A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

election 2008

How Obama Won

by Leave a Comment

Historians and pundits will be picking through the 2008 election for years, but there seem to be four main factors that made an Obama win possible.

First, there is Obama himself. He put together an excellent team, developed an effective strategy, and was a master at presenting himself. He also excelled at damage control. Further, he has the traits that Americans are looking for in a leader: he is calm, rational, competent and confident. He also seems to be willing to take steps to bring Americans together, even to the point of possibly including Republicans in his cabinet.

Second, there was McCain and Palin. McCain has many virtues, but the ability to run an effective and strategic campaign is not among them. As the pundits pointed out, he had no overall strategy and seemed to lurch from tactic to tactic based on what day of the week it was and what tape or rumor  about Obama happened to surface. Palin also seems to have been a slight drag on the ticket. Perhaps not enough to make a major difference, but enough to take votes away from McCain. Of course, it was impressive to see McCain keeping his campaign going. It was like watching a pilot somehow keeping a bullet ridden and burning plane in the air.

Third, there was the economy. As the pundits have said, if the economy was doing well and the #1 issue was security, McCain would have most likely won. However, McCain came across as weak on the economy and fumbled badly when the crisis arose. Obama handled the situation with more skill and succeeded in coming across as confident. Further, concern about the economy no doubt helped erode concerns about race. This is, of course, the classic foxhole effect. In times of such worry people care less about factors like race and more about whether someone can help them out. Obama did an excellent job convincing the American people that he can handle this crisis while McCain did not. Hence, the tanking economy gave Obama a critical boost by switching the race to McCain’s weak point and also dampening concerns about race.

Fourth, there was George Bush and the Republicans. Their actions  lead to incredibly low approval ratings and to a damaged Republican brand. McCain not only had to run against Obama, he also had to run against the damage done by his own party. If McCain had been able to do more to separate himself from Bush, then he might have had a better chance. Amazingly, calling himself a maverick did not do this. Of course, McCain was in a difficult situation: he had to cozy up to the party to get the support and funds he needed, but had to distance himself from that party to avoid being dragged down. In the end, he was unable to make it work.

One Party Rule?

by 4 Comments

While the election results are not yet in, the numbers seem to favor an Obama win. The Democrats are also in a position to take control of the Senate (they already have a majority in the House). Naturally, the pundits are discussing the implications of one party rule.

On the right, the fear is that the Democrats will use their power to impose their liberal agenda on America: sex education, same sex marriage, tax increases, and other such left wing programs. In short, the right is afraid that the Democrats will do things they do not like. That is, in general, how most people look at politics (what they like and dislike).

On the left, the hope is that the Democrats will use their power to give the American people what they need: sex education, same sex marriage, tax increases, and other such left wing programs. In short, the left is hoping that the Democrats will do things that they like.

In the middle ground, some people are worried that the Democrats will do some things they do not like and are hoping that they will do some things they do like. If the Democrats do win big, this will indicate (to some degree) that most people have more hope that the Democrats will do things they want than fear they will do things they do not want.

My thoughts on the matter are that a Democratic domination of government can go many ways.

Since I remember Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, I remember how the Democratic President and the Democratic congress could not get along. Their disagreements rivaled those that involved Democrats and Republicans. As such, one party dominance does not entail a monolithic and cooperative government. This is hardly shocking: since there are only two major parties, it stands to reason that each contains people with very different views. While the Democrats slide left and Republicans slide right, there is a great deal of variation within those vague borders. Also, politicians are (obviously enough) politicians and love their power and perks. Hence, they tend to be in competition with each other-even within the same party. As such, even a Democratic sweep can still lead to a divided government, gridlock and conflict. While this can impede the passage of good laws, it can also protect America from bad laws. Having read Thoreau and other anarchists, I can see the good side of a government that is busy fighting with itself. Such conflict can, ironically, help protect the general good. Politicians, like other villains, are generally up to no good-so the less they do, the better. Of course, such conflict can prevent good and useful laws from being passed, which can be a problem.

Of course, perhaps Obama and Congress will get along and there will, in fact, be a true Democratic hegemony in Washington. As noted above, those who like this idea will be pleased and those who fear it will not. As some folks on the right have pointed out, this sort of Washington might try to push a liberal agenda on America and that could be bad for the country. After all, we have seen what has happened when the President and the majority of Congress are in the same party. When it was the Republicans, things got bad. It seems reasonable to consider that the Democrats will be bad as well-just in different ways. Of course, the right’s biggest complaint is that it won’t be the right running the show. But, their concerns are worth considering. After all, the checks and balances system was not set up on the assumption that people will do nice things when they are in power.

Will Voting Work in Florida?

by 2 Comments

First, let me be clear that although I live in Florida, I am from Maine. However, that did not protect me from taunts and jokes about the 2000 election mess. Or the 2004 election mess. Or the more recent pre-emptive jokes about how voting will be screwed up once again in Florida.

Of course, the taunting hurts because there is truth behind it. But, while the other states point and laugh at Florida, they need to remember that they also have their share of voting problems. How many of these problems (like voting machines that seem intent on only allowing McCain votes) are the result of intentional corruption and how many are the results of incompetence or just the usual things that can go wrong in huge, complex events remains to be seen. I suspect that much of it will be just accidents and innocent foul ups. But, I’m sure corruption will play a role as well. That, like apple pie, is an American tradition.

I’m working on my witty replies to the taunts that will start on November 5th (or maybe even on the 4th). I do try to avoid resorting to violence, but it can be tempting. For example, in 2000 here is how my reply worked:

Taunter: “Hey, can you people in Florida count?”

Me: “Yes. That was one punch to the face right there. Amazingly, I can count quite high…perhaps to infinity. Would you care to see that?”

Taunter: “Ow, my face! No!”

Me: “Very wise, Mr. Gore. “

The Attack that Wasn’t

by Leave a Comment

A young McCain campaign worker was recently the center of a rather odd incident.  The gist of the story is that she told the police she had been attacked by a black man because of her McCain sticker. According to her initial story, the man “wrote” a backwards B on her face using a dull knife. As it turns out, she later admitted that nothing of the sort happened-she saw that she had the B on her face and simply made up the story. Not surprisingly, the police have recently said that she has a history of mental problems.

The evidence seems to be that this was not a calculated attack against Obama’s campaign. Instead, it seems to be an unfortunate incident involving someone who clearly seems to be in need of help. Naturally, some people will make note of the fact that the imaginary attacker was said to be a black man and interpret this as involving racism. Some might also suspect that this was not just an unfortunate incident, but that the woman intended to launch an attack on Obama that would stir up the old fears of black men attacking white women.

Interestingly, I do suspect that some people will believe that the attack was real, much as some folks still think that Obama is a Muslim or an Arab. I’m reasonably confident that emails and rumors are already going around that Obama’s supporters (especially black men) are targeting McCain supporters (especially young white women) for violence. I’m confident that McCain does not support such tactics. He certainly seemed genuinely disgusted with and tired of the unfounded attacks on Obama. Of course, the negative tactics that his campaign have adopted certainly have not helped matters.

Fortunately, while we Americans often disagree in very heated ways when it comes to politics, we generally do not enage in politically inspired violence against one another. Not to say that it never happens, of course.

In any case, I hope the woman gets the help she needs.

Real Americans?

by Leave a Comment

Most Americans are currently angry and worried about the state of the country. But, the questions arises: are these people real Americans?

Sarah Palin recently raised the issue of whether all so-called Americans are real Americans: “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

While she does not directly assert that people outside of small towns (the majority of Americans-assuming we should call them that) are not real, patriotic or pro-American, this does seem to be a clear case of innuendo. After all, if city folk are real, patriotic and pro-American as well, why should she make such a distinction between what she calls “the real America” and the rest of the country?

While pandering to certain  voters and their illusions is all part of politics, insinuating that the rest of America is not real, not patriotic and not very pro-American is both insulting and divisive. There seems to be no evidence to show that there really are two Americas that are divided clearly between the unreal cities and the real small towns. Hence, the claim also fails to be an accurate claim as well.

In these times, we need to work together and be united. Such divisiveness and insulting rhetoric is not helping the country at all and might be harmful if people take it seriously. Obviously, we do not all agree on critical moral and political issues. But, most Americans believe that we are in trouble; mostly because we are. These are the times when we need leaders to help bring us together to face our common problems. We do not need any rhetoric that tells the majority of Americans that they are not real. I can only assume that Palin means that a real American is one who agrees with her. However, that is not what it means to be a real American. I disagree with many of my fellow Americans, but I do not think that makes them any less real, patriotic or American.

Boo! Scary Socialism is Going to Get You!

by 13 Comments

The American left and the right have their key fear words that they trot out to scare voters. For the right, one word is “socialism.” McCain, having backed away a bit from trying to paint Obama as friend of terrorists, has started hinting that Obama will bring the dread spectre of socialism to haunt America.

Socialism is supposed to be bad and scary because it is alleged to be the mortal enemy of all that America stands for, such as individualism, free enterprise and living without a safety net. However, to say that Obama is going to bring socialism to America is like saying Obama is going to bring alligators to Florida, Moose to Alaska and Lobster to Maine. Such things are all obviously already well established.

America, as a brief reflection will indicate, is already a deeply socialist nation.  We have welfare (money for the poor) and wealthfare (lots of money for the rich), farm subsidies, social security, and so on. Also, the federal government is bailing out and buying out failed businesses. As some witty pundits and economicists have pointed out, we have privatized profit and publicized loss. While that can be seen as a clever bit of capitalism in which the rich use the state to drain even more wealth from the middle class and poor, it could also be seen as a form of socialism. As such, trying to scare people with a hint of socialism would seem a bit ridiculous.

But, the ridiculous often works. I know from experience that many conservatives see red when they hear the word “socialism” (as many leftists see red when they hear the word “gun” or “pro-life”). Such people can be swept up into the rhetoric without realising that we already live in a partially socialist state.

This, of course, does not show that socialism is nothing to fear. After all, it could be very bad indeed and our socialist aspects could be doing us serious harm. Handing out public money to major corporations, for example, seems like a horrible thing for most of us. But, for McCain to try to raise the ghost of socialism against Obama is a silly thing. After all, the country is already haunted with an army of those ghosts.

As usual, I think we should examine proposals in a rational manner and see if they serve the general good. If so, we should employ them-even if they might have that taint of socialism. If a proposal does not serve the general good (like a scary proportion of what the government does) then it should be stopped.

%d bloggers like this: