I feel a little stupid admitting this, but I’m actually feeling tenuously excited about being an American again.
But every once in a while, America does something so radical, so out of the ordinary — something that old, encrusted, traditional societies like those in the Middle East could simply never imagine — that it revives America’s revolutionary “brand†overseas in a way that no diplomat could have designed or planned.
It’s that America I hope to see re-emerging with Obama’s presidency, and internationally, I think it’s already good news. I traveled quite a lot to other countries before we destroyed our international reputation with Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo (amongst other things) and I’d like to do so again without people hating me due to being an American. (Although, interestingly, just saying you’re from New York, & not America per se, grants a person more respect abroad.)
But the attacks from McCain have already started, of course: that Obama is essentially running for Carter’s 2nd term. And wow does that scare the more conservative democrats. But I’m just gonna say this once: um, wasn’t Carter right? Would we be in Iraq if we’d done the energy independence stuff he wanted to do in the 70s? Didn’t he negotiate with Iran for the hostages? Don’t get me wrong: ineffective leadership is bad all the way around, but you know, after the last however many years of opportunist nihilism we’ve experienced, an idealist well-versed in empowering rhetoric seems like a great antidote. Obama’s got a lot of leadership skills that Carter didn’t have, but what makes America work, in my humble opinion, is when Americans are inspired. And Obama does that, for a lot of people. What’s better is that he seems to be inspiring other politicians as well, and that bodes well.
So who’s your vote for VP?
someone on NPR (I think) cleverly pointed out that the Carter analogy won’t mean much to most voters nowadays cause most of them are not old enough to remember anything about Carter. I mean, he left office in ’80? Not to brag about my age, but he was an honest guy and really tried. and he’s been more honorable in post-presidency than most, IMHO. So, I think it’s a failed analogy to compare Obama to Carter since most folks wont get it. On the other hand, most folks apparently don’t understand the meaning of the word “appeasement” (did you see Chris Matthews take that young punk republican apart on live tv? it was awesome)
It is not without some trepidation that I’m supporting Obama. His platform suits me fine, but the Carter analogy has been gnawing away at my confidence in his ability to produce what he promises.
I regret having voted for Jimmy Carter now more than ever. Sanctimonious
pronouncements do not overcome ineptitude.
Sure I want to sweep out the present administration, but possibly replacing it with a straw man in these insecure times is a real gamble.
On the other hand so is the alternative.
Fait vos jeux, mesdames et messeiurs!
Carter who?
J/K. But seriously, they don’t teach any history that most people alive can remember today. I didn’t learn shit about Carter in school (I’m 29, and was 1-2 years old when Carter ran the show), and all I know about Carter is that people say he was a bad president, but a great EX-president. Is he Carter 2.0? I don’t even know what it would mean if he was.
What DO I remember from the presidents in my life? Republicans, and centrist Clinton. It’s about time the left got their shit together (and yeah, Obama’s not THAT left, but he’s lefter than any serious pres. canidate I can remember).
I voted for Carter…. twice (1976 and 1980 when he ran against Reagan the first time.) (Hopefully that might diminish some who think my posts are Republican. My political roots are Chicago Democratic with a smattering of FDR boo weevil Southern Democrat from my mother. However, I did vote for Reagan in ’84 and have never regretted it. I know most of you were in your teens back then.)
The periods (Carter to present) are similar but “not” at the same time. It is indeed true that stagflation and loss of asset values were significant under Carter’s economic policies. Carter’s economic policies affectively invalidated John Maynard Keynes theories. (As a caveat, please understand I am a management and economics professor.)
However, in my opinion that problem and the econ problem we have now can not be labeled as either Democratic or Republican.
This is ancient history for some of you. However it is very important to recognize that supply side economics was not a Reagan (rightist) theory nor was the Laffer curve. Supply side economics was conceived by JFK in 1961. It was JFK who first cut marginal tax rates to kick start the economy. He recognized that the economy is not static. Lowering tax rates “increases” econ activity which results in increased government revenues and increased standards of living.
It worked in the ’60s. JFK’s tax cuts set the stage for huge economic growth until about ’72. The Reagan tax cuts worked to lift the economy until about ’91 (and fixed Carter’s mess and it was a mess for anyone trying to earn a living. I was in my twenties.) However, President Bush (the first) raised taxes ala Keynes. The slump that preceded the ’92 elections was their result.
The ’01 Bush tax cuts too have lifted the economy. Until recently unemployment has been under 5.00% and overall growth has been in the 3.5% range which is where it should be for this size of an economy ($13 Trillion +).
However, soft money (i.e. low interest rates) and the symbiotic policy to kick start exports by cheapening the dollar overseas are causing significant problems. The oil price is not so much due to demand. It is due to the erosion in purchasing power of the dollar as a global currency.
That, more than anything is a big headache for “all” of us now. The big difference between Carter and present pertains to this world currency conundrum. In Carters admin however, there was no competing currency that could be used as a global reserve currency. The US dollar was the only global currency. However, now the EURO has the strength to take the Dollars place as the currency favored for international transactions. That fact is a massive threat to the US economy and has to be fixed. That problem does “not” have anything to do with Democratic or Republican social issues.
Hence, perhaps it is very important “not” to label certain economic theories with a Republican or Democratic label. Such labeling diminishes any President’s, especially a Democratic President’s economic options to properly address these serious economic issues using solid and proven economic initiatives.
The economy is going to be “the” issue in this election. If a President Obama lifts taxes, he will be out in 4 years, just like President Carter because younger voters can not remember what a really bad economy is like.
Note: The Carter reference is being used by McCain for boomer voters, not for younger voters.
Senator Obama has just announced he wants to increase the payroll tax on those making over $250,000. In my opinion this is a very dangerous initiative and not so smart. It has populist roots. But it is not good economics because those higher income people usually are the ones that provide investment capital and take the risk. (That is why they are higher income.)
It is taxing the economy when it definitely is not in a position to absorb more taxes. (We cumulatively pay almost 50% of all income in taxes now. In New York it might be higher than 50%.)
There is a huge debate on this issue inside Chicago. Many advisers, indirectly including me, lost this fight. It is a huge mistake. It is not a fair tax and will hurt him.
(As a caveat, I “never” made that kind of money. I am not trying to feather my own bed. I am discussing the correct means to fix the economy as a university professor.)
Note: Senator O is also intending to announce a huge raise in the capital gains tax “and” raising federal income tax rates on the highest levels too.
This is just the opposite of what he should do. An increase in the cap gains tax will infuriate senior citizens who need cap gains to survive. The increase in the highest rates will affect the coastal economies because those coastal economies usually have higher income averages. (One needs a significantly higher income in San Fran or New York for doing the same work as say in Wichita KS. Hence, he is pushing to tax his core support regions.) This looks good at first glance, but, in my opinion it is strategically catastrophic.