This week's issue of The Economist includes a much-anticipated endorsement of presidential candidate Barack Obama. The Economist is a publication that most of us owe a great deal to for helping shape our politics in a classically liberal fashion in our most formative intellectual years. It is out of respect that we respond.
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.
I suppose it might be a self-acknowledged stretch for the magazine to use the phrase "wholeheartedly" here, as they proceed to enumerate a number of significant caveats. A theme running through this response will be that the magazine is casting aside many of its deeply-held principles in making this endorsement. Paying lip service to Obama's "inexperience," "lack of clarity" and "the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress" is a clear example.
The endorsement succinctly discusses the long-term challenges our next president will face. The distinction it makes between the two candidates is the marginalization of "the real John McCain" and "the compelling and detailed portrait" of Barack Obama. If the endorsement is about how well each campaign was run, perhaps the magazine is right to support the Democrat. However, the magazine's editorial stance almost always comes down to policy. So is there too little substantial difference between them (in which case the 'transformational' factors of each candidate is the tiebreaker), or is the magazine flying by the seat of its pants?
If The Economist doesn't like the 'fake' John McCain, well, that's fine to a point. Some of us are less inclined to read the 'fake' Economist, where the candidate who better represents the magazine's trade, spending, entitlements, energy, regulatory, education and Iraq policies loses out to the other candidate's 'coolness.'
It appears that The Economist is more willing to bet that the less-appealing rhetoric that John McCain has displayed throughout the campaign is a better indicator of his future in office than Barack Obama's. But it is not clear that the relevance of McCain's embrasure of the "theocratic culture wars" matches up to Obama's pledge to, say, re-negotiate NAFTA. And if a portion of all of this is rhetoric and a portion is promise, The Economist doesn't really attempt to distinguish between the two. Perhaps the best way is to look at experience, an area in which the magazine already admitted Obama is lacking.
Alas, we eventually get to the heart of the matter:
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.
Once upon a time The Economist's definition of "governing well" included beneficial public policy.
On Obama's thin resume, the magazine points out that he possesses the right management skills regardless. Surely he is a thoughtful, intelligent and capable man. It's the response to the second point that seems to shine some light on what this endorsement is all about. The Economist is impressed that in the heat of the campaign, Mr. Obama moved (however slightly) to the center, while Mr. McCain moved (however slightly) to the right.
This is the kind of stuff that the magazine would ordinarily dismiss as "electioneering." This is what people do when they run for office. They pivot in various directions as a result of various electoral conditions. Whether or not each candidate moved one way at some point is not nearly as important as where they are or or where they might go next. At least with McCain we know where he's governed from for the past twenty years. And we know that Obama is far more compatible with a Democratic Congress that The Economist has been quick to criticize. Surely the magazine will be disappointed when the next pivot results in a bundle of new agricultural subsidies, or vastly increased Medicare spending, or an irresponsible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
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 fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
I never thought that The Economist, of all things, might deserve an Obama presidency too.
No comments:
Post a Comment