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:

1. Neither party has a monopoly on good economic ideas, whatever they like to think.
2. 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.

Worldviews

Worldviews are like numeral systems: it is far too common to become trapped in them.  We are all used to counting numbers. It’s easy: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  But we forget that we are counting in a particular system, the decimal system.

A quick review, for those who have gone rusty on the idea of numeral systems.  We have ten symbols in our counting system: 0 through 9.  When we reach the number ten we run out of symbols and roll over to another place, resulting in 10.  The 1 symbol is now in the tens place and therefore represents ten ones.

So far, so good.  What we forget is that we don’t need to count in decimal.  We can count in any system we like.  Let’s count in binary, where we only have two symbols: 0 and 1.  We start with 0, then go to 1, then go to 10.  Whoa!  Now the 1 symbol is in the same place it was before, but it represents one one instead of ten ones.  Thus 10 now means two.  If we count all the way to ten in binary we get 1010.

Or we can count in hexadecimal, which has 16 symbols: 0-9 and a-f.  Counting up to the number nine is the same as in decimal, but when we get to ten instead of going to 10 we go to a.  Then b is eleven, c is twelve, d is thirteen, e is fourteen, and f is fifteen.  When we get to sixteen we roll over to 10.  Now the 1 symbol represents sixteen ones.

OK, you get the point, but what does it have to do with worldviews?  Well, like numeral systems, we tend to get stuck in worldviews.  When you think about counting, you probably think about counting in the decimal system.  But those are actually two different things: counting, and counting in a specific system.  You could just as easily count in binary or hexadecimal or any other system.

That’s not to say that a worldview is bad.  A numeral system isn’t bad either; the decimal system helps us understand counting and interpret and filter the numbers in the world around us.  But we should remember that the decimal system is just one way of looking at counting.  Similarly, a worldview is just one way of looking at the world around us.  Other people may have other worldviews, and that doesn’t make them either right or wrong.

When it comes to politics, at least in America, we have two worldviews: Conservative and Liberal.  We should remember that both worldviews want to do the same thing: improve America, just like all numeral systems want to count.  Just because we don’t count like someone else counts, doesn’t mean they don’t count too.

Values

The Republicans like to talk a lot about “values” during election.  We have “traditional values” and “family values” and “American values” and we’re told to “vote our values.”  Sometimes, though, I think that the Republicans have forgotten exactly what the definition of what a value is.  It seems like “values” has come to mean only a subset of values, usually comprising a conservative social agenda.

But if a value is something that I value, then the spectrum of my “values” is suddenly much broader.  I value many things.  Like conservatives I value life and family.  But I also value liberty and change.  I value education, honor, freedom, respect, calm, and many, many other things.

When people support Obama, they are supporting their values.  They see in Obama many of the things that they value: leadership, intelligence, inspiration, steadfastness, and more.  The Republican party holds no monopoly on values.

Change

Likewise, the Democrats like to talk a lot about change, especially during this election.  They talk about bringing change to Washington without letting it change us and about changing America’s course.  It’s worth remembering, however, that change never lasts.

Now before you denounce me as a cynic, let me explain: change is like a revolution.  Once the revolutionaries are in power they are no longer revolutionaries.  They may have forced their revolution, and brought about their change, but now they are the status quo.*  It’s no longer change, it is now “what is.”

Change is a good thing in this election, and it is something that we need.  But the Democrats should remember that once they bring about change they will need to govern too, and it is often a lot less popular to govern than it is to change things.

* This is not my observation.  I remember reading it in an academic publication, but I can’t remember who the author was now.

I found the talk intriguing, and similar to my own views.  Part of what makes America amazing is that we have been able to do just that.  As I wrote to a friend this week:

It’s probable that I will never be able to give any reason that some people will think is good enough to justify voting for Obama.  If this is the case, let’s at least agree to respect each others views; to recognize that their is intelligence, wisdom, patriotism, and goodness on both sides of the aisle; and refuse to demonize the other party as insane baby-killers or torture-happy maniacs.  This country has come through two hundred and fifty years with people having deep disagreements over issues, and it is better for that.  But that is only because we have always been able to recognize that we are all Americans and we all bring something to the table.

So watch Haidt’s talk over at TED and think, briefly, outside of the traditional liberal-conservative framework.

Let me preface by saying that my brother is one of the most intelligent people I know, and someone whose opinion I seek, especially on issues that I don’t understand well.  Prominent among these issues are questions concerning anything science related (from science questions to science ethics to Christianity and science), as Steve is an engineer and his wife is a biologist.

A Basis for Discussion

Over the past seven years I have had quite some time to reflect on the state of the world, politics, political issues, and the way this country is run in general. During that time a number of my positions have shifted, to the point where now I would classify myself more as an left-leaning independent than anything else. However, the issues themselves aren’t what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss something more foundational: the way people in the USA approach politics.

Specifically, I would like to discuss what I see as some serious drawbacks or shortcomings in the way that conservatives/Republicans think about and deal with politics. Let me make clear: what I’m about to say are my perceptions. I obviously feel they are accurate perceptions, but some of you will disagree and I can accept that. Let me also reiterate that while I will touch on issues, the issues themselves aren’t my main focus here.

The first shortcoming that I have noticed more and more is a tendency among conservatives to strongly favor character evaluation over discussion of issues. Character is certainly important, I agree. However, I personally find it very difficult to divorce character from the issues at stake. I feel, however, that many of my conservative friends and relatives make precisely that distinction. For example, I’ve heard Obama referred to as having a “silver tongue”, or of being all talk and no walk. I hear people all the time bashing the Clintons for their (valid) character shortcomings. I cringed when I heard the sarcastic quote from Palin’s speech about a mayor being like a community organizer, but actually having real responsibilities. All of these are character criticisms, which while valid to a certain extent, completely miss the point of discussing the issues themselves.

This is a trend both within the official Republican party and among everyday folks who are conservatives. It extends not only to candidates, but also to “liberals” in general. Conservatives tend to view liberals as selfish (discussed later) sinners, and therefore discount what they have to say about issues before they even open their mouths. It reminds me a bit of the pharisees who told the blind man who was healed, “You were steeped in sin at birth. How dare you lecture us!” and then threw him out of the temple.

Which brings me to my second point. I often hear people refer to liberals as selfish. Again, this seems to be a relatively blanket character evaluation, and also divorces character from issues. I certainly have met some selfish liberals (and conservatives too). I know a lot of selfish liberal politicians. But when it comes to issues, I find that the selfishness is a bit on the other side of the equation. With the exceptions of abortion and protectionist trade policy, most Democratic positions come in on what I consider the unselfish side. It seems to me less selfish to take the positions of socialized health care (giving up your money for the common good), larger welfare programs (ditto), gun control (giving up your rights for the common good), higher taxes (again with the money), a more lenient immigration policy (being willing to share your country with others), civil rights (being willing to let others do things you think are wrong), the environment (giving up some financial gain now to preserve the world for your children), and other things. You can debate what does or does not work, certainly, what is or is not a good idea, whether it is right to take away this or that from individuals and families, or what will or will not be economic suicide. But even so, how is it that the “selfish” party supports all these things that aren’t very beneficial to the self? Maybe we should discuss the issues and the values embedded in them, not the selfishness levels of those who hold the positions.

Third, I find the conservative distrust of the media, science, and education extremely frustrating. Frustrating both because I don’t understand it, and frustrating because I think it blinds people to important information. I read the New York Times. For many people, the New York Times is the epitomy of the “liberal media” and cannot be trusted. A lot of people don’t trust the BBC either, which I personally think is one of the best news organizations on the planet. Many conservatives will only get their news from Fox News. This is something that official party rhetoric plays into. (See, for example, all the recent media-bashing comments at the RNC.) I have to ask, though, what is the basis for all this media-bashing? I find news coverage I read to be fairly unbiased. (Editorials are a different matter, but the NY Times has editorial writers at both ends of the party spectrum.) Sometimes I think people see media reports that conflict with their personal opinions, then dismiss the reports as from “the liberal media.” But in a viscious circle, people characterize the media as liberal because they don’t agree with the reports they right. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that media organizations honestly try to report fairly and accurately. Sometimes they fail, but they at least try. It makes little business sense to do otherwise, nor can I see any motivation for it. So all this bashing of the media feels to me somewhat like the quote “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

The same goes for the perceptions of the educated liberal elite and liberal science. It really confuses me that we mistrust so deeply those precise people who have dedicated their lives to learning and the discovery of truth. (Global warming for example: all scientists say it is happening, but somehow a large portion of the general public, and also many a politician, disbelieves them?) I imagine this stems a lot from the creation/evolution debate, over which, I admit, the scientific community has given itself a huge black eye. Nevertheless, I don’t make the assumption that someone is wrong because they know a lot, but that is precisely the assumption I see made with many conservatives. It runs both ways as well; sometimes people dismiss me as an “educated liberal” for my views, even though I have exactly the same degree (a bachelors) as the segment of educated society most likely to vote Republican (people with college degrees but not graduate degrees – see the Gallup poll). In my case, I prefer to take what educated researchers and scientists tell me at face value, and then discuss the issues based on that. If everyone did that, I think the debate could both be more civil and better informed.

The last disappointment I have is that I often see a separation in the Republican party between “moral” issues and other issues, as if some issues aren’t about morality at all. “Moral” issues for conservatives include homosexuality and abortion… that’s about it. (What am I missing?) Other issues may have moral aspects, but they aren’t as important. As Jim said, I think this is a fallacy; almost every issue has significant moral components. Often, evaluating the morality isn’t straightforward. (Is it better to promote free trade and cause people to lose jobs, or restrict trade and see the economy suffer? What does more harm/good?) Nevertheless, the morality is there. This is extremely clear to me in issues of war, torture, and the environment. These issues have huge moral implications, but conservatives hardly touch on them. Instead, they treat them as practical issues, issues that need only be address on the merits of what is useful for something else (usually the economy or national security).

So, in summary, what I really wish is that when I talk to a conservative about politics, that what I would be able to do is discuss the issues themselves, and when I do that to discuss all aspects of the issues. I don’t want rejection of a discussion or information based on source (media, science, education, or a “selfish liberal”), and I don’t want dismissal of a discussion based on a perceived character flaw. I do want to be able to discuss morality of all issues, in addition to their practicality, impacts, and other aspects. I feel that if I could just get to that point, the conversation would go much better. (I can’t also help but think that a lot more conservatives would see things differently, but you can discuss the issues themselves with me for that.)

My own comments are as follows:

• Concerning character vs. issues, I think this is less a problem with a specific segment of the population and more one with politics as a whole.  While I have heard plenty of anti-Obama statements based (often with no good reasoning) on character issues, I have also heard people criticize him because he doesn’t talk about the issues.  (Whether or not this is true is a different matter, but I would question whether the criticizer had perhaps not read “The Blueprint for Change.”)  It’s a sad fact that political discussion today is so easily sidetracked.
• On the idea of selfishness, I find Steve’s point here fastening.  I haven’t heard this specific criticism of liberals myself, but his point remains.  I’ll address a similar subject in my next post.
• When it comes to the “liberal media,” I too get tired of the constant accusations about how the mainstream media (MSM) is portraying things.  I have, however, seen plenty of liberals (especially on the social news websites) complain about what the MSM is ignoring.  Thus I take hope in the fact that when conservatives are accusing the media of being too liberal and liberals are accusing it of being too conservative, there probably isn’t that much of a bias.  Like Steve, I think that we’re probably doing pretty well when it comes to most of the media.
• Their approach to science does seem to be, sadly, a common failing of both Republicans and Christians.  I touched on this in another post once.  The problem is that there are so many issues that demonstrate good science, evolution and global warming being just a couple, that are completely dismissed.  Part of this may be that the media is determined to give a equal point of view to both sides (note that this is different from accusing it of being liberal or conservative) and thus seems to imply that both sides are valid.  A great example of this is offshore drilling, which will have little effect on our energy situation, according to even the government itself, but is still widely accepted by the American public.  (If you want the lowdown on offshore drilling, turn to Stephen Colbert.)
• Finally, on morality and politics, Steve is completely correct: everything is a moral issue.  Again, my next post will reflect some of this.  For a different take on the same subject, however, I would recommend this post.  While I tend to agree more with Steve, there are things to be said for both sides.

Note: Why  comments are disabled on this post.