An Empty Chair But Not An Empty Suit: The Case for Re-Electing Barack Obama

NB: I know I'm not in a swing state. My vote doesn't count for much. But, the way I see it, if I keep voting like I do live in a swing state--and enough Texans do the same--that fantasy may very well become reality.

 

On November 4, 2008, a 16-year-old boy, his heart buoyant with joy and his stomach burdened with celebratory cake, logged onto his Facebook and dashed off a quick victory note:

"I don’t know where we are going from here
and if you do then chances are you know something I don't.
But I DO know that for the first time in my memory
We are awake
We are alive
We are invested
We are moving.
At last we are moving forward."

Four years later, much has changed. I'm now officially out of my teens. My musings (hopefully) no longer read like half-assed Maya Angelou rip-offs. And my belief in our president, if not my faith in our entire political process, has been tested. We now know that Barack Obama is not a 21st Century Savior, mending our cultural divides, easing partisan tensions, and singlehandedly bringing a Bushwhacked America roaring back to life. The blight of racism continues to plague the body politic, political gridlock is worse than ever, and we're still stuck with an expanding deficit and a sluggish employment rate. At first glance, it's an American tragedy, the tale of a transformational figure overwhelmed by the very system he promised to change.

But beneath that sob story is another narrative, one of subtle but measurable success, not of soaring poetry but of competent and effective prose. Our President has not eroded cultural division, but he's taken decisive and sensible steps toward all-around equality. Due somewhat to his occasional hubris and mostly to a nakedly partisan Republican House, he hasn't ushered in a new era of post-partisanship, but he's worked around obstruction to implement his agenda, and done so mostly without overstepping his executive authority. It's not yet morning in America again, but he staved off the storm clouds of another Great Depression, and now there are some very real indicators that the dawn is coming. In short, that's why the incumbent's got my vote. But this explanation is devoid of numbers, facts, and explicit references--all of which are sorely needed in this era of post-truth campaigning. Below, I offer what I consider to be a reasonably critical (albeit slightly biased) examination of Barack Obama's first term in office. I know that this post comes too late to change very many minds, but the very least, I hope you'll come away with a thorough and logically sound explanation of why I vote the way I do--the kind of explanation that all citizens of a democracy should have.


First, let's come clean; Obama is an unusually young President, and more than once his youth and inexperience have showed. So before I tell you why the guy's so great, a few concessions. Yes, he bungled the housing crisis. Rather than provide a broad bailout, as he did with the banking and auto-industries, he used a hunt-and-peck approach on that sent signals of uncertainty throughout the housing market. It may have been that after two massive bailouts, he wanted to dodge the "big-spender" label. That was a mistake. He was already stuck with that label anyway, and bailouts, while tremendously unpopular, are also hugely effective. He also made a true bleeding-heart-liberal world-relations blunder--an attempted "reset" with Russia. Yes, that Russia. The run-by-insanely-corrupt-ex-KGB-members Russia. The POTUS extended an olive branch to them, and in return was given leeway to broker a weapons-reduction agreement. For this one agreement, we abandoned, at Russia's request, previous defense commitments to the Czech Republic and Poland--a decision that one Polish politican called "catastrophic". Even after these staggering concessions, Russia chose not  to play nice with us, refusing to put pressure on Iran and balking at the idea of uniting against Syria. Most of the criticism coming at Obama from the right has been paranoid, partisan hogwash, but Republicans were right to say that Russia-gate was indicative of a certain amount of learning-on-the-job naivete.

There's an equally strong criticism coming at him from members of the disenfranchised left.  Over the past three and a half years, he's used cutting-edge technology to step up the War on Terror while shrinking US casualties. Overall, it's a great idea, the kind of nuanced, cool-headed approach so lacking in the last administration's foreign policy. The problem? It's not nuanced enough. We haven't perfected the weapons we're using on the enemy. Therefore, the collateral damage has been tragic and tremendous, particularly in Pakistan. Every death blow to Al-Qaeda builds a stronger America, but it also renders parents childless and children orphaned. To say that their blood is on Mr. Obama's hands is correct; it is, however, also worth noting that assuming leadership of the free world almost always involves making decisions about the life and death of other human beings, and that nearly every president is, however indirectly, also a cold-blooded killer. Bill Clinton oversaw the execution of a mentally retarded man. Harry Truman sat at his desk in the Oval Office while two cities turned to ash. It's also worth noting that Obama has waged a more humane war on terror than George W. Bush ever did, demanding a considerably greater amount of data and evidence before mounting an attack so as to minimize needless deaths. Still, the fact can't be ignored--Obama campaigned on peace and civil liberties, and while he's waged a smart war, it's still a bloody one, the kind he railed against as a candidate.

There are, to be sure, other arguments to be made against the President. Many on the right are claiming that the Obama Administration botched their response to a terrorist attack in Benghazi, costing four American lives. In time, we may find out that there's a dash of truth to that--however, it's becoming clearer and clearer that this was a CIA failure, not a White House one. Those concerned about civil liberties (which should be all of us) blanche at the NDAA, a piece of defense legislation that supposedly gives the federal government the right to imprison American citizens indefinitely without trail. Except not really. It's a piece of shit, for sure, but not some sort of Orwellian master plan.


Neither is Obamacare, by the way. Say what you will about the thuggish way he got it passed (ramming it through Congress on a party-line vote) or the sketchy tactics he used to sell it (refusing to call the mandate a tax, which it is), but the fact of the matter is this: we've given insurance to millions of Americans who were once either too poor or too sick to get it, allowed teens to stay on their parents' plans, and implemented some experimental cost controls that will help reduce our deficit, all while stopping short of the kind of the sort of government-run health care that, while effective in Europe, is, in many people's opinion (mine included), unconstitutional in this country. Pundit (and longtime conservative) Andrew Sullivan sums up it nicely: "This election is really asking you: do you believe everyone should be able to have access to private health insurance or not? When I examine my conscience, my answer has to be yes." Like any major law, Obamacare cannot be judged a success or a failure until it is implemented. Some of the cost controls may fail, and an influx of newly insured patients may lead to a shortage of able doctors--though that's ultimately fairly unlikely. But as a piece of legislation, it is commendable, radically transformative yet ideologically moderate, overhauling our deeply flawed health system without resorting to "death panel" style rationing or waging war on the insurance companies, taking its inspiration not from European-style socialism but from the highly conservative Heritage Foundation. Once the Tea Party demagoguery has died out and the law actually  goes into effect (assuming my guy wins), Obamacare will go down in history as one of the most misunderstood political efforts of the last several decades.

So will the $787 billion dollar stimulus package, a combination of tax cuts and government-funded projects that the POTUS signed into law to revive a gasping-for-breath economy. The tax cuts did two things--they gave some much-needed relief to struggling lower-middle-class families, and also injected some money into a lackluster economy, because, as reporter Michael Grunwald notes, "lower-income families...can't afford to hoard." The government-funded projects also served a twofold purpose; they advanced Obama's agenda by investing in education and green energy, but they also created new jobs in those industries. Admittedly not nearly enough jobs, but enough to stabilize the economy and avert a second Great Depression. This is a huge achievement, even a historic one; it also went, for the mostpart, unnoticed. After all, Obama didn't start a comeback, he merely stopped a crash. Grunwald puts it bluntly: "This was the counterfactual problem that would haunt the Obama presidency, the impossible task of persuading people to be glad their broken arm wasn't a crushed skull." The Grunwald quotes are from the most important book to come out during this election cycle--The New New Deal, a 500-page defense of a stimulus that was not just necessary, but at times visionary. With it, Obama and Joe Biden wanted to do four things; offer reassurance to the middle class, give the economy a government-aided boost, advance their administrative goals, and convince the American people that Big Government, when run efficiently and intelligently, can be a force for good.Four years later, consumer confidence has surged, the stock market is soaring, public education investments have paid off big-time, and the way in which the package was implemented set new standards in government transparency. As one Obama adviser put it, "We probably did more in that one bill than the Clinton administration did in eight years."  Paired with the hugely successful auto bailout, the stimulus is proof that Obama is a competent and trustworthy steward of the American economy--and that, more than anything else, ought to earn him re-election.

Of course, Obama's had other successes as well. Of course, whether some of these are successes or not is in the eye of the beholder. If you believe the word "marriage" refers only to a monogamous union between a man and a woman, you probably aren't pleased with Obama's decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, his successful attempt to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and his declaration that he believes gays have the right to marry. However, for those of us who have long fought for marriage equality, and who have insisted that allowing people of the same sex to express their love for one another is A) an extension of the uniquely American promise of liberty and B) not likely to cause the universe to commit cosmic seppuku, Obama's approach to this issue has been a breath of fresh air. If you believe climate change is an overheated hoax, then Obama's unprecedented attempts to help solar-and-wind startups get off the ground is a waste of money. If you're concerned about the future of what most scientists agree is a sick and tired planet, then you, like me, applaud his decision to invest in green industry, which, while not nearly as effective as heavy taxes on heavy polluters, is still a step in the right direction.

Finally, there's Obama's foreign policy, which, according to Paul Ryan, is unraveling before our very eyes. Tell that to Bin Laden and Gaddafi. Admittedly, our men and women in uniform deserve a great deal of credit for the victorious War On Terror, but we mustn't forget that, in the end, where are troops go and what they do is a result of decisions made by whoever occupies the Oval Office. Faced with the populist uprising of the Arab Spring, Obama charted a careful course, intervening in Libya along with the Europeans, while making the tough but prudent decision to avoid sending resources and weapons to countries like Syria, where those products might've very well wound up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. He re-focused the War on Terror, dialing down troop involvement and ratcheting up drone strikes. And, of course, he defied his cabinet, ordering the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden. Several of these decisions, particularly the last one, were truly presidential. Obama knew that if he took a risk, he might make thousands of Americans safer; he also knew that if that risk didn't pay off, he might lose his job. He put our future in front of his, and we're all better off for it. Of course, foreign policy is ultimately measured not just by who we beat, but who we don't have to fight. In a turbulent four years, Obama's remained cool and collected, reinforcing our strong bonds with Israel without bowing unequivocally to its reactionary prime minister, leveling crippling sanctions against Iran to bring a peaceful end to a potentially deadly conflict, and playing tough but fair with China, calling them out on their cheating without resorting to the kind of unnecessary provocation that Mitt Romney's been advocating. Romney, by the way, is taking advice from the same guys who engineered Dubya's foreign policy. Which would you prefer? Four more years of restrained rationality, or a return to neoconservative bellicosity? 

So for me, choice is clear; I'm going with the guy who kept unemployment rates from rising, and who made sure the number of radical terrorists out there kept sinking. Yet I acknowledge that my decision is informed not just by data but by a set of values, by the delicate demands of my conscience. Some cannot vote for Obama because his pro-choice views clash with their understanding of human life; others because of his continued warmongering and drone strikes. I, on the other hand, feel that I must vote for Obama, because whatever his flaws, he shares my core beliefs; that equality is the cornerstone of any democracy, reason should be at the center of all diplomacy, and government is not the enemy of the people, but instead a force for good that can spur positive change and improve their quality of life. I also vote for the incumbent because, whatever my issues with him, I cannot for the life of me cast my ballot for the challenger. Once a sensible Republican moderate, Mitt Romney is now a cynical opportunist who has proven time and again that he'll do just about anything to get elected, repudiating his long held views on health-care and climate change, and even choosing to run with Paul Ryan, a reactionary zealot who plays the role of fiscal wunderkind while dodging questions of basic math, and who believes that slashing benefits for the elderly and making sure that billionaires are rewarded with less-than-1% tax rates is the ideal way to fix our economy. To check Romney's name on the ballot is to rubber-stamp an agenda of corporatist fantasy and social Darwinism--and to vote for Obama is to repudiate it. I'm also hopeful (perhaps foolishly) that, should Obama win, the GOP will be forced to do some soul-searching, just as the Democrats did after Reagan's landslide victory. During that period, the Democrats ran Bill Clinton, a pragmatic, centrist Democrat. Maybe, just maybe, a Romney loss would finally give us a pragmatic, centrist Republican--one a reasonably moderate guy like me might vote for.

There's one more reason the guy has my vote. When he assumed the presidency four years ago, he promised that he'd be the candidate of change. Today, it's clear that we all overestimated the magnitude of that change. Unemployment hasn't dropped below 6%. Guantanamo Bay hasn't closed. The Middle East hasn't cooled off, and neither has our planet. But even if he hasn't reshaped the whole world, Obama has proven time and again that, more than any president in recent memory, he understands how change really works. He has passed health care reform by procuring the insurance companies' blessing instead of their disdain. He re-focused the War On Terror and brought our greatest enemy to his knees, all while working with a Republican Secretary of Defense. Most importantly of all, he saved a freefalling economy, doing so with a mix of classically conservative tax cuts and typically liberal government spending. He got these things done because he was willing to get his hands dirty; because he knows that change is not decreed from a podium, but worked out in a series of messy compromises and necessary sacrifices. That's why I'm damn near certain  he'll keep us safe from harm for the next four years. That's why I'm hopeful he'll finally pass immigration reform. Most importantly, that's why I'm confident he'll strike a "grand bargain", setting us on the right track for the future by cutting government spending and raising taxes on the wealthy--a balanced approach that his opponent has already written off. 

So here we are. After four years of ups, downs, and a million Facebook statuses, I have the opportunity to say it for one last time. I, Mason Walker, proudly support Barack Obama in this election, not because his brand of change is perfect, but because it is, as we know now, change we can believe in.