The Change we Really Need, not the Change Obama Offers
Last week in Columbia, Missouri, Barack Obama said, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,“ Hearing these words, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich remarked, “Notice he does not say he wants to change the government. He says he wants to change America.”
Many Democrats agree that the American people don’t favor such a fundamental transformation. “Stan Greenberg, a prominent Democratic pollster, suggested . . . that voters are interested in Obama ‘because of his steadiness,’ and not because of his progressive agenda.“
After a number of Bush Administration blunders in the past few years, leading even Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, to question the president’s competence as an executive. Other conservatives offered similar criticisms. No wonder the American people want a change. Gerard Baker of London’s Times senses
that the change they want is for a welcome period of competence and decency. They would rather have a government that works than a new paradigm for the organisation of American society, a radical redistribution of income and wealth or a dramatically expanded public sector.
And yet with his promise to spread the wealth, offering “tax cuts” to those who don’t even pay taxes and promising to increase government spending, Obama is doing just that. Americans want a more competent Administration, not a more expansive government.
The change Obama proposes is not the change we need. Will the American people see past his slogan to understand that he doesn’t intend to merely restore competence to the federal government, but to fundamentally transform our nation?
Were John McCain and Sarah Palin not of the party of the unpopular incumbent Adminstration, people might more readily recognize that their records of reform more closely resemble the change we need than the rhetoric their rivals offer.
For more than the three years, McCain faulted the president for failing to shift strategy in Iraq. When the president finally adopted his approach, we began to turn the tide in that troubled land. Throughout the Bush era, the Arizona Senator has been (all too often alas!) a lone voice for fiscal sanity as both parties refused to rein in federal spending.
His running mate has also defied her own party, standing up to and taking down a number of corrupt Republicans in the Alaska establishment. When she finally became Governor, she held the line on state spending and put together a natural pipeline deal that elude her predecessors of both parties.
By contrast, even as he claims “we can’t afford four more years of spending increases,” Obama has not identified any programs he’ll cut, offering only additional increases. So, we see the fundamental transformation Obama proposes, shifting ever more resources and power to the federal government. That would really change America. And not for the better.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
And what is so wrong with America that it requires change? Nothing. America is fine, it’s Washington that needs reform. And damn McCain to Hell for not making this distinction the focal point of his campaign.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 9:02 am - November 3, 2008
It’s not that I think Barack Obama would necessarily make a FANTASTIC President, nor do I think John McCain would make a particularly HORRIBLE President. After all, a Presidency is for only four years. On the other hand, a Supreme Court appointment is for LIFE, and it’s the Supreme Court’s further drift to the Far Right under a McCain administration (or, Heaven forbid, a PALIN administration) that concerns me the most.
The gigantic elephant in the room that everyone would prefer not to discuss is the future of full inclusion, including marriage equality, for LGBT Americans. The Religious Right knows this; for them, making marriage off-limits to Gay Americans once and for all is the most important thing in the world right now. The fact that Sarah Palin favors an amendment that would forever ERASE Gay couples from the Constitution is reason enough for me to despise her. As for those like John McCain who believe that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married†once they decide to move somewhere else.
The fact remains that the term “marriage†does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no “right†for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I’m sure they would prefer NOT to. All the more reason why Barack Obama must be the one making the next few SCOTUS nominations. It’s an issue that cuts straight to my heart as a Gay American. And I’m surprised it doesn’t seem quite so important to you.
Comment by Chuck Anziulewicz — November 3, 2008 @ 9:57 am - November 3, 2008
SS Marriage is much less important to me than national security, economic recovery, and other issues that affect all Americans, not just a 4% minority. Forgive my selfishness.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 11:21 am - November 3, 2008
Chuck, have you read the 10th Amendment recently? You’re implying that rather than utilizing the amendment process that your opponents support, you’d rather circumvent the people and have the Supreme Court legislate what is a state jurisdiction. Your solution is to stack the court with those sympathetic to your cause, despite your recognition that it would be unconstitutional were the court to make such a decision.
Marriage is not an individual right. It is a social contract that must prove a benefit to the society as contractual grantor. There is nothing preventing you from engaging in a private ceremony declaring your commitment; the state will not make your relationship more committed and more loving, nor will the absence of state validaton detract from it nor of any indirect communal benefit.
The essential question is: Are there certain unique qualities specific to a traditional heterosexual marriage that should be legally upheld as an ideal, thereby performing an irreplaceable service to the social goal of stability separate from other types of relationships? I say yes.
Comment by Ignatius — November 3, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - November 3, 2008
“We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world’s energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we’ll be fine.”
It sounds to me like the change Obama favors involves a rather substantial lowering of the American standard of living.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2008 @ 12:24 pm - November 3, 2008
I am in total agreement with V the K, SS marriage is less important national security. What will Obama do to our defense structure? Will he grossly underfund the Department of Defense by 25%? My other great concern about Obama is his idea of redistributive rights that are no where in our constitution. He continues to campaign on the promise to give 95% of us taxcuts while only 50% of the people now pay any income tax.
Comment by Swampfox — November 3, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - November 3, 2008
Without real, meaningful national security you can have economic opportunity nor social equality. And economic opportunity requires rewards for investment, innovation and risk-taking. So that’s two strikes against Obama bin Biden….
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 3, 2008 @ 12:57 pm - November 3, 2008
errr…make that, “Without national security you can’t have economic opportunity nor social equality.”
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm - November 3, 2008
Translation: Actually FOLLOWING the Constitution = “drifting to the Far Right”
Comment by American Elephant — November 3, 2008 @ 11:32 pm - November 3, 2008
What scares me so much about Obama is his claim that he will “Change the world”. I think he’s a megalomaniac whose ego has grown with media attention and celebrity fawning. What sort of nut job would claim that he would change the world. Honestly, this is scary!
Comment by Vivian — November 3, 2008 @ 11:54 pm - November 3, 2008