An Open Letter from an American Living Abroad
When it comes to politics I don’t like posting loads of pictures, one line slogans or outraged rants on Facebook – usually followed by rows of exclamation points. (“!!!!!!!!!!!!!”). I think it’s better to just take the time to write down your own thoughts, skip the pictures that show a set of horns and pointy little tail drawn on the guy you don’t like, and then let people either read it or not, forward it or not, accept it or not, depending on their own preference. So, after looking at the issues soberly, here is my take on the upcoming election - do with it what you will.
In an age when everything seems to appear on the internet seconds after it takes place, whether by way of a blog, a YouTube clip or a Twitter/Facebook posting, it’s often hard to organize your thoughts in a way that becomes something better than a bumper sticker slogan. Anyone who turns on their computer is bombarded with an unending stream of images – usually not entirely coherent - but always with a point of view. It becomes overwhelming (to say the least). But if the number of times I’ve seen “You’re Fired” or “Get out of the People’s House” photos posted on-line have done anything they’ve at least made me consider the election in terms of a job performance review. I approach the election now as if it were the following question – “has Barack Obama performed well enough to keep his job or has he underachieved to the level that calls for his removal”? Despite the efforts of both sides to make this a “character” election, this is really what the election is about. If you were a boss, (and, in a democracy, you are), would you be entitled to call employee Barack Obama on the carpet and fire him for his performance? This is the question I asked myself, and, after looking at the matter honestly, these are the answers I came up with.
The Biggest Question – The Economy
First I looked at what is clearly, to most people, the most important issue in the election – the economy. The world (not just the USA) is currently enveloped in an economic crisis of long-term duration and extreme gravity. As an American citizen living abroad (Ireland) I can attest to this fact – and I believe I can provide some perspective for people back in the States. First a bit of recent history – Barack Obama and the Democratic party have attempted to deflect criticism from themselves by pointing to the Bush administration for much of the blame involved in leading the world (not just the U.S.) into this difficulty. I asked myself if this approach is justified. In all honesty, while there are roots that go back well beyond George Bush, it does appear that there is merit in this accusation.
On at least five separate occasions during the Bush administration the economy suffered through major economic “events” that would have been, by themselves alone, considered sufficiently serious to indicate that some “pass through” effect would have been visited on following presidents. These include 1) The WorldCom/Enron meltdowns, which had enormous corporate governance implications and seem to have led to no meaningful reform; 2) the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac meltdown, which should have triggered immediate concerns in the housing market; 3) the Bear Stearns collapse which could have been used as an early warning in advance of events that followed (since it, in and of itself, nearly led to economic meltdown a year before the Lehman collapse); 4) the collapse of the American automobile industry which left the country’s manufacturing heartland highly vulnerable and, finally, 5) the global financial meltdown which accompanied the Lehman collapse and led directly to the current extended recession and ongoing crisis. As I said, even one such event would have led to at least some difficulty for future administrations. Five events of this magnitude are unprecedented. While “blame” shouldn’t in and of itself decide how people vote in this particular election there is no reason for anyone to pretend to be shocked or outraged if Obama points a finger at the prior administration in economic matters. Any analyst, if they are being honest, would have to conclude that he’s entitled to do so.
But it needs to be understood that what really should be looked at is whether the response of the Obama administration to the economic crisis has been effective, not just whether someone else is to blame for it. Towards this end the major effort undertaken by the current administration was the economic stimulus package, which was (believe it or not) enacted with some crucial Republican support. The argument over this Act is largely what this election revolves around (though different “catch phrases” are used by each side to describe their core issues). To some this is “socialism” to others “big government run wild”. A close reading shows it is neither.
The clear fact is that the stimulus has worked – if not spectacularly then at least in a highly effective manner. It is also demonstrably less “government centric” than similar, past efforts. All this is borne out by statistics in the recent book “The New New Deal” by Michael Grunwald, a relatively objective writer. Grunwald points out that the stimulus package is directly responsible for the creation or saving of 2.5 million jobs and that the unemployment rate, while hovering at around 8%, is significantly better than the 12-13% that would have arisen without its enactment. As I write this I sit in a country with 15% unemployment and essentially no monetary control. In Spain that rate is 25%. Let’s not even talk about Greece. The difference between the U.S. approach and these countries is that when the crisis hit there was a government in place in America that was willing to act to fill the banking vacuum that the financial crisis had created. Yes this means deficits – but it also means that an even more catastrophic collapse was averted – giving the country the ability to rebound. America was strong enough to overcome the stupidity of its financial industry and past governments – it would have been nearly criminally negligent not to flex its muscles to save its own people – and Obama should not be punished for having the fortitude to take this action in the very early days of his administration (when most presidents are still learning how to use the White House phone system).
Still – if this effort had been a step on the slippery road to socialism I could not bring myself to support it. After all, the reason many of the European countries couldn’t react similarly was because they are so ridiculously invested in their own public sector edifices. If there weren’t some checks built into the stimulus package to keep it from creating irreversible government dependency – and if they hadn’t worked effectively – then it wouldn’t have been worth it even if it did provide stability. However, there were such checks built in – and they did work.
When the Act was first voted in the Obama administration looked at whether to invest in enormous projects that had been at the center of the “old” New Deal (like the Boulder Dam or Tennessee Valley Authority). They quickly realized that projects like these (each of which employed upwards of 5,000 workers just by itself in the 1930’s) would, in the current times, only employ about 5% of that figure due to increased mechanisation and computer driven labor savings. So instead of opting for this type of ginormous federally run project the stimulus monies have largely been parcelled out pursuant to a closely monitored fund. The wastage rate as a result of this has been remarkably low (auditors have found losses of only $7.2 million – or .001%) and there is no way to characterize an approach of this type as “big government” in the classic sense. In point of fact most politicians would never have allowed this type of methodology. Big projects (rather than the small controlled type) mean big votes. New airports in Ohio, dams in Colorado, port reconstructions in New Hampshire – those would have been headline makers. President Obama should not be penalized for refusing to do what most “big government” pols would have loved to do – use that big pool of money to create large vote grabbing photo opportunities for himself. Instead the mechanism for the stimulus was used in the manner that primarily targeted smaller, less “sexy”, projects. You can get a description of it what was done here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html, but the main point of this is – the stimulus package worked – and is still working. Believe me – I live in a place where the economic approach didn’t work – and isn’t working – and you in America could be a hell of a lot worse off. You can’t fire a guy for being successful – it’s not fair.
Still – the economy isn’t the only reason to vote one way or the other. You can find the views of the other side to be so brilliant that you can’t resist them. You could also have one issue that makes one of the candidates so repulsive you can’t bring yourself to vote for them. Or you could see the combined weight of all the other issues as so compelling one way or the other you have to vote that way. Let’s look at those options one by one.
Republican brilliance – Look – as far as I can tell Mitt Romney is not a stupid person, but no one is comparing him to Thomas Jefferson in terms of political philosophy either. His own campaign brought up the “etch-a-sketch” analogy back during the primaries and he seems to be living up to it in every way. He is “against” the limited amnesty for illegal aliens granted by President Obama – but he “wouldn’t revoke it” either. He is “against” the bailout of the auto industry but promises to continue that policy every time he travels the Midwest. He opposes the regulations imposed on the financial industry – but doesn’t specify which ones will be reversed. I see very little evidence of a true political philosophy there – Mitt Romney doesn’t want to be your leader – he wants to be your pal. He wants to be everybody’s buddy – except the “professional victims” who conveniently seem to disappear whenever he walks into a room. I tend to not like people who want to tell you only what you want to hear. I’m telling the people reading this what I feel – not what they want to hear – and I’m sure I’ll hear back from plenty of them. Good – I can take it. I’m not sure Mr. Romney ever could. Barack Obama has made a few enemies (understatement) but I’m OK with that to. I feel I know where he stands – and while I don’t agree with everything he does, I admire his convictions and respect his intentions. That’s not the way I feel about Mitt. If Mitt Romney won the first debate (and he did) it was because he made himself into a completely different Mitt position-wise than the one who ran in the Republican primaries. He was Mitt the chameleon – etch-a-Mitt – Mitt Zelig. I don’t like or trust that.
There is a person on the Republican side however who does have a clear philosophy. Paul Ryan cannot be accused of waffling. However –the role model he cites for his approach to life (Ayn Rand) is perhaps the worst possible example of where I personally would want the country to go. Rand’s way of thinking is best summed up in a passage from Atlas Shrugged, whose protagonist says "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." That eliminates just about every Christian tenet in the world – and this from a party that is supposed to revere Christianity. If Paul Ryan is where the true Republican philosophy can be found it should be rejected – both because your second in command shouldn’t be your leader but mostly because it’s wrong.
Candidate Repulsion – I’ve been told I’m supposed to reject Barack Obama because he is 1) Not a native born American (untrue); 2) A Muslim (untrue and immaterial); 3) In favor of infanticide (untrue and a disgusting accusation that came straight from Mike Huckabee during the Republican Convention); 4) A socialist (untrue – as anyone who has ever run up against a true socialist would know) and – most recently – 5) because I wouldn’t have like his mother (I couldn’t believe this but look here – http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/28/obama_conspiracy_theory_movie_dead_mother_s_sex_life_is_target_in_dreams_from_my_real_father_.html someone actually spent the money to send out one million videos of this garbage). I have now officially reached the point where I am so sick of this approach that even if I had my doubts about the first couple of things I’ve talked about – I’d still vote for Obama. The level that this has gone to is insane. Donald Trump (someone who does repulse me) spent a year chasing down the bogus “birth certificate” story – until he was publicly shamed. You would expect him to be shunned for this – instead he has been rewarded with “chief fund raiser” status. I don’t know Barack Obama personally – but what I’ve seen I like. I like the way he treats his wife and kids. I like that he can sit down and have a discussion about sports that seems pretty rational http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUYDRvvLp4 . I like the fact that he seems to think that sitting down and just having a beer with someone you disagreed with is a good way to clear the air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83sPsoyt-8Q. In short - he seems like an OK guy. Why is there this insistence on demonizing him? This, again, is unfair – and the American people usually are, at the end of the day, fair. You don’t fire somebody because the bullies are ganging up on him.
Finally – one word about Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment. The only way you can get to that number – the only way – is if you include seniors on a fixed income in the mix. My mother is a cancer survivor who has retired. I don’t know what she pays in federal income tax but it’s probably pretty low now. She gets a pension, my Dad’s pension and some social security – and she does pretty well getting by. But here’s the point – she spent years and years of her life working, raising a family and paying her taxes. To have someone lump her into a group and label her “dependent” now – after all those years – makes me sick. And it’s not just her – in that 47% are wounded or elderly veterans, mentally or physically disabled people who still work a job at Mickey D’s because they love to get out and work and people with legitimate problems – none of whom should be tarred with this brush. If there is any one thing that a candidate for President has said in this campaign that does repulse me it’s that “47%” bullshit. You can tell a lot about a person by what he says when he thinks no one but his buddies are listening.
All the Other Issues Considered – Sure, it’s the economy, stupid – but it’s also everything else. So if Barack Obama was in the wrong about the vast majority of the remaining issues I would vote against him. However – he’s not. I’ll pull two big ones out of the fire.
First “ObamaCare” - I don’t expect everyone to like this piece of legislation – hell, if I was writing it this wouldn’t be the solution I’d draft. But here’s the thing – we couldn’t continue to do nothing in the area of healthcare – we just couldn’t. This particular approach – the personal mandate – is the one method which has proven acceptable to both sides albeit not in a way that pleases all, or even most. Deep down we all know this – but more important is how we know this. We know it because when this same experiment was tried in a smaller laboratory (Massachusetts) the net result of the political process was almost exactly the same. And the leader of that first experiment in compromise (which is at the core of effective politics)? Yup, Mitt Romney. ObamaCare is RomneyCare – and vice versa. Again – it is unfair to fire one person from a job and replace him with another when they have shown that given the same set of circumstances they would do exactly the same thing.
Next, gun control. I support, and support strongly, the right to keep and bear arms. I keep reading about how anti-gun Obama is – but here is a quote from the Washington Post:
Obama kept his promises to gun owners but not to gun control advocates who have been frustrated by the White House's lack of interest.
The president signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak. He has not pushed for the reinstement of the assualt weapons ban - and Attorney General Eric Holder was reportedly chastised for suggesting he would. Nor has he moved toward closing the gun-show loophole.
Doesn’t really sound like someone who is that anti-gun to me. I also remember the last election cycle – when, after the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns reporters flocked to Obama, expecting him to criticize the decision of the conservative court. Only one problem – they found out that he supported the decision – on constitutional grounds. It is not fair to throw someone out of their job for disagreeing with you on the issues when they don’t really disagree with you at all.
This seems to be true with a lot of the people who are foaming at the mouth about the Obama administration on a number of issues. For instance, I keep seeing how “America’s standing abroad is dropping” – look, I live abroad – and take my word for it – everyone here loves the guy. Even if you don’t take my word for it – look here: https://ip-journal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/discreet-charm-barack-obama . And this is even when he refuses to play some of the typical diplomatic games with these foreign leaders. America’s approval ratings abroad are up in every world region bar one. Up in Asia, up in Europe, up in the emerging African sphere, up in Latin America. The only place they are down? – yup, the Middle East – the same Middle East that is supposed to be so supportive of the President (because, you know, he’s Muslim and all). So if you’re worried about America’s standing in the world – and America’s standing is just fine, thank you – what are you worried about?
So here is where I’m coming from. I’ve been an employee, a small business owner and an executive. I’ve been on both sides of the desk for performance evaluation and I know this much – if you are going to remove someone from their job – take away the thing that is very much a part of who they are – you better be damn sure they deserve it. I cannot see how anyone, other than the most extreme party zealots, can argue persuasively that a firing is called for here. And look - I know many of the policies we're talking about don't feel successful. There are a lot of people hurting out there, the world still seems a dangerous place, it seems that the turnaround is taking a long time. But when you look at what could have happened and how four years in the course of history is actually a very short amount of time, the President's record is a good one. So Obama gets my vote – not because I’m following any blind party line – but because he’s the best candidate and he deserves four more years. It’s the only fair choice.
