Both candidates’ understanding of the economy does not inspire confidence. However, in matters of foreign policy, McCain gets it.
Many members of the MSM are calling the first presidential debate on Friday night more or less a tie (Fox, NYT, Washington Post, WSJ). I tend to agree. Whereas, Obama did well in the debate on economic matters (I still disagree strongly with his redistribution of wealth plan), McCain did very well in the debate on foreign policy matters (I’m sure Justin strongly disagrees with McCain’s Iraq policy). While there were certainly presentational differences – Obama looking at McCain and the camera and McCain mostly looking at Jim Lehrer, Obama’s polished rhetoric and McCain’s energetic one liners – the two did a good job of highlighting their differences…and, in one area, a similarity. Neither candidate was willing to discuss how the current economic woes would affect their budget proposals in the future. McCain answered with cleaning up government excessive spending and perhaps going so far as conduct a government spending freeze. Obama answered that we’d have to wait and see how the current economic situation affects government tax revenue and perhaps delay new social programs.
Both answers are in my mind somewhat inadequate and highlight how much larger the current economic condition is than the two candidates are really aware of. In one sense, I agree with both candidates. We don’t know how the economy will affect tax revenue over the next several years. We may have to delay certain things. We should take a serious look at pork barrel projects and consider a spending freeze…if it came to that. But these answers still do not address the fundamental issue of the current economic fragility…namely the extent to which government regulation has caused the current situation and the extent to which it can aid in a solution. On the one hand, corporate greed, always a scapegoat of the left, is blamed for the current financial woes. Financial institutions, we are told, took on more risk than was wise in the name of ever increasing profits. The FBI has begun an investigation into this possibility. On the other hand, failure of congress to provide adequate reforms over Fannie and Freddie is blamed for the mortgage crises, which started this mess in the first place. The WSJ in particular has written several scathing articles of Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and how he has repeatedly blocked reform for Freddie and Fannie over the last 6-8 years all in the name of affordable housing. But wait; isn’t overly affordable housing what got us in this mess in the first place? To all you Bush bashers that want to spin the current mess as a failure of the Bush administration, consider this quote from the Boston Globe, “When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.” Really, go figure. Barney Frank’s fingerprints are all over this and yet he still does not acknowledge his own role in this mess.
The point of all this is that the economy befuddles experts, causes university professors to disagree, and generally is a beast that no one has been able to tame or control, ever. True, we can affect it by various policies. But many policies, whether they are advocating more or less regulation, fail to guarantee economic security and prevent economic woes. This issue is still not understood fully by either candidate or the two parties.
In the second half of the debate, the focus shifted to foreign policy. Listening, I generated a list of questions I would like to ask Obama.
1. Do you think we can/should/will WIN in Iraq? You continue to dodge the issue of winning and losing.
2. Do you agree that General Patraeus’ strategy should be implemented in Afghanistan? If so, can you acknowledge his strategy as a winning strategy in Iraq? If not, why not?
3. Do you think Osama Bin Laden misspoke when he called “Iraq the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine?” Do you think that leaving Iraq on a timeline would make the Al Queda situation better or worse?
Since Obama probably wont be coming to our blog to answer these questions, if any of his supporters feel up to the task of answering for him based on their understanding of his positions, feel free. I’m genuinely interested in your opinions.
Okay, that’s all for now. All this political talk is making me sleepy!
Cheers,
Joel
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Joel, while I agree with your assessment (and the media’s) of the debate that Obama tied or came out slightly ahead of McCain, I beg to differ on some things. As you said I would, I vehemently disagree with McCain’s take on Iraq… and want to use this video as an example of how Obama’s judgement would have been better for the country than McCain’s regarding Iraq:
Also, to try to answer your questions for him, here goes:
1) The reason Obama deflects the winning/losing question is that it’s a question that has outlived it’s usefulness. I doubt (and I’ve heard smarter people than I say this) that there will EVER be another war in which one party can confidently claim a “victory”. The nature of war has changed so much that the concept of “surrender” isn’t there anymore. Al Qaida will never surrender to us and it’s a fool’s errand to think we can wipe them out completely, declare victory and go home. This is a false question and it doesn’t deserve an answer.
2) First of all, Petraeus has implemented many successful TACTICS in Iraq that should be put to use in Afghanistan, especially the secret techniques Bob Woodward mentions in his new book… but you used the word STRATEGY and just like McCain, don’t understand the proper use of that word. In the debate, McCain claimed that Obama didn’t understand the difference between a strategy and a tactic and he was wrong. Obama understands that the choice to go into Iraq and pull resources out of Afghanistan was the strategic choice and that the successful changes Petraeus made in Iraq were tactical maneuvers.
(Before you attack me on this one, know that I do understand that there are some things in-between the overall strategy and tactics in a war, like Operations, and the over-arching Policy… and there may be a legitimate difference of terminology here… but it was just not cool for McCain to attack Obama on this one)
3) Leaving Iraq on a timeline will, first and foremost, give our Military the ability to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan and apply REAL pressure to Iran to stop their nuclear programs. As long as we’ve got 100,000+ troops in Iraq, our hands are tied!
And let’s not forget who created that “perfect base”: Bush and McCain.