Please begin with (Part One)...
A few years back, I would have happily backed Mitt Romney over more-of-the-same. In Massachusetts, Romney demonstrated pragmatism and a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle. But the Romney who ran for president during the Republican primary was different. That Romney refused to consider revenue increases as part of our budgetary solution. That Romney proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy. That Romney spouted war-mongering language about Iran. Romney's pandering to the extreme right wing of American conservatism and libertarianism, only to swing back toward the center in the general election, should raise serious questions about his character and how he will govern if elected. We need a president who is a true pragmatist and moderate, not one who will merely adopt such a persona if he thinks it will be to his personal advantage.
Romney also appears to have an honesty problem. All politicians, certainly including Obama, spin the facts in campaign ads and on the trail. But Romney goes just a little farther, blatantly denying facts about himself and his record and inventing wild untruths about his opponent. Politifact has calculated his percentage of "Pants on Fire" statements as being more than four times that of Obama's. He has demonstrated a tendency to go on the attack without first becoming fully informed (see his initial response to the Libya tragedy), and a willingness to mislead the American people for his own benefit, even after being appraised of the facts (see the "work for welfare" issue).
There is little doubt that Republicans will at least control the House in the next Congress. Democrats seem likely to retain control over the Senate, but that's not really the whole story there. Republicans will almost certainly retain the power to filibuster anything and everything Senate Democrats wish to propose. These Republicans, it should be noted, are some of the most ideologically puritan of any group we have seen in Congress in years. If Republicans do not wish to compromise -- and all indicators hint that they do not -- they will have more than enough power to either force Democrats to cave or put a halt to all legislation.
How would a president Romney act in such a scenario? Is he likely to serve as a check on this balance of power? What about on the Supreme Court, which already leans farther right than it has in decades? When the tide is already moving in the conservative direction, does a President Romney keep Washington aimed toward the center, or does he float along with the tide? If he does choose to take a stand against his own party, do they listen to him? It is important to recall that Romney lost the votes of ideologues in the Republican primary (to either Santorum or Paul).
Of course, actual responsibility tends to make politicians more moderate. So it is possible that Republicans and Romney, being perceived as the ones in control, would shift a little toward the center to protect themselves if things go wrong. But there are no guarantees.
When it comes to their platforms, neither Obama nor Romney are proposing serious solutions. Neither has a plan to reform entitlement programs or military spending, the two biggest sources of our budgetary issues. Moreover, reforming either would be highly unpopular with the public and easily politicized by the opposition, no matter who does the proposing. I don't see either of these men as likely to champion any kind of serious solution, or able to fight back against the partisan onslaught that would follow if they did.
When it comes to tax reform, Romney's plan seems more dangerous than Obama's. Despite what conservatives like Bachmann like to say about revenue increases being eternal, the opposite is actually true. It is much more difficult to increase taxes, because asking the public to pay more money is always going to be more controversial than asking them to pay less. If Romney's plan is enacted, rates will be cut significantly, and it will take a major crisis to raise them again. Loopholes may be cut to make up for some of the loss, but as numerous studies have shown, there aren't enough loopholes to fully account for the cuts he is proposing, which means even more spending will need to be cut. And how long do you really think Congress can last before Republicans or Democrats propose and pass new loopholes to incentivize job creation, or clean energy, or to support small businesses, et cetera, et cetera forever.
Neither budgetary cuts nor tax reform, by the way, seems incredibly likely to help our country's immediate problem -- a lack of good-paying jobs. Obama has proposed a Jobs Act which aims to stimulate employment. It could benefit from some moderate Republican ideas, but it is a good start. Romney has a long bullet-point list of things that supposedly will create jobs, but the specifics are unclear. The Republican ideology, generally, is that the government should not play any role in creating employment, other than to decrease regulations and taxes on businesses. But the fact is, corporations and the wealthy don't need more money. They are sitting on piles of it. What they need is some reason use that money to hire people or start new ventures -- and that requires increasing consumer demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't increase consumer demand -- there aren't enough of them, and they don't buy enough stuff. Tax cuts for the middle class and the poor are unlikely to help either -- since the bottom 50% of the country already pays little in federal taxes, there is nothing left to cut and therefore no way to stimulate through taxes their ability to purchase goods. Temporary jobs created by the government to decrease unemployment and put money in the hands of a greater number of people, however, might.
Another thing that would help encourage businesses to hire people is some sense that the government is working together. In the summer of 2011, our credit was downgraded and the market panicked over the debt ceiling debacle. The conservative argument is that this occurred because Democrats refused to take action on the national debt. But in truth, these things occurred because conservatives brought us nearly to the point of default on our debt -- an action that would have sent this country into an immediate recession, if not a depression. The market is far more afraid of extremist tactics and a dramatic and abrupt change than it is of more debt. That is why the fiscal cliff was such a dangerous proposal.
So which candidate is more likely to be able to bring both parties together? Obama utterly failed to do so in his first term. Romney was able to do so in Massachusetts, but he is strongly disliked by congressional Democrats and even many in his own party. Neither seems amazingly likely to be a good leader in this regard.
Perhaps the better question is which party would be more inclined to work with the president, if elected? Republicans have tried their hand at the opposition strategy. If Obama were to win, would they double-down on it? Or would they try to appear more reasonable, in anticipation of a moderate like Christie taking up the mantle of nominee in 2016? If Romney were to win, and the Republican puritan strategy proven successful, what type of strategy would Democrats adopt moving forward?
It is this last question, primarily, that has made up my mind on who to vote for this election. In terms of both policy and character, I give the edge ever-so-slightly to Obama. But my decision is primarily based on whose election I think would be more likely to bring Washington together.
I think Republicans would be infuriated by an Obama victory. I think the partisans in that party hate the president more than they have hated any other Democratic leader in modern history. But I think they would interpret a narrow Obama victory in the only way it is possible to do so -- as a declaration that the public is very divided, that public support for the brand of conservatism introduced in 2010 has diminished, and that compromise is necessary to move forward. I do not think they would double-down on the strategy of refusing to compromise. Democrats, very nervous after what would likely be a very close call, would likely interpret it in about the same way.
A narrow Romney victory, by contrast, would be interpreted by Republicans as a confirmation that the tactics and policies used and proposed by conservatives in 2010 continue to be acceptable to the American public. Democrats, meanwhile, would likely attribute the loss primarily to the slow pace of recovery -- a factor they feel (rightly or wrongly) was largely beyond their control (in truth, it's a little of both). They will also see that the risky, divisive tactics Republicans have employed for the past two years worked. All in all, I see little if any reason why Democrats would feel pressured to compromise following a close Romney victory, and zero reason why Republicans would feel pressured to do so.
Between the slight edge I give Obama on character and policy, and my impression that a Republican victory would actually increase division in Congress, my endorsement is for Barack Obama. I'm not happy about it, but then again, there is little about our current situation I am happy about. We make do with the situation before us.
It is sad that this is what our politics have come to. I hope for a much better choice in 2016.
A few years back, I would have happily backed Mitt Romney over more-of-the-same. In Massachusetts, Romney demonstrated pragmatism and a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle. But the Romney who ran for president during the Republican primary was different. That Romney refused to consider revenue increases as part of our budgetary solution. That Romney proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy. That Romney spouted war-mongering language about Iran. Romney's pandering to the extreme right wing of American conservatism and libertarianism, only to swing back toward the center in the general election, should raise serious questions about his character and how he will govern if elected. We need a president who is a true pragmatist and moderate, not one who will merely adopt such a persona if he thinks it will be to his personal advantage.
Romney also appears to have an honesty problem. All politicians, certainly including Obama, spin the facts in campaign ads and on the trail. But Romney goes just a little farther, blatantly denying facts about himself and his record and inventing wild untruths about his opponent. Politifact has calculated his percentage of "Pants on Fire" statements as being more than four times that of Obama's. He has demonstrated a tendency to go on the attack without first becoming fully informed (see his initial response to the Libya tragedy), and a willingness to mislead the American people for his own benefit, even after being appraised of the facts (see the "work for welfare" issue).
There is little doubt that Republicans will at least control the House in the next Congress. Democrats seem likely to retain control over the Senate, but that's not really the whole story there. Republicans will almost certainly retain the power to filibuster anything and everything Senate Democrats wish to propose. These Republicans, it should be noted, are some of the most ideologically puritan of any group we have seen in Congress in years. If Republicans do not wish to compromise -- and all indicators hint that they do not -- they will have more than enough power to either force Democrats to cave or put a halt to all legislation.
How would a president Romney act in such a scenario? Is he likely to serve as a check on this balance of power? What about on the Supreme Court, which already leans farther right than it has in decades? When the tide is already moving in the conservative direction, does a President Romney keep Washington aimed toward the center, or does he float along with the tide? If he does choose to take a stand against his own party, do they listen to him? It is important to recall that Romney lost the votes of ideologues in the Republican primary (to either Santorum or Paul).
Of course, actual responsibility tends to make politicians more moderate. So it is possible that Republicans and Romney, being perceived as the ones in control, would shift a little toward the center to protect themselves if things go wrong. But there are no guarantees.
When it comes to their platforms, neither Obama nor Romney are proposing serious solutions. Neither has a plan to reform entitlement programs or military spending, the two biggest sources of our budgetary issues. Moreover, reforming either would be highly unpopular with the public and easily politicized by the opposition, no matter who does the proposing. I don't see either of these men as likely to champion any kind of serious solution, or able to fight back against the partisan onslaught that would follow if they did.
When it comes to tax reform, Romney's plan seems more dangerous than Obama's. Despite what conservatives like Bachmann like to say about revenue increases being eternal, the opposite is actually true. It is much more difficult to increase taxes, because asking the public to pay more money is always going to be more controversial than asking them to pay less. If Romney's plan is enacted, rates will be cut significantly, and it will take a major crisis to raise them again. Loopholes may be cut to make up for some of the loss, but as numerous studies have shown, there aren't enough loopholes to fully account for the cuts he is proposing, which means even more spending will need to be cut. And how long do you really think Congress can last before Republicans or Democrats propose and pass new loopholes to incentivize job creation, or clean energy, or to support small businesses, et cetera, et cetera forever.
Neither budgetary cuts nor tax reform, by the way, seems incredibly likely to help our country's immediate problem -- a lack of good-paying jobs. Obama has proposed a Jobs Act which aims to stimulate employment. It could benefit from some moderate Republican ideas, but it is a good start. Romney has a long bullet-point list of things that supposedly will create jobs, but the specifics are unclear. The Republican ideology, generally, is that the government should not play any role in creating employment, other than to decrease regulations and taxes on businesses. But the fact is, corporations and the wealthy don't need more money. They are sitting on piles of it. What they need is some reason use that money to hire people or start new ventures -- and that requires increasing consumer demand. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't increase consumer demand -- there aren't enough of them, and they don't buy enough stuff. Tax cuts for the middle class and the poor are unlikely to help either -- since the bottom 50% of the country already pays little in federal taxes, there is nothing left to cut and therefore no way to stimulate through taxes their ability to purchase goods. Temporary jobs created by the government to decrease unemployment and put money in the hands of a greater number of people, however, might.
Another thing that would help encourage businesses to hire people is some sense that the government is working together. In the summer of 2011, our credit was downgraded and the market panicked over the debt ceiling debacle. The conservative argument is that this occurred because Democrats refused to take action on the national debt. But in truth, these things occurred because conservatives brought us nearly to the point of default on our debt -- an action that would have sent this country into an immediate recession, if not a depression. The market is far more afraid of extremist tactics and a dramatic and abrupt change than it is of more debt. That is why the fiscal cliff was such a dangerous proposal.
So which candidate is more likely to be able to bring both parties together? Obama utterly failed to do so in his first term. Romney was able to do so in Massachusetts, but he is strongly disliked by congressional Democrats and even many in his own party. Neither seems amazingly likely to be a good leader in this regard.
Perhaps the better question is which party would be more inclined to work with the president, if elected? Republicans have tried their hand at the opposition strategy. If Obama were to win, would they double-down on it? Or would they try to appear more reasonable, in anticipation of a moderate like Christie taking up the mantle of nominee in 2016? If Romney were to win, and the Republican puritan strategy proven successful, what type of strategy would Democrats adopt moving forward?
It is this last question, primarily, that has made up my mind on who to vote for this election. In terms of both policy and character, I give the edge ever-so-slightly to Obama. But my decision is primarily based on whose election I think would be more likely to bring Washington together.
I think Republicans would be infuriated by an Obama victory. I think the partisans in that party hate the president more than they have hated any other Democratic leader in modern history. But I think they would interpret a narrow Obama victory in the only way it is possible to do so -- as a declaration that the public is very divided, that public support for the brand of conservatism introduced in 2010 has diminished, and that compromise is necessary to move forward. I do not think they would double-down on the strategy of refusing to compromise. Democrats, very nervous after what would likely be a very close call, would likely interpret it in about the same way.
A narrow Romney victory, by contrast, would be interpreted by Republicans as a confirmation that the tactics and policies used and proposed by conservatives in 2010 continue to be acceptable to the American public. Democrats, meanwhile, would likely attribute the loss primarily to the slow pace of recovery -- a factor they feel (rightly or wrongly) was largely beyond their control (in truth, it's a little of both). They will also see that the risky, divisive tactics Republicans have employed for the past two years worked. All in all, I see little if any reason why Democrats would feel pressured to compromise following a close Romney victory, and zero reason why Republicans would feel pressured to do so.
Between the slight edge I give Obama on character and policy, and my impression that a Republican victory would actually increase division in Congress, my endorsement is for Barack Obama. I'm not happy about it, but then again, there is little about our current situation I am happy about. We make do with the situation before us.
It is sad that this is what our politics have come to. I hope for a much better choice in 2016.
