Politics: 2012 Election

2012 Election

The longer I've been following politics, the greater range of feeling I've had about it.  First, "Candidate A must win the election or the next four years will be terrible!" then, "well, how much is really going to change no matter who wins the election" then, "well, it depends on what happens in Congress, and in the courts, and at the state level, and the local level...".  And then it repeats.

I doubt that any of those three options are completely accurate.  I read in a recent Time magazine that those who are the most informed - and are thus typically the most partisan - have the hardest time accepting that a particular fact from the other side of the political spectrum might be true.  It's not very surprising.  Elections, in some ways, are like a sports league where the teams are different religions.  The way a team wins or loses is by receiving validation, internal or external, that it is right.  So every team can, and usually does, "win".  And yet, when there is a challenge to your team not being right, it is like someone is challenging the validity of your faith:  there must be some flaw or distortion in the challenge that makes it wrong.  We - and especially the most partisan among us - can't stand to lose an election because A) our "team" lost the "championship" and B) a majority of people (at least in the electoral college) had the gall to side with the other "religion".

I admit, I've felt pulled into this game more than once, particularly when I first really started to follow politics more closely.  But the electoral process is not a game, and the important work only begins once the politicians have been elected.  We, the people, must stay informed and also, yes, make politicians aware of issues that develop in society.  Then politicians must work together in order to solve those issues.  They must work together for two reasons:  1) obviously, they don't all share the same view so nothing will get done if they don't compromise (for reference, see the last 2.5 years); and 2) no side has all the right answers/no ideology if implemented will result in a perfect society, so we need to take the best ideas no matter which side they come from.

This is why the picture at the top is a sign for Stewart and Colbert.  They mock the self-righteousness and incompetence of both parties (admittedly, like me, with a liberal slant).  They point out the real pain and frustration that goes on in the world, and how the political process turns it into a pawn in the chess match while doing nothing about it, or any number of other ways politicians mess up.  It is important - perhaps crucial - that we be able to step back and laugh at ourselves, at least occasionally.

***

With all that said, next I'm going to specifically point out what I would like to see done on the various issues of the day.  As Obama has focused his campaign on his past accomplishments and why Romney sucks, and Romney has focused his campaign on taking both sides of every issue and why Obama sucks, I'm going to just take a stab at how each might handle the issues.  Here we go!

Deficit:  I address this first because it is entirely dependent on other issues.  I looked through national budget data since 2001, and my conclusions to deal with the problem are:  grow the economy (enormous effect on revenue), rein in military spending, and, most importantly, reduce health care costs.  Yes, the numbers look big and scary right now - but the deficit must be seen relative to these other issues.  As long as the economy continues to recover and we can address entitlements and military spending (much more in doubt), then the deficit will not seem so scary.
Advantage:  Obama (Seems much more level-headed about the issue; much of the Republican base has an exaggerated fear of the issue and would pressure Romney, a more fiscally-reasonable politician than the Tea Party or the rest of the fringe, to make disastrous spending cuts.)

Economy:  Ultimately, I think both TARP (although it was hard to stomach) and the stimulus were necessary to prevent a depression.  Beyond that, the government has no magic wand to wave and make the economy grow like China's in the short term.  There are way too many uncontrollable, global variables.  I do believe that if the government invests in education, infrastructure, and certain industries, it can help create a strong foundation for the long-term.
Advantage:  Obama (Romney has business credentials, sure; but it seems to me he favors short-term approaches that, while perhaps providing a temporary boost, may also hamper the nation long-term.  Obama supports the kind of investments I think are critical to that long-term foundation.)

Healthcare:  We have to slow the rise of healthcare costs, otherwise the nation will go bankrupt and/or healthcare will become a luxury for a smaller and smaller pool of wealthy Americans.  Luckily, there is a model for success here:  basically every other developed nation in the world.
Advantage:  Obama (Obamacare is not perfect, but at least it is a major step in the right direction.  Republicans, on the other hand, don't want government to have any part of an overall healthcare policy, despite its success internationally.)

Entitlements:  Much like healthcare, the rise in costs is unsustainable, at least for Medicare and Medicaid (I think Social Security is supposed to be basically sound).  On the other hand, these programs need to be able to do their jobs, both for moral reasons and economic ones (70% of the economy is based on consumerism).  Again, healthcare costs in general are a huge driver of the price of these programs, so it's hard to say exactly how much of the problem is structural.
Advantage:  Mixed (In response to Republican pledges not to raise taxes, many Democrats want no changes at all to entitlements.  I doubt huge changes are necessary in any event, but we at least need to be able to look at them critically.  On the other hand, Romney/Ryan have a plan that won't kick in for those 55 and older, which makes me deeply suspicious of their plan.)

Global Warming:  The biggest threat to not only this country but the entire human race, yet it is not a factor in the election at all.  This is a classic frog-in-boiling-water case.  I realize that it is literally not possible to entirely switch off of fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the near future; but that has to be the end goal, and it has to start NOW.  Efficiency is low-hanging fruit.  Fracking, while it needs to be carefully regulated, is a good start since natural gas contributes about half as much (if Zakaria's facts are correct) carbon as coal, which needs to go ASAP.  I'm even willing to talk about increased nuclear power, but ultimately we must develop renewable sources that are affordable and scalable, and fast.
Advantage:  Obama (Big investment in renewables in the stimulus was a good start, at least.  And Republicans will have a very difficult conversation with their kids if they continue to deny the very existence of the scientifically-verified, slow motion disaster that is global warming.)

Foreign Policy:  Yeah, this is a huge, diverse topic, but I'm trying to be as brief as possible here.  First, treat China - the world's other superpower - with respect, and build up a positive relationship with it rather than one of hostility.  Second, scale back use of drones but increase use of intelligence in tracking and controlling terrorist cells and organizations; al-Qaeda is still a threat, but we can't further alienate the people with collateral damage.  Third, don't demonize Islamist political parties in the new Middle East democracies but emphasize the democratic ideals that foster harmonious societies (education, women's rights, etc.).  Fourth, don't start a war with Iran.  Fifth, pay attention to Africa.
Advantage:  Obama (Both parties are fairly close in foreign policy these days, but Romney and some Republicans, at least at the moment, are too hawkish on China and Iran.  Tensions throughout the world seem to be rising, whether it's the economy in Europe, revolution in Middle East, or competition in East Asia.  The U.S. needs to be a calming, stabilizing influence.)

Immigration:  I admit, I know very little on this subject, mostly because I live in a part of the country that is >90% white.  But it's a very important topic nonetheless and, broadly speaking, I advocate for merciful policies for undocumented immigrants (and certainly clear paths to citizenship for their children), in addition to a modernization of policies for others:  for example, many bright young people study in the U.S. and then are forced to go back home - and take their ideas with them.
Advantage:  Obama (All of the public debate is on the undocumented immigrant aspect, and Obama again has the advantage of not answering to a major section of his base whipped into a frenzy by the Tea Party, Fox News, et. al. like Romney does.  I will say, Romney seems likely to be more moderate here than some others in the GOP would be.)

Drug War:  An utter disaster on so many levels, it must end now.  Probably the most insidious part has been its disproportionate impact on impoverished and minority populations, but it has also led to a culture of incarceration, crisis in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, and billions of dollars spent to not even put a dent in the rate of drug use.  Legalize and regulate marijuana (disclosure:  I've never tried it before, nor do I have any intention to).
Advantage:  Neither (Hey, the libertarians finally score a point!)

***

So, as you can see, I plan to vote to re-elect President Obama in November.  Was he perfect in his first term, or does he agree with me on every point?  No, but I think he's taking the country in the right direction on a number of the most crucial issues.  And to go back to the first part of my post, we've got to compromise and get to the best solutions, no matter the partisan bent.  Look at Obamacare:  it addressed one of the most critical issues in our country, and Obama championed it despite the fact that it was pretty much the same plan that a certain Republican used in Massachusetts.

Feel free to share your thoughts with me in the comments, for or against!