An Evangelical for Obama: Domestic Issues
There are obviously many more things at stake in the upcoming election than just issues of life and foreign policy. Rather than give you a full post on each of these issues, I am going to approach them in a less analytical fashion. This will be more along the lines of a reading list for the issues than in-depth arguments from me. While I will provide a few thoughts, especially on the Evangelical front, I challenge you to read the outside sources and think about each.
In the end, this post is less about Obama in specific than politics in general. While I do believe that Obama’s plans are superior in each of these areas, I know that not everyone will agree. What I think we do need to agree on is that neither political party is presenting unintelligent and disastrous policies. Both have firm ideological backing and logical reasoning behind their ideas.
If you have never been attracted to the other political parties’ ideas and ideologies, then you have never truly understood them.
I wish I could say that I was quoting someone famous there, but I made it up myself. Nevertheless, I still think it’s true. Just because someone embraces different policies than you, doesn’t mean those policies are ridiculous. It’s worth trying to understand why they chose their policies before you denounce them.
The Economy
Let’s start off with the economy, obviously a pressing topic at the moment. Democratic economic policies are often denounced as idealistic, unrealistic, or just plain stupid when one talks to conservatives about economics. Thus it was interesting to see this “op-chart.” Now before my Republican friends start jumping down my throat about this, you also need to check out the rebuttal. But why am I sharing this if the conclusions are actually irrelevant? There are two related points here:
- Neither party has a monopoly on good economic ideas, whatever they like to think.
- As Gray points out, the real number to look at is the “both” curve: the economy has fared extremely well in the long-run, with significant periods of time under both parties.
This is important because it shows that the best ideas come from a synthesis of economic theories pulled from both sides of the aisle. With this in mind, read the New York Times on Obama’s economic policies. The title of the article says a lot: “Barack Obama, A Free-Market-Loving, Big-Spending, Fiscally Conservative Wealth Redistributionist.”
(As a side note on that last word, and only because I’m forced to by the stupidity of certain political comments these days, let’s briefly look at the “socialist controversy.” If you remember your history, socialism is “an economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government.” If you read about Obama’s policies and listen to what he says, it is abundantly clear that he is not a socialist. Trying to link him to socialism is a ridiculous political ploy of the sort I had hoped we were past.)
So who is Obama when it comes to economics? He’s a conservatively trained yet liberal minded thinker. Being conservatively trained is important because conservative economic ideas—the market, lower taxes, and free trade—have obviously been enormously succesfuly. (And yes, I am not entirely happy with Obama’s stance on free trade, though he does have good arguments for his position.) But it is just as important, especially from an Evangelical perspective, to remember those in our society who are not as well-off. Obama represents an insightful combination of these two ideas, and one that I believe is the best choice for our economic future.
(See also this Economist article.)
Healthcare
Another issue over which the two Presidential candidates have argued a great deal is health care. It is a fairly important problem, especially for those who can’t afford it. Chances are that if you’re reading this entry you have reasonably affordable care, but it is essential that we don’t forget the thousands of Americans who aren’t lucky enough to be in the same position.
Americans often tend to have a very individualistic mentality when it comes to our lives, which may influence our approach to health care. The ending of this article on NPR hilites this:
Yet Rappaz looks puzzled when asked about people in the United States who say that it would be intrusive to mandate health insurance.
“I’m not sure that I get you,” she says, cocking her head.
When the question is put another way, she laughs. “Oh, I see. That’s really an American question. You are so used to having this individualistic way of thinking, and that’s why you don’t have these social [safety] nets. You still have this pioneer mentality where everyone has to take care of themselves.”
That’s not how people in Switzerland think about it, she says. That pioneer mentality, “is good for people who have no problems, but there are a bunch of people who … need a social net.
“I’m really happy to give part of my salary to a solidarity system,” she says.
There is nothing inherently wrong in a health care system that mandates (or provides) universal coverage. It is simply a different way of approaching the responsibilities of society for the individual. Before continuing, it is worth noting that Obama’s health care plan neither mandates or provides universal coverage, except for children, so even if you dislike the more socialized systems, they are still different from what Obama is providing.
Another interesting article is this NPR look at France’s health care system. This is especially fascinating considering the (conservative) American (irrational) dislike of France. Yet NPR makes a convincing case that our healthcare system lags far behind what France has. Clearly healthcare is something that we need to reform, and the more “liberal” ideas are not inherently bad.
Obama’s healthcare plan is an interesting combination of the free market healthcare system and a government managed system. It represents a nuanced approach to a tricky political and financial problem, combining both the increased efficiency of competition and the ability and responsibility of the government to provide a good for its citizens. The system is focused on insuring that everyone is able to acquire coverage, and that this coverage does not cost too much. It doesn’t give healthcare up to the whims of the free market, but it also doesn’t force a universal, government run healthcare system on American citizens.
Healthcare should be an important issue to Evangelicals, especially as we consider those who suffer because they are unable to afford care. Obama’s approach seeks to provide healthcare for these people without abandoning good policy ideas.
Immigration
Thankfully both Presidential candidates believe that our immigration system needs to be reformed. Thus I’ll keep my remarks on the issue short.
Obama’s position, and the Democratic one, is an excellent approach to the problem of immigration. On the conservative side (again, not including McCain), there is a tendency to forget that immigrants are human beings, even the illegal ones. This is not to say that we should let people into the country willy-nilly. But it does imply that our response to the current situation has to be both intelligent and compassionate.
As Evangelicals we must support policies that respect the humanity inherent in each individual. Instead of treating immigration as a border control issue, it should be an economic and moral issue. The solution isn’t to villify immigrants or shut out the world. The solution is to address the root causes and fix the immigration system, both of which Obama supports.
The Environment
The sad thing about the current political discussion of the environment is that it’s been eclipsed by the ridiculous Republican chants of “drill, baby, drill.” It boggles my mind that offshore drilling has been such a prominent part of the environmental debate when it is fairly obvious that it will not help. If you don’t want to take it from the media, you can go straight to the government report or let Colbert explain it to you.
In this respect, I find Obama’s position on the environment, and especially on alternative energy, to be extremely intelligent. There is an interesting quote at the end of this interview:
He [Obama] said, and it was a very… and it was a risky way to lay it out, he delivered some bad news. He said that for the last twenty years the economy has been running on easy credit and we couldn’t do that anymore, we had to figure out a new way to turbocharge the economy. His feeling was that it was going to be an alternative energy program, a big one, and he said that that was going to be his number one priority.
This is strikingly similar to the ideas about alternative energy presented by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat. Over and over in his discussion of the environment, Obama returns to the idea of alternative energy. This is not to the exclusion of other ideas; he supports nuclear power, when done safely, and he believes in clean coal technology. Such an approach is nuanced, intelligent, and feasible.
There has been an encouraging movement in Evangelicalism recently which promotes the sustainable use of the environment. We were given creation by God in order to steward it for our own use. Stewarding it is going to necessitate sacrifice and intelligence as we approach the environment. Obama’s policies and positions evidence these qualities.
(As far as science more generally, I’ll let the Nobel Laureates speak for the scientific community.)
In Conclusion
None of these issues is a game changer in and of itself. But in each of these issues, Obama has a clear and nuanced approach that respects both sides of the debate. He strives to incorporate both conservative and liberal ideals in a ways that can benefit this nation. As president, these ideas and approaches would be invaluable for leading our country.
Note: Why comments are disabled on this post.
