Obama and McCain offer a choice, not an echo

31 May 2008

This presidential race will be the first real Right v. Left contest in a long time, says Irwin Stelzer. On free trade, healthcare, tax and pariah regimes, the two men are worlds apart

Indeed, American policy has so great an effect on non-Americans that some of my friends in Britain and elsewhere suggest they should have a vote in our elections. After all, the next American President will help decide how cool or hot their planet will be, whether foreign terrorists are to be accommodated or pursued, how the world trading system will adjust to the presence of China and India, and a host of other things that will determine the quality of their lives.

That is not to be. Indeed, it took a special resolution of Congress to confirm that John McCain, who had been born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was US territory, met the constitutional requirement that presidential candidates be born in America. He does, which means that he will oppose Barack Obama in an election that promises to be the first Right v. Left battle in a long time.

The candidates do differ on foreign policy, with Obama favouring a quicker and more certain exit from Iraq than does John McCain. They differ, too, on the attitude to take towards regimes hostile to the United States, with Obama proposing talks with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba with no pre-conditions, and McCain insisting, for example, that Iran first agree to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, and that Raúl Castro first free political prisoners. Obama’s promise to meet the world’s dictators face to face is a reversal of current policy that involves co-operating with multilateral efforts to persuade North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, and therefore contradicts Obama’s other pledge to abandon the unilateralism of which he accuses George W. Bush. Never mind: consistency is the hobgoblin of politicians’ minds.

In the domestic arena, the policy differences between the contenders for the job of leader of the free world are even more pronounced. Obama favours a healthcare programme that involves a significantly enhanced role for the government, while McCain seeks a solution to rising healthcare costs by stimulating competition in the private sector. Obama promises to raise taxes on high earners — families with incomes in excess of something like $200,000 — on capital gains and on dividends, while McCain has promised to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama’s position responds to a growing unhappiness with the rising inequality with which income is distributed, but would adversely affect the living standard of a husband-and-wife team of, say, a cop and a teacher and have little impact on the wallets of his numerous supporters in the private equity, hedge fund and investment banking community. Along with millions of small contributors, these upper-income-givers will have contributed something like $400 million to Obama’s primary campaign by the time he is officially declared the winner sometime next month.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Irwin Stelzer | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

DougS

May 29th, 2008 9:13am Report this comment

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . . OK summary, but nothing new really.

And "world's apart"? That's nonsense. Communists and monarchists are world's apart; by the standards of the West, European parties are more like world's apart; Reagan v Carter or Reagan v Mondale by the standards of the U.S. are world's apart.

But Obama and McCain? No.

McCain rather famously (or notoriously) has to shore up his "base," which means the Reagan conservatives don't particularly like him. At the same time he was considered the most "independent" Republican running and the one probably most appealing to cross-over Dems.

Why? Cuz' on some issues (e.g., immigration) his politics are indistinguishable from Democrats. On others, he's not that far off, including Israel, Afghanistan, NATO, etc. And even on free trade, Obama is hardly a tariff monger; mostly a free-trader.

Petty differences over the environment, gas mileage standards, corporate regulation, campaign finance reform, etc.

Summary: On the scale of American politics, these two are closer than any two Dems. and Repubs. since possibly Ford and Carter. On the scale of all possibilities in politics, there's scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.

Matthew Blott

May 29th, 2008 1:08pm Report this comment

I agree with a lot of Doug S's comments. Obama is against doing anything about gun control, supports the death penalty and is largely backed by big business. Michael Foot he is not. Similarly McCain is divorced from the Christian Right and would be a welcome break from the theocratic approach of the White House's current occupant. It's not quite the Left versus Right election Irwin Stelzer would have us believe.

Scott Redding

May 29th, 2008 4:25pm Report this comment

With regard to white voters and Obama, you need to look at age as well. 40% of white voters in North Carolina under the age of 40 voted for Obama, even after the Wright firestorm. Obama will have problems with older white voters in Penn and Fla during the general election. If he does well out west, he might not need Appalachia as much as pundits think.

In South Carolina, in July 2007, amongst African-Americans, Clinton was at 52%, Obama 33%, Edwards on 5%. (the figures are from Meet the Press, last Sunday, transcript on their website). When Obama won South Carolina, he carried the African-American vote by 78 to 19%, over Clinton. Clinton had the African-American vote, but Iowa showed that Obama was viable and a possible winner. Between that, and her hubbie's comments in North Carolina, and her "hard working Americans = white hard working Americans" guff, she blew it. So, it's a bit more complex than saying all the black folks were voting Obama from day one.

Napoleon

May 30th, 2008 1:22am Report this comment

"but if 90 per cent of white voters had opted for Hillary Clinton, charges of racism would undoubtedly have filled the pages of the predominantly pro-Obama media."
Agreed. I don't always agree with your articles, actually most of them I disagree, but this time you're spot on(maybe it's because most of them are facts!).But it's nice to read a fair and balanced article about the American election, when everyone seems to be pro-Obama!

V.R.S. Arni

May 30th, 2008 1:44pm Report this comment

For a journal of the repute of Spectator, this is a wishy-washy article giving no insight. Any commentary column in NYT brings more to the reader than this.

jon livesey

May 30th, 2008 11:47pm Report this comment

I'm not sure if the author understands Europeans as well as he thinks.

No matter what they say, Europeans are happy to have an assertive US, because it keeps the heat off them, but they are also appreciative of Obama because in his person he flatters their image of themselves, an American politician who wants to adopt some of their social policies, and so on.

The last time something like this happened, they got JFK, a guy who talked like an anglo, but who was not afraid to confront the USSR. A man who flattered Europe and then protected it. Who could ask for anything better?

It is, however, not clear that Obama is a second JFK. JFK could talk and blockade, negotiate and threaten. There is a residual fear that Obama gets the talk part, but hasn't thought through the rest.

My own nightmare scenario is that Obama starts with the talking, gets nowhere, and retreats into isolationism. While this might be poetic justice on Europeans, it does not bode well for world stability or for Europe itself.

David Chorley

June 1st, 2008 3:58am Report this comment

Selzer repeats the global warming mantra as if it were true: There is no way the president or anyone else can affect our climate: All the protocols are designed to build big government and tax the US middle class, whom everyone simultaneously hates, and wants to join.