None So Blind

Tomorrow is election day and I thought it might be interesting to post a small snippet of a discussion with an Obama supporter.  The Obama supporter in question is a relative, a daily reader of the New York Times and regular viewer of Network and Cable News (MS-NBC, CNN especially.)  This person would have to be considered, in conventional terms, a very well informed voter.  I have worked very hard not to respond to political discussions with (liberal) family and friends over the last several years.  George W. Bush, to too many, is an evil incompetent, controlled by Cheney, and a willing dupe of the radical right wing.  Dissenting views are not welcomed and refuting the bill of particulars against him is wasted energy.  He is guilty and that is that.  During the present campaign, on the rare occasion I have been sucked into a discussion (debate? argument?), things invariably deteriorate after just a few minutes; this weekend's discussion was no exception.  My 15 year old son instigated:

Youngest Son:  What does ti tell you that Obama is friends was with Bill Ayers?

Liberal Relative:  Oh, that was when he was 8 years old and they aren't friends, just knew each other in the neighborhood.

SW: Doesn't it bother you that he comes out of such a corrupt poetical environment?  Tony Rezko helped him buy his first house for an under market price.

LR: People help each other all the time.  Didn't B (an attorney friend of ours) help you buy your house by not charging you for his legal work?

At that point I knew the conversation had gone off the rails. 

It was true that B had done the legal work when we bought our first house and had, indeed, charged us a much reduced fee.  We had not asked for him to do so but were very appreciative nonetheless.  Buying a house is always more expensive than you expect and the help was welcome.  At the same time, neither Mrs. SW nor I were in any position to offer a quid pro quo, nor were we ever likely to be in such a position.  Furthermore, our friend was not involved in politics at the time and was in no position to offer us anything more than his usual legal services.  The contrast with a sitting politician getting involved with a corrupt fixer could not have been more clear.  LR's unwillingness to see the difference could not have been more illuminating.

If LR could not see the difference, then no amount of factual data was going to shake her conviction that Barack Obama was the right man for the White House. 

As with LR, the electorate has been in the mood to punish the Republicans, who surely deserve to be repudiated.  The Congressional Republicans treated their terms running Washington as an opportunity to gorge themselves at the public trough and neglected their responsibilities to shepherd the country in a responsible manner.  It was clear a long time ago, to many observers, that the housing bubble would end in tears, but the Republicans had no interest in slowing the merry-go-round and once the Democrats took over, they were actively disinterested in addressing the problems.  They understood, correctly, that any disaster in the economy would redound to their advantage and that for them to address the excesses of the housing bubble would be, politically, a no-win situation. 

For all his faults, George W. Bush has allowed General Petraeus and the American military to create conditions in Iraq that enhance the odds of a successful denouement, ie,an Iraqi democracy or quasi-democracy, allied with the United States in the war against Islamic radicalism.  That very success has taken Iraq off the front pages.  For all intents and purposes, the Iraq war is over, which removes what had been John McCain's trump card, his correct judgement on the war effort.

In terms of an election in such circumstances, for all sorts of very good reasons, the American public would prefer a generic Democrat to a generic Republican in the White House.  In addition, the MSM and the Obama campaign have done a masterful job at minimizing, ignoring, and "disappearing" all the signs that Barack Obama would not be (has not been) a generic Democrat.  Despite their best efforts, some evidence has leaked into the zeitgeist.  I suspect that were Obama to have run as a far left radical, comfortable with the Bill Ayers school of educational indoctrination, a scion of legendary Chicago corruption, friendly with some of the most radical anti-Israel and overtly anti-Semitic characters in America and the world, and a proponent of radical environmentalism, he would be far behind in the pools.

If Barack Obama wins this election, as all signs seem to suggest, he may well run a generic, liberal Democratic administration.  There are some very bright, very fine liberal economists who would probably do a decent job of managing the recovery.  He could take a more modest approach to foreign affairs, maintain our military strength, and develop a strategic approach that facilitates the integration of the newly wealthy and powerful countries (BRIC=Brazil, Russia, India, China) into a new globalized international order.  He would probably nominate very liberal Judges to the Supreme Court.  I would find many reasons to oppose his choices but all of this would be well within the bounds of a typical center-left liberal administration.

Of concern, Barack Obama might actually believe his own hype, and as only a young person with no experience  in the real world, believe he can change America and make it better by using the power of the government to increase fairness and equality, while talking to our enemies, spreading the wealth, and saving the planet.  If he attempts to rule as a left wing ideologue, he will almost certainly lengthen the current recession and, as per Joe Biden, increase our chances of a major set-back in the war on terror that he does not profess to believe in.  If he tries to rule to the left, it will be a long four years, for him and for the rest of us.  In such a case, LR will be terribly surprised , and I will do my best to eschew saying, "You were warned."