Final Opinion: Barack Obama

Dear friends,

As any regular readers here know, I strongly support Barack Obama. Posts in that direction have been generally scattershot, never a clear description of why.

But a big part of Obama's campaign is to improve the political dialogue. So here is my attempt at that. A clear, direct description of why I support him. I hope that you will read and discuss, regardless of your own political position, in keeping with Obama's desire to improve how we all talk about politics.

I hope you will read this. And regardless of where your vote goes, I hope that you vote in the upcoming primaries. In the Democratic primaries, your vote will count regardless of the overall state vote, because delegates are awarded proportionally, not winner-take-all.

This is to some degree a companion-piece to Moon's compelling argument, but I try to focus on things I feel she left out: issues, and if Obama really is all that he claims to be.

Why Obama?

If you ask the typical Obama supporter what their feelings are about New Hampshire and Nevada, the truth probably goes something like this: "What were people thinking? Everyone complains about how politics is dirty and disconnected from real people and partisan and divided, and here's the guy that can fix it, and they ignore him! Are we all asleep?"

Of course, there's a big communication gap here. It's in part because not everyone thinks that Obama is the only candidate with these qualities, and in part because not everyone trusts that Obama actually has these qualities. But the biggest factor is probably that this isn't actually what everyone cares about; there are other issues that are important to voters, and so, as usual, everyone is just talking past everyone else. This is an attempt to remedy that by, first of all, providing some guidance behind the substance underlying Obama's issues and also Obama's claims at a new kind of government; and second of all, providing some evidence that he really might be what he claims to be.

The Current Administration

If you ask me what the biggest problems are with the current administration, here's my list:

• They are secretive, hiding more about the operation of government than is actually necessary to maintain our secrecy, and


• They stifle debate on important issues by demonizing their opposition; most notable was/is their claim that opponents of the Iraq war were/are unpatriotic. If you remember the climate surrounding the Iraq war vote, it was horrendous. (*)
  

When I look at the current candidates, it seems clear to me that the one who will be most able to rectify these transgressions is Obama. The legislative accomplishments Obama is most known for are reform of lobbyist powers and government transparency. It is because of a bill Obama helped introduce to the senate that the government maintains a website that outlines government spending (passed when the Republicans controlled Congress). Another bill of Obama's increases disclosure requirements around lobbying activity and restricts the types of gifts that can be given. The point is: this is what he does. It's what he's always done; it's what he did in the Illinois Senate and now does in the US Senate. He is the rare successful politician that seeks to curb the power of successful politicians.

Additionally, Obama has consistently demonstrated that he is willing to take the other side seriously and respect them even as he disagrees with them. This is what his comments about Reagan were about, as opposed to the nonsense the Clintons tried to twist them into. For me, the part of his book The Audacity of Hope that most sticks out is when he stated a simple thing: there's so much that Republicans and Democrats agree on, so why can't we get those things done and then bicker about all the things we don't agree about?

More important to me than the issues is the behavior of our government. If I can't respect what our government is doing, than what am I even fighting for? Obama seems the most capable of turning the government into a group that is worthy of leading our country.

The Issues

It's been said often, and it's true: on the face of it, most of the candidates are very similar on the issues. But there are telling differences between them.

On Foreign Policy, at least according to the New York Times (an excellent and detailed article), Obama seems to have substantial weight behind him. Consider the following quote from the above-linked article:

“There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.” Hillary Clinton’s inner circle consists of the senior-most figures from her husband’s second term in office — the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the former national security adviser Sandy Berger and the former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke. But drill down into one of Washington’s foreign-policy hives, whether the Carnegie Endowment or the Brookings Institution or Georgetown University, and you’re bound to hit Obama supporters. Most of them served in the Clinton administration, too, and thus might be expected to support Hillary Clinton. But many of these younger and generally more liberal figures have decamped to Obama. And they are ardent. As Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council official under President Clinton who now heads up a team advising Obama on nonproliferation issues, puts it, “There’s a feeling that this is a guy who’s going to help us transform the way America deals with the world.” Ex-Clintonites in Obama’s inner circle also include the president’s former lawyer, Greg Craig, and Richard Danzig, his Navy secretary.

For more on Obama's foreign policy, you can also see the Daily Kos.

The other issue that has come to my attention is economics, and specifically the stimulus packages. In this case I turn to the Washington Post, who gives Obama's plan the highest grade of anyone's.

Yet, I am not an expert on foreign policy, and I am not an expert on economics, so I can hardly judge fairly on my own. I am, however, an expert (to some degree) on education. So let's have at it.

Education

(While I have been leaning towards Obama for some time, I first compared candidates' education policies well before I had die-hard committed to anyone, and these opinions are largely unchanged from that time. Indeed, Obama's positions helped to move me towards his side because, for this subset of issues where I can tell what is reasonable, his were good. Most of the candidates positions are drawn from this tool at Education Week, combined with information from their websites.)

Perhaps the biggest education issue these days is the No Child Left Behind law. It imposes penalties on schools if any substantial minority does poorly or fails to improve on state-wide exams. It does not impose any consistency across states for these exams (so some states use easier exams to keep the money flowing).

Hillary Clinton's position on NCLB is that it narrows curricula and is underfunded (true enough), but she has provided no plan for how to reform it. In contrast, Obama has been specific, and he picks the right issues. He is concerned that reading and mathematics are taught at the expense of science, music and the arts. He wants to use federal resources to "help states write new assessments that accurately measure students' knowledge, including higher-order thinking skills such as logic and the interpretation of data." This is a substantial issue: state tests right now are largely multiple-choice and focus on rote skills. In fact, Connecticut --- which had good exams that focused on free-response instead of multiple-choice questions --- was driven to filing a lawsuit against the government to try to avoid dumbing down their exams. The government, unwisely, has responded that multiple-choice tests are fine.

Obama supports developing good merit pay systems in collaboration with teachers. This automatically puts him at odds with many teachers' unions, and Clinton has made no similar statement.

Both Clinton and Obama call for substantial Pre-K programs, which is important; it is well-documented that students from poorer backgrounds are less prepared to start school and succeed than those from wealthier backgrounds. The difference is even more dramatic across racial lines.

Obama also supports providing grants to students at schools that do not have AP courses to take the corresponding college courses, and supports creating "innovation districts" that can receive federal funding for system-wide changes to their policies.

Obama and Clinton both support increased tax breaks for college expenses.

Obama provides specific plans for improving teacher training and retention, including mentoring programs, a "Teacher Residency Program," and special scholarships. Clinton has a bullet point on her website which says that teacher recruitment and retention is important, but provides no indicating of how she would improve it.

The verdict? Honestly, it is no comparison to me. Obama's position shows an awareness of exactly what NCLB is doing and how to fix it, whereas Clinton provides only vague generalities. Obama is willing to stand up for merit pay, which I think is necessary, while Clinton does not want to alienate teachers' unions. Obama has other innovative policies; Clinton seems to be largely ignoring the issue. Obama addresses what I see as the primary issue, teacher quality and retention, whereas Clinton mentions it in passing within a bullet point but never elaborates. For substance on the issues, compare their websites: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Is He For Real?

We've been burned by politicians before. So many people I've spoken to think that this is just an act. I cannot prove them wrong. If they read Obama's books, perhaps they'll be convinced. If they see his positions, perhaps they'll be convinced. Perhaps it would convince them to say that it seemed crazy, one year ago, to run on a campaign like this. That no politician would have thought it could work, so how could he have done it purely out of ambition? But maybe it's all just an act; maybe he's so brilliant that he's putting us all on.

So here are the places I've seen, some of which have not been noticed in general by the press, where he seems to have been, well, who he really is. When no one's watching, this is the Obama I see.

• When his poll numbers were stagnant in mid-summer, Obama refused calls from his campaign staff and his big donors to go negative on Clinton. When his campaign did release an attack memo without his knowledge, he called a meeting of his staff where, "furious," he made sure they put the practice to an end. (See this Newsweek article.)


• On December 28, Obama's lawyer asked PACs planning to campaign on Obama's behalf in February 5th states to stop their independent spending. This was before the Iowa caucuses, before Obama was viewed as likely to win, when the media was not watching or even aware of these PACs. Obama was willing to turn down their unrestricted donations and support even then.


• Obama spoke to a teachers' union --- before they had endorsed --- advocating merit pay. This is a very unpopular position to take with teachers unions.


• Obama spoke truth to power again, this time talking about the need for tougher fuel efficiency standards to auto workers in Detroit.


• Obama took time out of his campaigning even in the crucial states of Iowa and New Hampshire to make substantial efforts in halting the bloodshed in Kenya due the disputed elections there.


• Obama has refrained from bringing up any of the personal baggage carried by the Clintons, and has only responded to them when they distort his records or statements. (Obama's supporters are not always so reticent, which can lead to an inaccurate media picture.)


• Although Obama has not always been factual in his assertions (see factcheck.org), he has refrained from twisting opponents' words even as his own have been manipulated in ways they were not intended.

A take on Obama I rather like was provided on January 14th by Newsweek.

Can He Do It?

One of Obama's most substantive contributions so far to the political landscape is bringing young people into the election. An election with a strong turnout from this demographic would strengthen his own position as President and provide massive long-term benefit to the Democratic party. He has the greatest chance to have a landslide victory, one which would give him the political capital to enact major changes. And he draws incredibly smart, incredibly capable people to him, and he listens to them. No matter how he is elected, it is those people who can help him navigate whatever stumbles he might make as a new, young President, and with his tremendous intelligence, I think he will soon be a force to be reckoned with. A force for good.


Obama has the right ideas. I think he is the strongest Presidential candidate so far of my (admittedly short) lifetime. His rhetoric is more than rhetoric; he really offers a chance to elect someone who has the right ideas, the right passion, the right morality. I hope that you will join together and help to elect him the next President of the United States.


(*) For anyone who thinks back to the political climate of the time --- when nearly every serious politician was taking cover --- someone who stood against the war was really being brave. It's not just foresight: it's political bravery, a theme I will return to.

Another note: this would have been posted on my website, but my recent ethics training has informed me that I cannot use University computers in order to support a particular candidate for office. Indeed, it is possible that some e-mails I have sent from my University of Illinois account may be straining the boundaries of what is permissible.