The Economist endorses Barack Obama
This is a pretty good endorsement for Obama. While the article does not necessarily ring with excitement for Obama (more like both candidates are gambles but Obama is less of one) it says a lot when a fiscally republican leaning paper endorses Obama. While it’s true that the paper has endorsed other democratic presidential candidates, I’m not sure any of them were labeled as far left leaning as has Obama.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12511171
The presidential election
It’s time
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
11 Responses to “The Economist endorses Barack Obama”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
- AnotherDamn CafePress Shop
Politi-comedy on a T-Shirt!
- AnotherDamn CafePress Shop
Very nice. Though I disagree with the OP. This is a ringing endorsement for Mr. Obama. I also wouldn’t consider a news magazine that focuses on the global economy that is headquartered in London to be aligned with any US political party. Based on his ideology I would consider Barak Obama to be centrist not far left. For comparison, McCain used to also be centrist and Palin would be in the right though not far right.
I think this is a well balanced and thoughtful endorsement of Obama over McCain. With clear and legitimate reasons to vote for him. Regarding the lean of The Economist, I think if Teppish replaced ‘Republican Leaning’ with ‘fiscally conservative’ it would ring more true. I would tend to characterize Obama as left of center but certainly not ‘Far Left’…someone has been listening to too many McCain ads.
You are on crack. Obama was selected as the most liberal Senator in 2007. Have either of you looked at this man’s history? There is nothing in his history of being a centrist. He is pro everthing on the looney left. Look at what he has done, not much, and who he is associated with. The Clinton’s are left leaning centrist. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Abortion on demand. Socialized medicine. Redistribution of wealth. No nuclear power. UN approval for everything. No new drilling in the U.S., the enviro crowd will not let him change his mind. Pro union. Pro gay everthing, he only claims to respect marriage. Windfall profits tax. Seal every birth certificate, school record available. Investigate your critics. ACORN, The Fairness Doctrine. You name every loney left group in America, and that group supported him over Clinton. Do you want Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama to have access to your check book. That trifecta will destroy the America your parents raised you in. That America will not exist when your children become adults. There is a slim conservative majority in the Supreme Court, if that is reversed, just imagine the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the highest Court in the land. You don’t realize hw close you are to losing your freedom. The left is the most racist, and intolerant bunch in this country. You are the enemy if you disagree. Don’t rue the day you voted for Obama. Think, it aint illegal yet.
Didn’t WWI, and WW II teach you not to follow the Europeans on anything? I guess we should consider international law when our judges make rulings? Please.
So, the Clinton’s are centrist now? *cough* Nobody claimed that while they were in office… Let’s be honest. This isn’t about Obama being too _far_ left. The fact that he is left period, is too much for a conservative to bear. I understand the moral dilemma, but I won’t pretend that there is any democrat that will please you.
I agree that using the European model for everything would be a mistake. But I don’t have a great fear that Obama will tax us to death or turn us into some socialized nation. This is just fear-mongering from the right. The way I see it, both parties are good at spending money and trying to push their own agenda. We’ve had 8 years to try out the Republican way, and I am not overly impressed with the results. Since it is blatantly clear, both sides are going to spend my money — I’d like to have a say on where it gets spent. I choose domestic spending over foreign.
BTW, why do Republican’s always cry socialism when wealth gets redistributed to poor American’s. But they have no problem spending billions of tax dollars on war and big business bailout.
I said left of center. Clinton was the first candidate put forward to revive the party after the Reagan years by the DLC. If you look at their platform, they are true Democrats that you can actually carry on a rationale conversation with. Think of Sam Nunn, Joe Liberman. These men are not partisans.
I disagree with the bailout. It was a mistake caused by government, and who in their right mind would think that government could fix it. George Bush turned off conservatives because he governed like a Democrat; he thinks government is the answer. It is the power in Washington that corrupts. I can at least call a fake conservative out, Democrats protect their own, even if it involves prostitution or corruption and homosexuals (Barney Frank, Jim Jeffords). The reason we had the wars was because of the failures of Bill Clinton to take a stand. He could not survive in his party if he actually took a risk that would cost him political capital. Obama will be the same. They are appeasers, Chamberlin comes to mind. Wait until we have to fight Russia, that will be war. Democrats are weak, and the world knows it. Why do you think all of the Arabs are hoping for an Obama win? Do you think they like his name? No, the election of Obama shows just how pathetically weak America truly is. If the Chinese were invading Canada, the Democrats would find a reason not to defend North America. What chance does Georgia, Ukraine, or Poland have? God help us.
There is nothing new under the sun. Obama is a populist, you love him now, but when he disappoints you there will never be another Black Candidate for President. The reason being, you Democrats picked a candidate without substance. If he were white, he would not be on the radar. He is an empty suit; you guys are too gullible to see it.
The redistribution of wealth to poor Americans is a trap for that American. He will barely live on the crumbs from your table. He will have no hopes, no dreams, no future beyond the future that you trapped him in.
The Great Society destroyed the Black Family, it was well intentioned, but like most liberal ideas, they are full of great intentions. Liberals created a new plantation to put black people on when they created the Great Society. Unwed mothers, and fatherless households were rare in the 1940s, 50s and early 60s in the Black community. Liberalism did what the Klan could not. That’s the legacy of the Democratic party. CONGRATULATIONS, you are now part of the problem.
wow
Why is there such a focus on Barack Obama’s race? His perceived race shouldn’t factor into the voting decision. I say perceived race because he is just as white as he is black although people keep referring to him as black.
So you’re saying the Great Society, which was a set of programs designed, in part, to end racial injustice was responsible for the destruction of the “Black Family”. (even though there are many families that are doing just fine) Please share how the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts destroyed anything? You seem to be arguing that things were better before the Civil Rights Act?
I think that the world is hoping for an Obama win because it would mean that there is a lower chance that the United States will randomly invade their country without just cause. We are in the Iraq war because Cheney felt like having a war. It has nothing to do anything Bill Clinton did or didn’t do. There was no justification for a war in Iraq when Bill Clinton was president just like there was no justification during George Bush’s presidency.
Antigrammatik, well said on your last comment.
Buster-
I suppose I’ll address things in bullet points:
o Put himself through school and is a self made man (Dad and granddad were admirals)
o Graduated top of class at Harvard. Unlike McCain (bottom of his class)
o First black person to ever be the President of the Harvard law review
o Turned down a $300k/year job to be a community organizer
o Professor of Constitutional
o Good husband
o Good father
o Beat the Clinton’s in the primary
o Sponsored and pushed legislation on government transparency, nuclear non-proliferation, educations reform and ethics reform among others
o More donors than any candidate in history
o More money raised than any candidate in history
When the Democratic primary began in Iowa(caucus), I was holding my breath that race would not be an issue. I was happy to hear that it was not an issue in Iowa, or New Hampshire. Race did not become an issue until Bill Clinton made it an issue, and caused black people to gravitate to Obama. You need to remember, Obama did not poll well with Blacks leading up to SC. Bill Clinton tried to equate Obama’s success to Jesse Jackson’s “success’ in the past. This did not sit well with black voters. Bill shot Hillary in the foot. That was the moment race became so important. I had hoped that Obama would transcend race, he made it an issue with his comments concerning the fact that he does not look like the fellows on the currency etc. The fact that he is not a traditional major party candidate is part of his appeal. What does he have to offer, two terms in the state Senate, a failed run for Congress, community organizer, Civil Rights attorney for ACORN, Law professor? Where is the executive experience in that? What did he create? He sought grants from the wealth makers and used it to make a living for himself on the premise of helping poor people. What explains his rise to power from a person who could not get a credential to attend the Democratic convention in 2000, to being the Democratic nominee in 2008? If he was Barry Smith from Chicago, do you think Oprah would have latched on to him? Of course his skin color gave him an edge. A White Barry Smith with the same credentials would still be in Chicago. Facts are facts. The segregationist used to say, all it takes is one drop. He is not your run of the mill candidate for the Democratic Party. Can we agree on that?
The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Acts ,that legislation produced the desired outcome. It made America live up to it’s Constitution. The problems arose when government attempted to eliminate poverty. Government creates programs that never expire. The bureaucracy created by the great society sucked the life and compassion out of every program it created. It brought us government housing; the Cadillacs of slave quarters. HUD created glistening new ghettos in the inner cities of America. They had the greatest of intentions, but they destroyed numerous generations. The great society and black people(all poor people), yes the government decided that it would be the primary outlet to take care of the poor and the elderly. That had traditionally been handle by the local community (churches), black or white. Families would take care of each other. The government decided to place a huge net under poor people to lift them out of poverty. Their intentions were well and good, but at what price? When you remove the requirement that to live you must work, you destroy those people. It was and still is a trap. It tells them, that you are not good enough; you can”t make it without the governments help. If you want food stamps, you can’t have an income of more than this amount. If you have a husband, you don’t qualify for Medi Cal. Your income can not exceed this amount to qualify for welfare. It is a trap! How can a Man face his wife everyday if the government is providing food on the table? What man would face that everyday?
How many UN Mandates were there for Saddam Hussein to comply with? What were the consequences ofClinton’s inaction? How many times could the World Trade Centers be bombed, how many USS Coles could be blown up? How many embassies would need to be destroyed. We were at war in the 1990s, but we did not respond. The Arab world and Militant Islam respect one thing, Force. You need to include the Russians too.
The Democrats are not willing to enforce anything. Look at Bosnia, a Clinton success story, what a joke! Our enemies see a Democrat victory like they interpreted the Spanish victories after Spain was attacked. They will continue to attack us, because we blinked. An Obama victory will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They don’t want to talk to us, they want us converted or dead. Period. The Europeans are great examples of dealing with Islamofacist. Britain is allowing Shiria law, the French are seeing their neighborhoods burned. We want to be like the Europeans? Your ancestors would be turning over in their graves. Did any of you major in History? America was never attacked when she was strong. We are week economically because we refuse to defend ourselves. Both parties have sold us out to foreign powers, be they Chinese or Arabs. We have unchecked immigration, and we are not educating our children. We are relying on the government to be the source. America (the people) are the most generous people on the planet. All of the other industrialized nations per capita spend more to help the poor than the American government.
Some say we should be ashamed, I say we should be proud, because the American people’s generosity far exceeds that of any government or any other people. I tell you, YOU are America, not your government. Act like it!
Wow. This is the first time I’ve been on this comment string. All I can say is this: with such anger in the government’s performance over the last decade or so (perhaps longer really in reading your post), how can you even remotely cling to EITHER candidate in this election? I appreciate your last comment, Buster23. It was well-written and obviously well thought out. However, when we talk about weakness, do you really think that in the event that McCain kicks the bucket (which looks pretty likely considering how old he is and he really doesn’t look so hot) that Palin can be that strength that you are talking about? I seriously doubt it. Perhaps you’re thinking, “HMMMM, which is the lesser of the two evils” and you think that McCain might enforce more than Obama. But I think we really have to look at McCain’s VP. I certainly don’t feel comfortable with the thought that Palin would be in charge of the country and any possible military altercations.