LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Obamamaniacs scream for change but reality and talk are very different, Victor David Hanson breaks it down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... _what.html

Nothing like putting a little bias in the opening statement, eh? Maniacs screaming for change. Reality is quite a bit different than talk though, specifically the talk coming from Victor David Hanson.

First, let's point out that he is a historian at the Hoover Institution, so you might as well say that this article is an analysis of the Obama campaign by the Bush administration, so I'm sure it is unbiased reporting.

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements, and the Institution has long been a place of scholarship for high profile conservatives with government experience. A number of fellows have connections to or positions in the Bush administration, and other Republican administrations. On September 8, 2007 the Hoover Institution announced that former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had accepted an invitation to join the institution as a one-year visiting fellow. Other fellows of the Institution include such high profile conservatives as Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell, Dinesh D'Souza, Shelby Steele, Edwin Meese and Pete Wilson.

Let's look at the topics covered in his screed. (See how these code words work?)

Foreign Policy

Take Obama's foreign-policy pronouncements, which promise a break with the unhappy past. Two doctrines are most prominent. One is to engage our enemies and be nicer to our allies. The other calls for leaving Iraq on a set timetable.

The problem with the first is that key allies like the conservative French, German and Italian governments -- unlike the days of rage in 2003 -- now embrace pretty much the same policies that we do. Britain and the European Union just called for imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, while both France and Britain promise to send more troops to Afghanistan.

In Feb. 2007, Sen. Obama called for American troops out of Iraq by March 2008. But in the last four months since that proposed final departure, violence is way down as the U.S. military and Iraqi army have stabilized much of the country.

The world in January 2009 will not be the same as it was in February 2007. So would a President Obama really engage Iranian President Ahmadinejad just as the Europeans are isolating him, or give up on Iraq when the American military may well gradually draw down in victory, not defeat?

Yes, Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy about the past - the fiasco in Iraq, the lack of priority given to pursuing the real perpetrators of 9/11, the absolute dimunition of American prestige around the world. They want a change there.

Would Barack Obama engage in diplomacy with Iran? Most likely, just like the Bush administration. If you haven't noticed, we've made Iran the major power in that region of the Mideast. "Victory" in Iraq means that the al Maliki administration is able to stand on it's own two feet, correct? And the biggest supporter of the al Maliki regime (after the U.S.) would be that large Shiite country bordering it, correct? If we hope to come to any kind of resolution of the Iraqi conflict it is going to involve some kind of dialog with Iran.

The British and French better get those additional troops to Afghanistan, since the situation there is not exactly stable. How much better could it be if we hadn't pulled the majority of our forces out before the mission was accomplished? Are we truly going to have the bin Laden administration outlast that of the George W Bush administration? Could that be considered a foreign policy and GWOT failure?

Mr. Hanson continues to cling to the notion that some kind of "victory" can still be achieved in Iraq, but no one seems to be able to define what that victory looks like. We've heard about "standing down when the Iraqi Army stands up" - and that is still a chimera at this point. We only need to maintain 50+ bases well into the future just to make sure they're still standing. Violence is down in Iraq, but it is still at a level that would be shocking anywhere else. The surge of 30,000 troops is given all the credit for this accomplishment, which if true, just reflects the utter failure of the initial planning when Mr. Rumsfeld overruled those who said we would need many, many more troops to maintain security. Less discussed are the billions of dollars in payoffs being made to Sunni and Shiite leaders to maintain the current ceasefire. Make no mistake though - those tensions are boiling just beneath the surface, and the country will descend into further religious civil war at some point in the not too distant future. One can look at the lack of any type of political settlement to see that these differences are not going to be peacefully settled.

Energy

Gas prices are soaring. Americans are frustrated (and a bit ashamed) that we continue to beg the Saudis to pump another half-million barrels a day on their soil and off their shores to ease global tight supplies, when we could pump much more than that in Alaska, off our coasts and on the continental shelf -- and thus save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yet Sen. Obama's change probably wouldn't include more drilling; more nuclear power plants; or fuel extraction from tar sands, shale or coal. Instead, his strategy emphasizes more conservation; mass transit; and wind, solar and alternate green energy. All that is certainly wise and could be a winning combination by 2030, but right now it won't fill our tanks.

It's nice that Mr. Hanson recognizes the wisdom of Barack Obama's focus on conservation and renewable energy sources. These technologies can start providing clean energy much sooner than 2030, and more of a focus (similar to the effort to put a man on the moon) might help.
The market is already driving us towards conservation efforts as gas-guzzling SUV's become pariahs on the used car lots. Additional exploration for reserves is taking place already, since the market is driving it. After all, that's what the current $4.00/gallon gas cost is paying for, according to the oil executives' testimony before Congress - it's not excess profits. A minor point, those new resources aren't going to fill the tank now either. I'm sure Mr. Hanson's perspective isn't influenced by who pays his check.

The Hoover Institution receives much of its funding from private charitable foundations, including many attached to large corporations. A partial list of its recent donors includes:
ARCO Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Exxon Educational Foundation
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation

Investing in new nuclear power plants is on the table and has merit. There are some issues, the main one being that we haven't come up with a long-term solution to the storage of waste that has been generated over the last half-century. The NIMBY factor is quite strong - anyone volunteering to bury a barrel in your yard? On the plus side - we have a potential new source of fuel coming on line.

Taxes

Sen. Obama also wishes to raise trillions in new taxes by upping the capital gains margins, restoring inheritance taxes, raising the income rates on the upper brackets and lifting the income caps on Social Security payroll taxes. Such an old-fashioned soak-the-rich plan will please a strapped public tired of overpaid CEOs and Wall Street jet setting.

Yet forcing the affluent to pay even more won't necessarily reduce annual deficits of the last eight years or pay down the huge national debt -- not when Obama promises more vast entitlements in health care, education and housing and current aggregate federal revenues were increased by past tax cuts that spurred economic growth.

Yes, the less-than-very-rich will be happy to reverse the policies of the Bush administration. Calling it "soak-the-rich" rather than "paying their fair share" can be seen as a way of deflecting reality.


"current aggregate federal revenues were increased by past tax cuts that spurred economic growth"
The tax cuts of the past eight years have led to an incredibly robust economy as Bush departs the scene, no? Even Mr. Hanson recognizes the massive deficits and huge increase in the national debt that have resulted from current policies. Americans have shown that they want to pursue different priorities with their tax dollars (healthcare being at the top of the list) and reasonable people realize that there is no free lunch, even though they've been trying to feed us that for the past term.


So supporters of Senator Obama are not all maniacs screaming for change. some of them might even be taking a reasoned look at the current global scene, recognize the need to take a different path, know that it won't be easy, but are willing and committed to seeing that change come about.

Nice post.

Any dates set for the Obama/McCain debates?

Definitely see some superbowl-priced advertising for those commercial spots.

Debates should be commercial free.

KnoxVegas wrote:Debates should be commercial free.

So should campaigns. . .but unfortunately big pharma, big oil, etc. are a gigantic part of all things political (with both parties). . .so even if they go commercial free -- both parties will be pandering to big pharma (tragic)and big oil. . .

Jason, I agree with that as well.

I also believe that a citizen should be fined for not voting, like in Australia. Even if you are out of the country the day of the election it is your responsibility to vote either through absentee ballot or at an embassy or consulate. Anyone else willing to go there with me? I know that there are issues with free speech but if I have learned anything in the last seven years it is that things like that are negotiable.

Election Day should also be a national holiday with schools closed as well as the markets and businesses closed as well

Fining people who don't vote is only an incentive for the people who can't afford to pay the fine. These are also the people who (generally) don't have as much time to research the candidates and make an informed decision. If there would be people voting just because they want to avoid a fine, I'd rather they not. I'll take the people who actually care enough to want to vote.
Having election day be a national holiday has always sounded like a good idea to me, though. Let's get rid of one of the more absurd federal holidays and replace it with Election Day. The people who want to can vote, and those who don't want to (who are the same people I don't want voting) can just get drunk. Win-win.

So here’s my take on the business of electing a president. Be warned this contains a lot of generalizations and is not intended to single out any individual or group.

Our society has become so driven by instant information, that we’ve lost our ability to do patient research. Our mode of operation is short attention span theater. We all want info in a small snippet; we don’t want the background, the history, the forecast of impact. We want instant gratification, without regard to the long term costs to us, our children, or our society.

We can get any information we want in a heartbeat. Many “news” outlets are more interested in being first that being accurate. The question of corporate news outlets political affiliations is disturbing. Who wants to hear things that make them uncomfortable, let’s listen to Fox/CNN/MSNBC because they tell it like we want to hear it? Both the cons and libs are guilty, but we passively endorse this crap because it fills our insatiable hunger.

The internet has magnified this phenomenon. Too many of us lend immediate credibility to online information which is all too often placed before us by semi-anonymous individuals who have an agenda.

Those running the political parties recognize this trait in our society and exploit it. They are now charged with selecting an electable candidate – not the best candidate. That’s why we get bombarded with 30 second sound bites that throw out a few catchy phrases, but by their nature contain no true substance. It’s why all questions in debates are prescreened by the candidate’s handlers. It’s why the Moveon.org’s and Swiftboaters of the world are sent out to propagate rumor and innuendo - that’s much more convenient than actually taking the time to understand what’s being said and the reason behind it. The fact that these groups sound official, seem to have data to support their statements makes them all the more convincing. Some of them may even perform some worthwhile service as well, but we don’t want to take the time to ask “why”.

I find it sad that people in, for example the UK, know more about our current government than do everyday voting citizens.

I think we’ve all been guilty of this to varying degrees – I know I am.

The sad thing is that our 2-party system has created a divide in our country such that neither side is able or willing to compromise so as to benefit the average American. We need more people involved who are not on the fringe of the political spectrum. More people who are willing to cooperate for the common good rather than for special interest.

How do we effect change? It starts at home, in your own heart. Take the time to study the candidates. Include information from sources you normally wouldn’t and then investigate (and possibly refute) the things you find disagreeable. Listen to the whole story, not the 10 second clip on TV. If you feel so inclined, share your thoughts with others, both like minded and those who differ. Discuss, don’t argue or accuse. Admit when you opposition has a valid point; don’t gloat when you have one. Arrive at a well informed decision and vote your conscience. If you candidate is not successful, don’t give up.

Big picture people!

jayjaciv wrote:Fining people who don't vote is only an incentive for the people who can't afford to pay the fine.

Ok, so those people pay their fine for abstaining. I think it causes you to be a more informed voter. People pay bottle deposits every day but how many return the empties for their money back? Vote keep your money. No vote, pay up.

jayjaciv wrote:Having election day be a national holiday has always sounded like a good idea to me, though.

For just federal or should states have to enact holidays too to allow their citizens to vote? Either way, there is no reason to do so. People work on holidays, too. All states allow you to vote absentee and some (including Florida) allow for early voting for both federal and state elections. These are allowance that negate having to have a holiday to vote.

jayjaciv wrote:Let's get rid of one of the more absurd federal holidays and replace it with Election Day.

Care to suggest one? I say let's start with Patriots' Day.

KnoxVegas wrote:For just federal or should states have to enact holidays too to allow their citizens to vote? Either way, there is no reason to do so. People work on holidays, too. All states allow you to vote absentee and some (including Florida) allow for early voting for both federal and state elections. These are allowance that negate having to have a holiday to vote.

Here, the law requires employers to ensure that employees have at least 4 consecutive hours off while the polls are open. Do you guys not do that in the States?

Tim Whitehead wrote:

KnoxVegas wrote:For just federal or should states have to enact holidays too to allow their citizens to vote? Either way, there is no reason to do so. People work on holidays, too. All states allow you to vote absentee and some (including Florida) allow for early voting for both federal and state elections. These are allowance that negate having to have a holiday to vote.

Here, the law requires employers to ensure that employees have at least 4 consecutive hours off while the polls are open. Do you guys not do that in the States?

Nothing like this exists in the U.S.

In 2004 I voted for president 45 days before the election was actually held. It was an esy process, just takes individuals being prepared well ahead of time with registration, address etc.