I am East Indian, a community that reliably votes for Democrats. So I was surprised when some east indian friends of ours mentioned that they are Republican. I almost recoiled, wondering how this could be. In one moment, I fit them into the Republican stereotype that I have in my head. That night I was thinking about why I considered myself a Democrat. I have many anti-Democratic positions - I believe that Social Security and Medicare have expanded way beyond their original intent, and are bloated, inefficient government programs. I lean towards a pro-life position (although I don't believe in making abortion illegal because I don't feel I have a right to impose my views on others). Pretty much the only thing that puts me in the Democrat camp is that I cannot agree with the Republican party's support of corporations. I feel that corporations have too much power in our society. So, I really am not a Democrat as much as I am anti-Republican! I now wonder what Republicans think of me when I say I am a Democrat (even though I share many positions with them).
I think that's a problem with having a two-party system. Each voter ends up choosing a party based on some hot-button issue that decides their affiliation. That then stereotypes them - I wonder now what people think when I say I am a Democrat. I certainly don't advocate a multi-party system for the US (I've seen the instability in India where there are numerous political parties) - but I do find myself wishing for a third party which represented the political center of the US.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Why I can't bring myself to support Obama
He's run a mostly clean campaign, rejecting the urge to come down to mudslinging his opponents. He has inspired the youth of this country to get involved in politics. He looks presidential. And yet, I can't bring myself to support Obama.
I think this exchange in the New Hampshire debate brought into focus all my concerns about Obama. Hillary Clinton asked him:
"...words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action...."
I happen to agree with Hillary. This is also a general perception (which I agree with) about Obama that he talks inspiringly, yet vaguely of overarching change. I was hoping that Obama would rebut Hillary by talking decisively about his actions - how his past legislative accomplisments stood up to his words - but no, that was not to be. Obama instead replied:
"...and you know, so, the truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health-care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy..."
Say what? Is that what Obama is offering? Does Obama actually think that "words" will help members of Congress and health-industry interests form a coalition for the greater good? He's either being naive or duplicitous.
He talks inspiringly about overarching change, but his past legislative history suggests a record of incremental progress. For instance, while he was in the Illinois senate, it was reported that a nuclear power plant had not disclosed a radioactive leak. Obama tried to introduce legislation to force nuclear power plant operators to disclose even small leaks. The legislation was strongly opposed by industry interests, and Obama compromised by watering down the original proposal to the point that it was fatally weakened.
He has a record of working and compromising with industry interests - which I am perfectly fine with. It is legitimate, even perhaps desirable, to try to find common ground with all interested parties, in a bipartisan manner, even including industry interests in the conversation. But it is equally clear to me that such an approach results in compromise and incremental change. What bothers me is the hypocrisy - of promising overarching change, when his past legislative record suggests incremental progress. Hillary Clinton promises the same type of incremental change and at least she is more honest about it.
But more worrying, I see all this as just a symptom of a broader problem with the political discourse in this country. Neil Postman said it best in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" - in this Age of Television, the image is more important than substance. Let's elect Barack Obama because he looks presidential, and his words are inspiring. Hillary Clinton sheds a tear and that is actually a factor in her winning the New Hampshire primary. John Edwards "sounds phony". Does anyone care about the actual policy proposals of these candidates? This is a far cry from the early days of the American democracy - the first fifteen presidents could have walked the streets without being noticed, but the average citizen would recognize them from their writings and their policy proposals. During Lincoln's presidential campaign, the candidates traveled the country holding eight hour live debates, and these events were enthusiastically attended by common citizens. Instead, today, we have sound-bites.
So how about we look at the policy proposals? Obama's health-care proposal, for example, is the weakest - due to the lack of a mandate for health-care insurance, under his plan, health insurance will be more expensive for those who choose to buy it. And worse, Obama has actually tried to defend his proposal by saying that mandates don't work. He states the example of how states mandate auto-insurance, and yet not all drivers buy auto-insurance. That is a patently false argument - if the mandate didn't exist, even more drivers would not buy auto-insurance, and auto-insurance would be even more expensive for those who choose to buy it. Just because law-enforcement is imperfect is not a reason to get rid of the law altogether.
And that reliance on words, backed by proposals which are weaker than his opponents', a legislative record that suggests more of the status quo - that's the reason for me being wary of Obama.
I think this exchange in the New Hampshire debate brought into focus all my concerns about Obama. Hillary Clinton asked him:
"...words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action...."
I happen to agree with Hillary. This is also a general perception (which I agree with) about Obama that he talks inspiringly, yet vaguely of overarching change. I was hoping that Obama would rebut Hillary by talking decisively about his actions - how his past legislative accomplisments stood up to his words - but no, that was not to be. Obama instead replied:
"...and you know, so, the truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health-care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy..."
Say what? Is that what Obama is offering? Does Obama actually think that "words" will help members of Congress and health-industry interests form a coalition for the greater good? He's either being naive or duplicitous.
He talks inspiringly about overarching change, but his past legislative history suggests a record of incremental progress. For instance, while he was in the Illinois senate, it was reported that a nuclear power plant had not disclosed a radioactive leak. Obama tried to introduce legislation to force nuclear power plant operators to disclose even small leaks. The legislation was strongly opposed by industry interests, and Obama compromised by watering down the original proposal to the point that it was fatally weakened.
He has a record of working and compromising with industry interests - which I am perfectly fine with. It is legitimate, even perhaps desirable, to try to find common ground with all interested parties, in a bipartisan manner, even including industry interests in the conversation. But it is equally clear to me that such an approach results in compromise and incremental change. What bothers me is the hypocrisy - of promising overarching change, when his past legislative record suggests incremental progress. Hillary Clinton promises the same type of incremental change and at least she is more honest about it.
But more worrying, I see all this as just a symptom of a broader problem with the political discourse in this country. Neil Postman said it best in his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" - in this Age of Television, the image is more important than substance. Let's elect Barack Obama because he looks presidential, and his words are inspiring. Hillary Clinton sheds a tear and that is actually a factor in her winning the New Hampshire primary. John Edwards "sounds phony". Does anyone care about the actual policy proposals of these candidates? This is a far cry from the early days of the American democracy - the first fifteen presidents could have walked the streets without being noticed, but the average citizen would recognize them from their writings and their policy proposals. During Lincoln's presidential campaign, the candidates traveled the country holding eight hour live debates, and these events were enthusiastically attended by common citizens. Instead, today, we have sound-bites.
So how about we look at the policy proposals? Obama's health-care proposal, for example, is the weakest - due to the lack of a mandate for health-care insurance, under his plan, health insurance will be more expensive for those who choose to buy it. And worse, Obama has actually tried to defend his proposal by saying that mandates don't work. He states the example of how states mandate auto-insurance, and yet not all drivers buy auto-insurance. That is a patently false argument - if the mandate didn't exist, even more drivers would not buy auto-insurance, and auto-insurance would be even more expensive for those who choose to buy it. Just because law-enforcement is imperfect is not a reason to get rid of the law altogether.
And that reliance on words, backed by proposals which are weaker than his opponents', a legislative record that suggests more of the status quo - that's the reason for me being wary of Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)