Obama's Economic Policy: Socialist or Progressive?

I had originally planned to devote this post to the issues of abortion and Supreme Court nominations, but those issues will have to wait, because I can't let another day go by without addressing McCain's ongoing efforts to turn this election into a choice between "socialism" and "capitalism." I'll give McCain credit: the "Joe the Plumber" stunt has unleashed a tidal wave of conservative fear-mongering, particularly among demographics who still haven't moved beyond the Cold War. But McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a socialist have only solidified my belief that McCain does not have the integrity to lead our country. If Obama's tax policies were truly "socialist," then McCain would have some serious explaining to do concerning his own "socialist" tendencies over the past 8 years:

Following George W. Bush's legacy, the McCain campaign seems to be guided by the belief that the average voter is persuaded more by fear than reason. Rather than rationally explaining why a proposed 3% increase on the top-5% income bracket would be a bad idea for the economy, McCain's campaign has resorted to McCarthyism by suggesting that Obama's economic policies are part of his conspiracy to become the world's next Stalin.

I would love for McCain and his supporters to explain why Obama's tax plan is any more "socialist" than Reagan's earned-income tax credit or McCain's proposed health care credit, both of which intentionally redistribute wealth to low-income Americans in amounts that sometimes exceed the total amount of taxes paid by the recipients. I don't know whether to be more outraged by McCain's hypocrisy or more terrified by his disconnection from reality.

When McCain actually attempts to discuss the specifics of Obama's tax plan, he seems to focus almost exclusively on the effect Obama's plan would have on small businesses, despite the fact that Obama's plan would only affect about 10% of all small businesses. And in some cases, Obama's plan would even reduce small business taxes, including those of "Joe the Plumber:"

FactCheck.org: "McCain's Small Business Bunk"

In reality, Obama's proposed tax rates would be almost identical to the rates established during Bill Clinton's first term (a time when our economy was thriving by today's standards). Although a lot of economic growth during Clinton's presidency might be attributed to technology growth, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the country enjoyed more economic prosperity during Clinton's presidency than during any of the five Republican presidential terms since 1980. It is also difficult to argue with the fact that the superior economic growth during Clinton's presidency is consistent with the superior economic growth during all Democratic presidencies since 1947 as compared to Republican presidencies:

NY Times: "Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?

As even most conservatives would concede, a robust middle class is vital to any democracy. Over the past 8 years, however, the wealthiest 5% of our nation has flourished, while the middle class has rapidly diminished. This disparity has only snowballed over the past several months. Ultimately, "trickle-down" economic policies have resulted in "trickle-up" redistribution of wealth.

Anyone who has spent any significant time in a developing country will tell you: when wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few people, the rule of law loses its relevance, citizens become alienated, and democracies die. In his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith espoused a progressive tax for the same reasons as Obama (and John McCain, at least up until a few weeks ago). In Adam Smith's own words:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

Unfortunately, all of the controversy surrounding the "patriotism" of Obama's tax policy obscures a larger question: which president is more capable of handling the present economic crisis and responding to future, unexpected crises? I don't expect any candidate for president to be a world-renowned economist, and I certainly don't believe that the fate of the economy rests solely on who eats breakfast in the White House, but I do expect a president to have enough discernment to surround himself with competent advisors and enough intelligence to make informed decisions based on the input he receives from those advisors. Interestingly, most economists, including many Republican economists, think Obama is more capable than McCain in this area:

The Economist: "Examining the Candidates"

I'll admit: part of the reason I don't trust McCain to surround himself with quality advisors is his troubling selection of Palin for his VP. But I also believe, for the reasons explained in my post entitled "Ability vs. Experience," that Obama is simply smarter and more talented than McCain. I'm also satisfied by the long list of respected economists and financial experts, including America's wealthiest taxpayer, Warren Buffett, who will advise Obama on economic matters:

List of Obama's Economic Advisors/Supporters

I don't think anyone believes the economy will recover overnight, regardless of who wins the election, but one thing is certain: when I cast my vote on November 4, I won't be questioning my patriotism, and I won't be worrying about whether or not I'm voting for a socialist. And neither will Warren Buffett.

With Charity for All

This is one of the best short lectures I've read in a long time. It was given by Matthew S. Holland to the Law and Literature Class at J. Reuben Clark Law School on April 3, 2008. The lecture analyzes Lincoln's demonstration of Christlike charity and humility to unite the nation toward the end of the Civil War. I read the lecture through the lens of today's political divide and couldn't help but wonder how different our nation would be if Republicans and Democrats alike could somehow overcome the urge to claim the moral high ground. No matter who is elected this year, our government will not change until we as an entire people change. Of course, it would certainly help to have leaders who, like Lincoln, are capable of sacrificing their own vain political ambitions for the sake of uniting the country, rather than dividing the country with unfounded character attacks, gross generalizations, worn out stereotypes, and claims of intellectual, moral, or even spiritual superiority.

Matthew S. Holland: With Charity for All

Ability vs. Experience

I thought it might be a good idea to write down some of the reasons I'm voting for Obama in this year's election, so I can start referring family members, friends, and neighbors to my blog instead of spending several more hours engaging in heated debates or discussions with people I love. For my first installment, I think it would be best to analyze the difference between "ability" and "experience" in order to address the popular concern that Obama lacks McCain's experience.

First, "experience" doesn't necessarily translate into "ability." Our country has been fortunate to have some amazing, transformational leaders (e.g. Abraham Lincoln), who had very little political experience prior to taking office. Rather than focusing solely on experience, it sometimes helps to look at a particular candidate's actual talents and abilities.

Obama was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review (the first Black in the history of the school) and is on the verge of becoming the 3rd youngest president in the history of the country, despite overwhelming odds against him (how many people honestly thought Obama had a chance to be the Democratic nominee, let alone the president, even two years ago?). Unlike Obama, McCain was a miserable student who was best known for taking risks and graduating in the bottom 1% in his class at Annopolis (No. 894 out of 899 to be precise). McCain has also proven to be a failure as a campaigner over the past 10 years, beginning with his unsuccesful bid to receive the Republican nomination against one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history, George W. Bush.

I'm not saying that school achievements necessarily dictate a person's entire life, or that campaign success translates into effective political leadership, but when it comes to someone's ability to run a country, it certainly raises a red flag when a candidate was only 5 people away from graduating last out of a class of 899 students, or when that same candidate has proven to be incapable of running a credible, organized campaign. Ultimately, Obama is winning a lot of independent and conservative votes because he appears to be smarter, more talented, and better tempered than McCain. In fact, many view Obama as a potentially transformative political figure. Obama's perceived "ability" is thus trumping McCain's "experience" in the minds of many voters, including conservatives like George W. Bush's former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. I thought Powell's explanation for his support of Obama aptly described the reasons why so many people, including conservatives, have openly supported Obama's candidacy.

Second, McCain's 25 years of experience can't save him from his VP nomination. Unlike the concerns about Obama's lack of experience, the concerns about Palin actually involve her mental fitness or intellectual sophistication. What good are McCain's 25 years of experience if he can't be trusted to select a competent vice president? I realize this might offend a lot of people, but be honest, do you really want a vice president (and potentially a president), who has to be shielded from the media because she can't be trusted to answer questions about her political views and her record as Alaska's governor?

Third, I think Obama is smart enough and cares enough about his historical legacy that he won't become the liberal socialist that many are portraying him to be. All presidents tend to move toward the center, particularly those who, unlike George W. Bush, like ideas and welcome opposing viewpoints (see, for example, Team of Rivals, a fine book about Abraham Lincoln, which analyzes how Lincoln brought together advisers who often strongly disagreed with him). McCain, on the other hand, has a legacy of taking unsafe risks (whether it be wrecking air planes in the military or nominating a vice presidential candidate that scares 75% of Americans). McCain himself touts himself as a "maverick." I would think that 25 years of experience in Congress would teach you that acting like a maverick (and even being proud of it) isn't the best way to keep people's confidence, let alone run a government and protect a country.

So, ultimately, I am willing to take a chance on someone who might turn out to be an incredible president as opposed to playing it "safe" with someone who hasn't proven to be incredible even after 25 years in office and, in some ways, someone who has proven to lack well-tempered judgment. At this critical time in our country's history, I don't think we can afford to play it safe with a self-proclaimed maverick. I think it's safer to "bet it all on Black."

The Crossing

"The reverence attached to the artifacts of history is a thing men feel. One could even say that what endows any thing with significance is solely the history in which it has participated. Yet wherein does that history lie?" (p. 405)

For those unfamiliar with this book, The Crossing is the second part of Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy. It follows one of my favorite all-time books, All the Pretty Horses. Although The Crossing might be a deeper exploration of McCarthy's obsession with the relationship between history and reality, I'm not sure the plot or the characters are as interesting or as carefully developed as they are in All the Pretty Horses. I realize it's never very productive to compare works of art to each other, but for some reason, The Crossing didn't fill me with the same exhilaration as All the Pretty Horses. Maybe The Crossing is simply too heartbreaking? Regardless, I'm excited to start the final segment to the Trilogy, Cities of the Plain.

John McCain's Role in the Keating 5

For anyone still wondering who they will vote for, it might be worth it to consider John McCain's role in the Savings & Loan Scandal. I'm shocked that no one, not even in McCain's home state, seems to know anything about this story.