I Love You More Than Anything in the World / I Don’t Expect That Will Last
Bob Murphy suggests a fun game:
I would like the pro-Obama people to come up with specific things that would make them admit they are mistaken right now, in their advocacy of Obama. For example, if Obama orders the use of nuclear weapons on Iran, surely that would count, right?
To be clear, I’m not talking about things like, "Aww man, he could raise tax rates and cause slower GDP growth!" I’m saying, what if he starts arresting journalists?
So no matter how ludicrous you have to make the events, surely you will admit right now that there are some things President Obama could do, that would make you regret your current support. I would just like to have a record of those things, before he actually takes over.
I feel especially compelled to play this game. You can read people like Andrew Sullivan and Radley Balko saying, in essence, I really want to kick the GOP out of power but I expect to be a principled opponent of Barack Obama’s administration. I ain’t saying that at all. But that puts me at risk of becoming an apologist for any crummy stuff Obama might choose to do. So, a quick list of stuff to kick me for if Obama does it and I excuse it:
- Goes along with the rumored $450B military-spending increase the Pentagon is putting together;
- Leaves the structures of the unitary-executive state intact, including the ideological structures;
- Starts a war with Iran;
- Has US troops in Iraq in 2012;
- Pursues his stated policy of admitting Georgia, Ukraine or additional former Soviet republics to NATO;
- Pursues a souped-up version of ihis stated policy toward Pakistan. It’s one thing to launch a raid to capture/kill Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri in defiance of Pakistani sovereignty. But the existing Bush Administration policy seems to be a generalized air-war against generalized "al Qaeda" or "Taliban" targets in Pakistani territory. That will kill a lot of innocent people (it already has) and invite blowback.
That’s what I got right off the bat. Things that will not "make me regret my support": raising marginal tax rates on top brackets; proposing some version of universal health care, a stimulus package; alternative-energy research and development subsidies; many kinds of financial-system regulatory reform.
Draw you own lines in the sand of the comments thread.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
October 25, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Fun, fun, fun! New Padilla-style detentions of American citizens. I suppose that’s a species of unitary executive claim.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 25, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
If inmates are still being held without trials (real trials in Article III courts) at the end of 2009, I will say that Obama was a mistake.
Like Jim said, if Obama goes along with even further defense spending increases, I’ll say that Obama was a mistake.
This one will be harder to get reliable info on, but if NSA keeps doing what it’s doing, I’ll say Obama was a mistake.
Comment by abb1 —
October 25, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Starts a war with any country.
Has US troops in Iraq in 2010.
Not proposing some version of universal health care.
Comment by Russell L. Carter —
October 25, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Yeah. Gitmo and all the rest of the black holes got to be shut down. The defense budget needs to be cut in half. The FISA crap needs to be fixed. Out of Iraq. (Don’t know what to do about Afghanistan).
20% chance two or more of these things gets done. But zero with McCain.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 25, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
I mostly agree with abb1.
Don’t be sad. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
October 25, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
There are lots of bad things Obama could do that I wouldn’t support, but to regret advocating him now, you’d have to argue that McCain wouldn’t've done those things — and it seems like McCain probably would do the things you’re hoping Obama doesn’t do.
Comment by Bob Weber —
October 25, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
(Same reply posted on Crash Landing):
I’m in the position of hoping for a crushing GOP defeat while acknowledging that this means a Dem victory. As a “plumb-line” libertarian, I’ll oppose Obama just as vigorously as I did Bush. I think that Obama is by temperament more cautious, i.e., conservative in the traditional sense, than McCain. Think of Carlo Gambino as opposed to Crazy Joey Gallo.
I can think of many awful things that Obama might do, but in most cases I think that McCain would be more likely do the same or worse; for instance, start a war with Iran.
Anything that Obama might do that would cause me to regret not supporting McCain would involve him doing something that I can’t imagining McCain doing, and that’s pretty far out, but here goes: (1) orders the “expropriation of the property of the bourgeousie”; orders the enslavement of white people; makes Osama bin Laden his chief adviser.
So you can see why I’m not that worried about President Obama as opposed to President McCain.
Comment by Timothy —
October 25, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
1) Doesn’t challenge McCain to Thunderdome.
2) Loses to McCain in Thunderdome.
Comment by yave begnet —
October 25, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Continues ICE immigration raids and immigrant detention w/o due process.
Follows the Pelosi line of throwing immigrants under the bus to avoid political controversy.
(Article III courts in immigration proceedings would be nice, but under existing law, that’s pie in the sky …)
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
October 25, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Wooing Va. Before Heading to Hawaii…
Democrat Barack Obama swept through Virginia yesterday trying to overturn nearly half a century of p…
Comment by Thoreau —
October 25, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
I see the point, but if you don’t draw a line at something other than “Not as bad as the other guy” you’re basically allowing them to play good cop/bad cop and get away with it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 25, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Here’s the problem with your list, Jim, excepting the NATO issue, even if Obama goes back on his word, your vote will still mean the same thing. It’ll be his problem (and ours, but in a different way).
The things I’m more concerned about have gotten less press:
1. His “civilian defense force”. WTF?
2. The “Fairness” doctrine, which will be an open assault on his opposition if he goes back on his word or allow Congress to enact it.
3. Appointing lower level officials who’ll start enforcing hate-speech codes, with the term “hate-speech” being quite flexible.
Comment by Mike Kozlowski —
October 26, 2008 @ 12:06 am
Thoreau: I see the point, but still and all, if you’ve only got two realistic choices, better the good cop than the bad one.
Comment by Jon Hendry —
October 26, 2008 @ 2:21 am
Thoreau wrote: “I see the point, but if you don’t draw a line at something other than “Not as bad as the other guy†you’re basically allowing them to play good cop/bad cop and get away with it.”
“Mistake” strikes me as being too strong, given the options we had. Judging whether something was a mistake usually requires consideration of all the pros and cons. Would you really say he was a mistake if, in addition to the bad things, he handled some critical things deftly? (A Cuban Missile Crisis scenario, say, high-risk but defused without using military force.)
If (best case) he managed to turn around the situation with Iran, leading to an end of their nuclear program, a normalization of relations, Ahmedinijad’s democratic ouster, and within 8 years a loss of clerical power, a liberalized society, I certainly wouldn’t call his election a mistake if it took until 2012 to get the last 10 prisoners out of Gitmo.
“Disappointment” and “strong disappointment causing active opposition” would seem to be more useful.
If the positives don’t end up balanced by the disappointments, THEN it would be appropriate to call it a mistake.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 26, 2008 @ 4:02 am
If Obama somehow manages to fix everything with Iran then, yeah, I’ll overlook that it took a few extra years to fix some of the problems on my list.
Likewise, if Obama delivers ice cream and a pony to every household in America, I would also forgive a bit of tardiness on various initiatives.
Comment by Robert the Red —
October 26, 2008 @ 8:11 am
I’ll turn into an Obama critic if he turns the Earth over to brain-eating aliens. Unless they restrict themselves to neo-Confederate brains — that’d be cool with me.
Comment by implied otter —
October 26, 2008 @ 9:29 am
I would see the delivery of ice cream and a pony to every household in America as a huge mistake that would totally lose me for Obama.
It would probably be cheaper overall than the bank bailout, but I would still hold it to be a terrible waste of resources and a severe disruption of the pony market (the effects on the ice-cream market would presumably be shorter-lived).
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
October 26, 2008 @ 10:09 am
This exercise seems somewhat futile. Most of us here know, and have known for a while, that Obama doesn’t share our priorities – that he’s not anti-war in any real sense of the term, that he embraces American empire and American exceptionalism, that he’s a friend of the security state, that he looks fondly on corporate welfare, that he’s in hock to interests like Big Coal that are deeply destructive to our environment, to our health, and to our future as a civilization and a species. His health care plan, like Clinton’s and Edwards’s plans, is designed to preserve the existence of the insurance industry at the expense of providing better care for more people; his energy plan is designed more to channel money to destructive corporate interests than it is to further the development of renewable resources; his foreign policy accepts the underlying militaristic and imperial premise of the War on Terror and merely quibbles over its tactics.
Most regular readers of this blog are probably already going to be on board with the notion that Obama is only preferable to McCain as the lesser of two evils. (And he is preferable, and by quite a bit: Obama isn’t going to appoint justices who will make it illegal for women to control their own bodies; nor, for that matter, does he consider basic diplomacy beyond the pale.) The “how bad does he have to get before you tsk tsk him” game is a stupid one; there shouldn’t have to be a certain threshold a politician passes before we’re willing to vigorously criticize him – if Obama’s wrong on something, we should say he’s wrong on it. Voting for someone once because they’re better than Bomby McP.O.W. doesn’t mean you’re forced to wear their jersey for life.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
October 26, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Testing. I thought I posted something and it didn’t appear. Anyway, short version–I agree with iron lungfish. Also, Obama has been stabbing his antiwar progressive base in the back for months now, though many of them (I know some in real life) seem very reluctant to acknowledge it. The latest example is the lovefest between an unrepentant Colin Powell and Obama.
Comment by abb1 —
October 26, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Chomsky interviewed by Al Jazeera:
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
October 26, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
I’m with Iron Lungfish and Donald Johnson (well, I would be, wouldn’t I). I’m already “disappointed” by Obama in all kinds of ways. If you’re asking what would make me “regret my current support” in the sense of “Damn, McCain should have won”–I can’t think of a single thing (which could just be a lack of imagination on my part, but I kinda doubt it). If you’re asking it in the sense of “Shit, he’s turning out to be another Bill Clinton”–well, we know that already. So what is the point here?
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
October 26, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Forgot one little thing: pace a number of people upthread, I fully expect US troops to still be in Iraq at the end of Obama’s first term. I wouldn’t presume to make predictions about size or scope–it could be down to a couple thousand soldiers doing the ol’ “training and advisement”–but I think the chances of full withdrawal under Obama are slim to none. So that’s one moot, anyway.
Comment by Sasha —
October 26, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Kissing Sarah Palin on the lips.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 26, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
I don’t see this as figuring out how bad he’d have to be before we wish McCain had won. Rather, I see this as asking how bad he’d have to be before we conclude that he and McCain are part of a good cop/bad cop game being played on us by the elites.
Regardless of whether Obama is the real deal or part of a scam or whatever, I’ll criticize him when he does bad and praise him when he does good. And I’ll hope that there is a strong opposition in Congress.
Comment by Jon Hendry —
October 26, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
abb1 wrote: “Chomsky interviewed by Al Jazeera:”
Couldn’t care less about Chomsky. How’d the Khmer Rouge work out for him?
He should stick to linguistics.
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
October 26, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Couldn’t care less about Chomsky. How’d the Khmer Rouge work out for him?
How’re non sequiturs working out for you?
Comment by charlotte —
October 27, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Gee, I dunno: How about if Barack decides to get up in the morning and actually accomplish something useful on any given day? That would be a nice change of pace in the WH and might make for some genuine news.
But to indulge you: Here’s my offering … Inviting Bill Kristol and Sarah Palin to a sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom –because old thorny Bill can hardly wait to show her all his love and appreciation. Maverick style.
Comment by Nell —
October 27, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Thoreau: Rather, I see this as asking how bad he’d have to be before we conclude that he and McCain are part of a good cop/bad cop game being played on us by the elites.
Ummm… I certainly had concluded this long since. And while I won’t speak for Iron Lungfish, Uncle Kvetch, and Donald Johnson, I will say that this view of things is held quite generally on the left in this country. It is, in fact, one of the means by which leftists can be distinguished from liberals.
Comment by Aris Katsaris —
October 27, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Kick me if Obama DOES NOT pursue his stated policy of admitting Georgia or Ukraine into NATO, and I excuse it.
As a European wary of the Russian threat, I consider it absolutely fundamental for Europe’s security that Ukraine be admitted into NATO or atleast receives other assurances for its territorial integrity.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 27, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Well Aris I think that’s nuts.
Comment by DB Cooper —
October 27, 2008 @ 10:17 am
My support for Obama will wane, at least, if he follows through on his vague promise to blow up NAFTA; if he re-institutes the fairness doctrine; if he continues ethanol and other counter-productive ag subsidies; if he doesn’t act seriously to both increase CAFE standards and mitigate the effects of changes to the industrial workforce.
In other words, if he does what a lot of you guys want, I’ll be pissed. I guess it’s a big tent.
Comment by DB Cooper —
October 27, 2008 @ 10:22 am
I think the mainstream American response to Aris’ comment (mine too), is that the USA should evaluate NATO membership from the perspective of what it can do to advance our security. All Georgia does is make it more likely that we’re
at warin some sort of conflict with Russia.Comment by Colleen —
October 27, 2008 @ 10:36 am
” As a “plumb-line†libertarian, I’ll oppose Obama just as vigorously as I did Bush.”
By that you mean- ineffectually?
I love how if Obama doesn’t undo the last 8 years in the first 11 months of his term- he is a failure. All while America goes through a depression with two wars. Jesus- what is he doesn’t cure cancer, AIDs and colonize the moon by the end of June 09!!! Then Democrats are failures!!
Why can’t Georgia join NATO? Remember the process takes about a decade (and counting- just ask Turkey) so what affects US security is an ever evolving thing. Beside- the Bush Bolton idea that we do only what benefits the US foreign policy while expecting every other nation to help us despite their best interest is not a privilege weak countries have. And that is where 8 years of Republican rule has left our great nation- weak! We need to fix our finances, fix our ailing Army and fix our international reputation before we can become pricks again.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 27, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Colleen, I reject the notion that refusing to risk war with a nuclear power on the other side of the globe for the sake of a nation on their border somehow makes us “pricks.”
Comment by Mark Karau —
October 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Given the likely alternative of a Palin presidency I can’t think of anything Obama could do that would make me regret my support for him.
Comment by crack —
October 27, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Colleen, Turkey is in NATO. You may be talking about the EU. Yes Ukraine and Georgia should try and get in the EU. That makes much more sense than them getting into NATO. There are still significant populations in Ukraine and Georgia that want to be closely associated with Russia. It doesn’t make sense to admit them to NATO because a slim majority has elected an anti Moscow regime.
I will regret voting for Obama if he suspends the constitution and institutes African Liberation Theology as the state religion. Other things on this level will also cause me to regret the vote. Lesser things may make me regret he got the Dem nomination, but I doubt he could actually accomplish anything that would cause me to regret voting for him over McCain. McCain=W. And not in some shallow political sense, in bio, in methods, in intelligence, in everything. The biggest difference between W and McCain is W was a better pilot.
Comment by Cyrus —
October 27, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I see this as asking how bad he’d have to be before we conclude that he and McCain are part of a good cop/bad cop game being played on us by the elites.
Fair enough, but I think this depends more on the definitions you use than on current events. By a world-historical perspective, every major party candidate for the past 40 years has agreed on the basics. Soft imperialism, ceremonial deism, changes around the edges of the welfare state, the status quo in international politics, pro-war on drugs/civil liberties and pro-cheap oil. I doubt Obama or anyone else would change most parts of that.
But within that, there are still differences that matter. Democrats wants to slightly expand the welfare state; Republicans want to shrink it not-so-slightly. Obama is pro-cheap oil, but he hasn’t bent over backwards to pander in that direction, like with his opposition to the proposed gas tax holiday. So, are differences like those enough for you to consider the parties different, or not?
I guess what I’m saying is that there’s only a very slight chance that Obama might convince people the two parties *aren’t* the same. But if someone went through the Clinton era and the supine Congress of the Bush era and still sees meaningful distinctions between the parties, there’s almost no way Obama would convince them otherwise.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
October 27, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Ummm… I certainly had concluded this long since. And while I won’t speak for Iron Lungfish, Uncle Kvetch, and Donald Johnson, I will say that this view of things is held quite generally on the left in this country. It is, in fact, one of the means by which leftists can be distinguished from liberals.
Bingo. Nell, you can speak for me any ol’ time you like. 8^)
Comment by Mark —
October 27, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Since I’m voting third party, but still vastly prefer Obama to McCain (and vigorously opposed Hillary), I’ll treat the question as what would make me regret preferring Obama to McCain and/or vigorously opposing Hillary. I’d say it would require a combination of at least 3 of the following – no one thing would be sufficient:
1. No significant reduction in troop levels abroad by 2012.
2. An increase in defense spending in real terms.
3. Retaining the theory of the unitary executive in a meaningful way.
4. Unconsidered imposition of liberal-Progressive economic doctrine on a scale unseen since LBJ.
Things that would convince me to affirmatively vote FOR Obama in 2012, rather than just vote for a third party (only one or two of these would be required if unaccompanied by any of the above bad things):
1. Declaring an end to the WO(s)D and/or GWOT
2. Significant rollback of TSA travel regulations.
3. Consistent center-left economic policy comparable to Bill Clinton
4. Significant reduction in defense spending
5. A budget surplus that is used to pay down the national debt (a REAL pipe dream!)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 27, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Feh.
I’d rather have Obama win than McCain. This doesn’t involve marrying the guy, nor does that make me responsible for every stupid or evil thing he might do.
I don’t get the aversion to saying that, myself, but don’t worry; a sufficient number of Blues will treat you as the enemy if you ever criticize him, anyway.
Comment by y81 —
October 27, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Re no. 30: Wow, I agree with Jim Henley. He might want to re-think.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 27, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Volatility allows me a certain number of those, y.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 28, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Bob Weber: â€As a “plumb-line†libertarian, I’ll oppose Obama just as vigorously as I did Bush.â€
Colleen: “By that you mean- ineffectually?”
And you, Colleen, threw him right out of office, I suppose?
Face it, all of us Bush opponents were ineffectual. For instance, it’s hard to see the electing a Dem congress in ‘06 stopped a single bloody thing Dubya sought to do.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 28, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Gene, I largely agree. The Dems can point to one geuine legislative success, which is stopping Bush’s partial privatization of Social Security before the 2006 elections. That’s about as far as it goes, though.
Comment by matthew hogan —
October 28, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Will “McCain would have been worse” be the 2009-12 libertarian version of the “Kerry would have been worse” mantra?
Comment by mnuez —
October 30, 2008 @ 1:32 am
If the rich continue to get richer while the poor remain just as poor I will admit that I was mistaken in supporting Obama rather than McCain (whom generaly I would prefer).
Of course this would have to be Obama’s fault such as by not replacing the Minimum Wage Laws with Living Wage Laws, not enabling more poor Americans to gain better health and dental care than they currently have, not successfully promoting the increased power of Unions in Everyman’s negotiations with his Employer, not curtailing the unbridled power of business to engage in marketing campaigns that seek to actively decrease the happiness levels of innocent men women and children everywhere (unless they buy the required product to remedy their situation – and thus put themselves in hoc and enslaved for even longer periods of time), etc.
In truth, I have exceedingly low expectations for Obama but if he actually accomplishes none of these (or related) endeavors then I should admit that he was the marginally worse candidate rather than the marginally better one.
mnuez