the obama prophecy
by Ari Holtz
Published: October 19, 2008
A self-fulfilling prophecy is hard to break out of. Once a potential future reality cements itself as overwhelmingly likely in the public’s mind, bucking this reality, breaking free from this fate, is a difficult task. With little more than two weeks until the election, John McCain finds himself in the grips of such an expected outcome. The conventional wisdom right now is that Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. Check out these polls. And these.
Can McCain escape a future that seems to include him losing? How did we get here?
A mere six weeks ago, after the Republican Convention, McCain had the wind at his back. Democrats were experiencing acute stress reactions of fear and dread at the prospect of another blown election. Sarah Palin was a star and the Obama campaign seemed detached and barely present. Obama’s small lead in the polls had turned into a deficit.
Then, though, came the debates, the economic crisis, and the fall of the star of Palin. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and WaMu, the buyouts of Wachovia and Merrill Lynch, the bailouts of AIG and the larger financial sector, the freezing of the credit markets, and the nosedive of the Dow have all helped Obama. Democrats are naturally favored on economic issues. It also didn’t hurt Obama’s popularity that his opponent is a member of the party that has run our country, and economy, for the past eight years.
While post-debate insta-polls showed the public favoring Obama in all three debates, he accomplished more than simple victories on points. He stood on stage in front of the nation, in front of many Americans who were still unfamiliar with him, and ably held his own with a seasoned veteran of American governance. His answers, his calm demeanor, and his unflappable countenance communicated to America that he was presidential material. For many, the debates sealed this deal. This factor - the presidential factor, the gravitas factor - cannot be overlooked.
Last, but certainly not least, is the decisive loss of Palin’s shine. From exciting superstar in her early days, she has become a national punchline. Her poor performances in interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, her lack of press availability, her avoidance of direct answers in the vice-presidential debate, Troppergate, and her less-than-professional style (wink!) have raised huge doubts in the American electorate regarding her ability to run the country should a President McCain be no longer able to serve.
So, an economic crisis coming on the Republicans’ watch, Obama’s presidential performances in the debates, and Palin’s transformation from rock star to joke have left the country largely expecting a coming Democratic administration.
Is there anything John McCain can do?
He has already tried a lot, to little avail. His campaign, through commercials, surrogates, and Palin herself, has pushed the association of Obama to former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Apparently, though, the public doesn’t much care about Ayers’ actions when Obama was 8-years-old. They are more concerned with their depleted 401(k)’s and losing their houses. Guilt-by-association was also attempted between Obama and ACORN, the housing assistance non-profit alleged to be involved in voter registration irregularities. Again, voters seemed more concerned with their wallets and the solvency of their banks then with cloudy maybe-relationships between a candidate and a group they’ve never heard of.
McCain has also tried to take the initiative on the economy. This hasn’t worked. McCain’s strengths lie in the realm of foreign policy. He has never distinguished himself on economic policy, aside from being a proponent of deregulation. In this climate, supporting deregulation is akin to supporting financial support for Madrassas after 9/11.
Sadly for him, what McCain must hope for to break free of people’s expectations of his coming defeat is a foreign policy calamity or terror attack. The economy will not recover in two weeks. Obama, who has made nary a gaffe in 20 months, will not make a significant one in the next 18 days. Personal attacks, attempts to turn a professorial Ivy Leaguer into a dangerous radical, have already proved largely impotent. McCain needs a shocking, substantial, frightening event that will make terrorism or foreign policy paramount to voters again, while moving economic concerns to a distant second place. Only in the light of a direct threat to our nation’s safety does Obama seem ill-equipped to much of America.
This is John McCain’s predicament. Accept the prospect of losing or hope for a second 9/11. What a horrible place to be.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
October 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Ari,
What does it say about the state of American politics if, as you say, a person can get elected simply by seeming presidential. Shouldn’t it be the strength of a person’s positions that sways our votes? Take the economy for example: three years ago a bill was introduced in the Senate to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more strictly. Given the current perception that the Democratic party is “stronger” on the economy - as you said, “Democrats are naturally favored on economic issues” - one would think that it was Democrats who supported such a bill and Republicans who defeated it. But the opposite was true: the vote was decided on strictly party lines, with all Democratic Senators opposing the measure while Republican lawmakers argued with eerie prescience about the need for regulation.
Does this prove that McCain should be President? Of course not. But it does make you think twice about your preconceived notions of which party is stronger on which issue. Ultimately, the qualities I want in a President have very little to do with outward perception and “appearing presidential” and much more to do with the strength of his platform and the quality of his leadership. If Obama gets elected it should be because he deserves it, not because he looks good in a suit and tie and is smooth during debates.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:24 am
To add on to Dave, it was Barney Frank and Dodd, just to name a few, who didn’t want to regulate Fannie/Freddie because they believed that every american (whether or not he/she can afford a house) should be given a house, not to mention Barney’s relationship with a Fannie executive. Sarah Palin’s wink has gotten more airtime than this highly controversial issue, but I’m not surprised…aferall, why would the majority-ruling liberal press want to go after these issues? Everything from Obama getting the most money from “frannie” to Dodd getting a sweetheart deal is not shocking considering how close they all were. This whole bubble started with “frannie” and the democrats are the ones to blame.
Sure, people are concerned about their savings, but they should also be concerned about they man they intend to vote for, and what kind of poor judgement he will display on the job (where he is training). Wright, Flager, Ayers, ACORN, Rezkco, the list goes on and on. Unrepentent terrorist? If a republican were friends with Ayers, this would be the number one issue on all media outlets every single day. So lets not get too hung up here because the mccain camp is pursuing this extremely sensitive and important issue that americans need to know about.
I know since the GOP was in power the last 8 years, americans think this crisis is their fault. Bush has nothing to do with this crisis. Again, this whole thing started with fannie and freddie giving out houses “for free,” and the lack of attention put forth by the congress democrats. Secondly, it doesnt help that the Fed lowered interest rates so much when there was a housing boom because credit flowed freely and people lived beyong their means. The inerest rates the Fed set were phantom interest rates, they didnt really exist, it wasnt the true market rate, and hence, this whole thing bloomed and bloomed and now it must crash.
Ari, all of your criticisms or Palin have nothing to do with issues, and then for you to criticise the Mac Camp for not talking issues is pure ignorance. So its ok to talk about Palin’s wink but its not ok to talk about Obama’s friendship with an unrepentent domestic terrorist? What people need to talk about is that Palin has been a business owner, a member of the PTA, a mayor, and a governer, which sums up to more than 15 years of experience. Obama has 3 years of experience. Just because the man is a smooth-talker, doesnt mean he can be president.
I still think mccain has a good shot at winning, but if indeed obama wins, everyone get ready for the most liberal and most radical president in history of the United States. Even though, I will be extremely disappointed and scared of Obama, i will be happy because I know that 4 years of Marxism and socialism will bring 12 more years of conservatism to america, its core fundamental principles that make america so great. Just like what happened with Carter’s disastrous policy that brought a great conservative after.
After all, no one wants a 2nd Jimmy Carter term.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 am
“Sure, people are concerned about their savings, but they should also be concerned about they man they intend to vote for, and what kind of poor judgement he will display on the job (where he is training). Wright, Flager, Ayers, ACORN, Rezkco, the list goes on and on. Unrepentent terrorist? If a republican were friends with Ayers, this would be the number one issue on all media outlets every single day.”
Two paragraphs later… “Ari, all of your criticisms or Palin have nothing to do with issues, and then for you to criticise the Mac Camp for not talking issues is pure ignorance.”
After repeating Fox News and Limbaugh talking points about a tangential relationship between Obama and Ayers (to call their relationship anything beyond tenuous is absurd), he criticizes the writer for not talking issues. The kind of doublespeak one must resort to when fighting a losing fight. He even goes as far as saying that an Obama presidency is tantamount to socialism. The cry of communism hasn’t scared anyone (except the uneducated) since the Cold War ended. Considering the millions of children and adults in this country without health insurance, I think a little bit of socialism is looking pretty **** nice to voters.
Also, he comically cites Palin’s role in the PTA as presidential experience, yet somehow claims that Obama has only “3 years of experience.” It seems reasonable to say that Obama’s 12 years as a professor of constitutional law look slightly better on a presidential resume than “active in the PTA”. Add to that his experience in the state legislature, in Congress, as a lawyer, and as President of the Harvard Law Review.
Nicholas Singer, thank you. You have no idea how many people you are persuading to vote Democrat with your nonsense.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Daniel,
My point was that democrats are throwing hissy fits about the GOP not talking issues, when they are doing the SAME EXACT THING! I am aware that I talked about obama’s relationships as well as real issues, but at least I dont go off on a tantrum like the hypocritical democrats. I was just calling out people who accuse GOP of not talking issues when they are doing the same thing.
Daniel, i see that you are an advocate for socialism. You believe in the healthy paying for the poor, the rich paying for everyone else. You believe that everyone should put all their belongings in the middle and people can take anything they want. Let me tell you that an economist you wont be.
When a government intervenes in a market, it upsets the dynamics of a market and forces inefficiencies. In fact, I would strongly argue that government is responsible for the high health care costs today.
In a free market, I have the option to pick the best plan for me, from a range of suppliers, at the price I wish to pay. As soon as you get government involved, there are mandates of what plans have to include, it increases prices and consolidates supply. That is bad for the consumers of health care.
Not only that, but the government would require taxes to fund such programs. Lets think about that word. It has two meanings which are very closely related. On one hand, it means a government forcibly taking money from an entity. At the same time, it means to place an undue burden on an activity which ultimately limits it. In fact, taxation reduces your economic freedom, placing an undue burden on your ability to prosper while a parasitic government leeches from you. Time and time again has shown that a reduction in tax rates will stimulate the economy and a production of more revenue. Even JFK knew that.
The solution for the 21st century isn’t more government interference in your life and less freedom, it is less government interference and more freedom. Get government out of the health care business so that it can operate efficiently again. As it is now, people have no incentive to take care of themselves because their employer or the government will take responsibility for them. Throwing more money at the problem isn’t a solution, it only creates more dependence on the government and less individual responsibility.
Of course, the people we elect are more than happy to have more power over you and to be able to threaten to take away the things you’ve come to depend on. That is precisely why we have such a high incumbent retention level. If you support government control of any aspect of your life, you’re voting away your freedom one little bit at a time. Don’t be surprised when the wrong guy ends up in power and it dawns on you that you’ve become a slave to the government instead of the government being a slave to you.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Nicholas, your points are well laid out, and politically I agree more closely with your ideology, but there is an added wrinkle that makes this a complex problem. On the one hand you have government which is irreparably inefficient, so naturally it makes sense to keep as much money out of government hands as possible, the theory being that money spent more efficiently is essentially more “valuable” than wasted money.
However, on the other hand, private enterprise is naturally driven by greed and the bottom line. This means that inevitably some of the poor and powerless get left behind. When considering this perspective it’s easy to see how our knee-jerk reaction could be to mandate governmentally what might not otherwise be done privately.
Somewhere in here we start to realize that government will never solve all our problems, and that in a private enterprise system where the motive of greed is used to achieve socially beneficially goals the motive can easily become more important than the results. Ultimately we find that manufactured morality, be it mandated by our government or encouraged by an appeal to our baser instincts, is a poor substitute for morality that comes from true, inner character. Maybe we should be trying to figure out how to achieve that kind of transformation.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hey Nicholas
Never in passed years have the wall street bankers made such a violent turn to the right. We never experienced such problems with our open markets, going completely off the track with greedy lawless CEOs operating with reckless moral abandon.
So what! All of sudden we need new laws? To what ends does such behavior now be restrained with force of law? Something has changed. We are going in the wrong direction!
The current administration and it’s political party has winked their eye toward full and open free world markets unrestrained without the rule of law or any moral compass. We have sailed away from any allegiance to the republic of the USA.
Don’t tell me the DEMs were responsible for this current economic mess we are in. The president has lots of clout by directive to bring the lawless wall street bankers into line but by choice decided to let it go. We are now passed the point of return. So now the republicans want to blame the DEMs for this mess? GET REAL. The current party administration flushed USA down the new world order drain.
What possible damage or harm could Obama do to this country that has not already been done by the GOP? At least Obama is holding the out the promise of middle class jobs for the unwashed.
Vote Obama for a change.