed. Shareholderswere wiped out and the FDIC paid depositors $8 billion.

AlthoughSchumer says it’s not his fault, others think differently – others think that the Senator was irresponsible and reckless with hiscomments. John Reich, director of the Office of Thrift Supervisionsaid Schumer’s statement “undermined the public confidence essential for a financial institution” leading to its failure.

Now,it has been discovered, Oaktree Capital Management, which has donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chaired, was examining the books of IndyMac to determine which pieces they would buy, should IndyMac fail. This examination was taking place four days before Schumer’s statement.

So the question arises, what is Charles Schumer? Were Schumer’sremarks reckless and irresponsible or were they intentionally made to benefit his financial beneficiary? I’d like to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt and say that he is reckless and irresponsible.

RobertJ. Kulak

WestHartford, Connecticut