As a British citizen living in the US, I don't have a vote in today's election. (So much for "no taxation without representation".) If I did I would cast it for Barack Obama, with reservations.
I'll paste the rest of this article for the FT after the jump.
I understand and share in the excitement that Mr Obama has generated during the course of his campaign. He is an extraordinary politician: instantly likeable, a brilliant speaker, a genuine intellectual, a seeker of consensus, undogmatic, calm, pragmatic and open-minded, with unaffected empathy for the less fortunate. He is the very model of an appealing centre-left leader.
Because of these qualities, he would be a star in US politics if he were white - but he also happens to be black. It arouses accusations of "reverse racism" to point this out, but let us not be squeamish: the fact that he is black is another huge point in his favour.
The US is a country still divided by race. Just how potent a force white bigotry remains is something we may find out on Tuesday - though whatever the outcome, there will be room for disagreement about the causes. I am struck by how fearful many Obama supporters are that latent racism will deny their man the prize. Nonetheless, one great barrier to the social and economic advance of black Americans is self-imposed. Few things are more debilitating than an excuse for failure. Urban black culture, which guides the ambitions of black youngsters, is astonishingly self-destructive. It goes beyond merely accepting failure and taking it for granted; it actually celebrates it.
Anything that attacks this mindset would be enormously to the advantage of black Americans and the country at large and, by sheer force of example, that is what Mr Obama's election would do. Wanda Sykes, the black comedienne, put it well when asked what difference a President Obama would make: "You can't keep blaming the man when you are the man."
The immediate challenge, of course, will be to manage the economic crisis. I trust the level-headed Mr Obama and his well-chosen technocrats to do a better job of this than the lately erratic and unpredictable John McCain. That same temperament also gives Mr Obama a big advantage in foreign policy. Healthcare reform ought to be among the highest priorities of the next president; Mr Obama's proposals are rightly more ambitious than his rival's and would do much more to widen coverage.
All in all, I think it is right to regard Mr Obama as a once-in-a-generation politician and an opportunity that the country ought to grasp. And yet, as I say, I have reservations.
If he wins, he will have to carry an insupportable burden of expectations and this is partly his own fault. His theme of momentous historic change has often tipped over into self-parody - "the moment when the world's oceans stopped rising" and so forth. Far from giving his supporters pause, this kind of stuff only raised them to a higher state of ecstasy. He encouraged them.
Great presidents inspire but they also deliver. The plain fact is, Mr Obama cannot deliver what he has promised. The problems he will confront are too difficult. The parallel with Tony Blair is impossible for a Briton to ignore. Enthusiasm among Mr Obama's supporters is not just naive, it borders on the deranged, much like the enthusiasm in Britain in 1997 for Mr Blair. Remember how everything was possible, finally? "Things can only get better." Look how that worked out.
My other big reservation is on economics. Here Mr Obama remains an unknown quantity. He can talk a good centrist line, as he did in last week's 30-minute campaign broadcast, praising American values of self-reliance, enterprise and innovation. But he is also a sceptic on liberal trade and rails against companies that "send jobs abroad".
Some of Mr Obama's centrist supporters believe that his position on trade is purely tactical. (In Mr McCain, it would be called "cynical".) I wonder. He has done nothing to modify it since winning the nomination. Perhaps he really believes that taxes, mandates and trade barriers can keep jobs at home and improve living standards. He has surrounded himself with advisers who think this is nonsense but they have made no detectable impression on his campaign speeches. So who knows?
In general Mr Obama takes a more expansive view of the economic role of government than did Bill Clinton, for instance. His political style is that of a Clintonian New Democrat - with its rhetorical moderation, pro-enterprise talking points and calls for co-operation with political opponents. But his economic analysis often harks back to a more old-fashioned kind of liberalism, with its emphasis on redistribution, regulation and national priorities.
As I have already said, I am for universal healthcare. I see the case for making US income taxes somewhat more progressive and especially for using tax credits to improve the rewards for work at low incomes. The financial crisis was indeed the consequence, in part, of regulatory failure. On all these points, there is merit in Mr Obama's positions. But it is unclear how far he wants to push - and I am not sure I trust his instincts. There is a limit to how far you can raise taxes on the highly paid without seriously damaging incentives. Regulation is a hit and miss affair and it is as easy to cripple an economy with too much as too little. A great deal of creative destruction - including "shipping jobs abroad" - is the price you pay for long-term economic vitality.
Perhaps Mr Obama agrees. If he had said so, I could cast the vote I do not have with greater enthusiasm.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Enthusiasm among Mr Obama's supporters is not just naive, it borders on the deranged"
I voted for Obama, with plenty of reservations. And I think this position is much more typical than you are willing to give credit for. By and large, I think Obama's supporters are very well aware of the limitations of the office and the times. Sure, the left wingnuts will be disappointed. The left wingnuts aren't the bulk of his support.
Perhaps Mr Obama agrees. If he had said so, I could cast the vote I do not have with greater enthusiasm.
---
Therein lies the point; Obama stands to lose more votes by moving visibly towards your position, especially amongst disenfranchised working class voters in rust belt swing states (enough adjectives for you?). Centrist intellectuals were in the bank for Obama once McCain picked Palin. In other words, McCain made Obama's job much easier.
This is a decidedly mild and tepid assessment of Barack Obama which doesn't venture to scrutinize his policies and his stated goals in any meaningful way. We cannot discuss the economy without discussing the war, or America's ever-growing dependence upon war in general. The idea that regulation needs to be applied like a topical cream, evenly and with discrimination, is fatuous and absurd. We don't have a lack of regulations in the financial and other industries in this country, what we have is an overabundance of pro-corporate regulation; they need to be redrafted without relegating safety concerns, working conditions, living wages, the environment, and equity and fairness in general to afterthought. Obama (for whom I voted) is not a Clintonian New Democrat, he is a standard issue Corporate Democrat. The idea that you don't trust his instincts because he might go too "far" with regulatory controls and progressive taxation requires a religious faith that somehow the military and corporate power structures that run this country would allow it. And that somehow Barack Obama is distinguishable from the business and elite classes. A once in a generation politician will not come along until workers are allowed to unionize and the general population gets fed up and mobilizes itself. Without such a mandate, Obama may be, paradoxically, just the kind of president the American debt and war machine has been hoping for: a pretty face which will quell the unrest in the hearts of the middle and lower classes merely by existing. People will calm down when they have the (false) belief that "one of their own" is up there in power and fighting for them. That is simply not the case. Your comment on "creative destruction" and "long-term economic vitality" makes me throw up my hands. They are funny, throw-away words which sound erudite and perverse, but in fact represent less than a fraction of a layer of the skin of the issues at hand.
"Perhaps he really believes that taxes, mandates and trade barriers can keep jobs at home and improve living standards."
Developing states in Asia have lent credence to the idea that government can play a role outside of regulation in supporting and creating a healthy economy. Now, it's certainly debatable whether we are in anything resembling their situation culturally, economically, or politically, but to dismiss the possibility seems a bit much.
I am astounded at the lack of understanding of basic economics often displayed by otherwise intelligent, informed people. That Obama is open-minded, undogmatic and intellectual are laughable assertions.
This man is a classic, left-wing socialist. He doesn't talk the talk, but has consistently walked the walk. Want universal health care? I hope you get it, but leave me out. I'll opt for the quality of care our free-market system has provided for years, despite the unceasing intrusion of govt and mountains of regulations it has had to overcome. When a universal system is in place, an alternative system will emerge for those who want to opt out. It may be in another country, or just at a price point that few can afford, or even a black market, but it will exist.
Those of you excited about confiscating wealth will witness the fleeing of that wealth to safer environs, leaving little meat for you to pick off the carcass in a short period of time. Welcome to the "entitlement phase" of our country's evolution. This phase usually precedes the decline of power in once-great societies. We have ourselves to blame, but you Obama voters most.