Change We Can’t Afford Not To Have: The Case For Barack Obama.

On November 4th America will vote for its next president. In this coming election, there are two very distinct individuals for the electorate to choose from. The nation has not been at this crossroads since 1932, when it elected Franklin Roosevelt to the office; and while the nation may not yet be in quite the dire straits it was that year, there are many parallels that are worth noting.

For one thing, like the Crash of 1929, speculation and lack of government regulation were the main culprits in the housing market collapse of 2008. Without a system of checks and balances governing mortgage lenders, a predator environment existed, in which many unsuspecting homeowners were duped into mortgages – many of which were sub-prime – that they could not afford. When these sub-prime mortgages adjusted to high, fixed-rate mortgages, the result was a sudden rise in foreclosures. This, combined with a downward spiral in overall housing values, feeding still more foreclosures as investors saw their equity disappear, has brought the economy to a virtual stand still. We got a taste of this scenario twenty years ago during the S&L scandal, when bad mortgages, written without proper documentation, went belly up. Many prominent banks went under during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Apparently, the near miss taught us nothing. Now we are paying the ultimate price.

Another parallel is the clear choice between both candidates: On the one hand, Herbert Hoover, a fervent believer in a free market economy, who earnestly believed that the economy would right itself so long as the government stayed out of things; on the other hand, Roosevelt, who vehemently argued for government programs and relief to restart the economy. Roosevelt won hands down and, though it took several years for his works programs to take root, by the end of the decade, the U.S. economy was back up and running.

We now stand at another crucible in our nation’s history. John McCain and Barack Obama may not exactly represent Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to a tee, but their views about how government should be run bare some resemblance to the aforementioned figures. I will do my utmost to stick to those issues that I feel are salient to this election year and compare and contrast what I believe is a fair representation on both candidates’ stated positions.

The Economy: It goes without saying that this is and should be the number one priority for our nation. Both candidates supported the $700 billion bailout and both are offering tax cuts as part of their platform. McCain is seeking to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, while Obama has targeted his tax relief to families earning under $200,000 per year. Families earning over $250,000 per year would see their taxes go up, but only by the difference between both brackets. In essence, Obama is seeking to restore the tax code the nation had under the Clinton years, believing that the middle class is the driving force behind the economy. Both candidates are offering tax relief to small business owners, but so far only Obama is tying corporate tax relief to those companies that do not ship jobs overseas. With respect to government regulation, McCain’s stated position has been consistent. He is an advocate for less regulation of markets. Obama would in all probability be far more likely to increase government oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, helping to ensure that this nightmarish scenario will not be played out again. Huge advantage: Obama.

Health Care: Both candidates have come up with what they refer to as solutions to the current health care crisis in America, that until the mortgage meltdown this year threatened to become the number one issue for voters this election. McCain is promoting a $5,000 tax credit to households to permit the purchase of health care coverage; however to pay for this tax credit he also proposes taxing those health care benefits for the first time in history, imperiling many employer-based health care plans. Furthermore, while a $5,000 tax credit may seem like a lot, the average cost of a family health care plan is considerably more. McCain says that his plan would give people the choice to purchase coverage in states that do have stringent regulation, thus reducing costs considerably. However, he conveniently leaves out the fact that in many of those states, pre-existing condition clauses exist that would bar patients from getting the treatments they need. Also conveniently missing is the sad fact that the costs for health insurance go up considerably for people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In stark contrast Obama’s health care plan proposes to build on existing private and public programs such as employer health insurance, private individual health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. The key components are:
* Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.
* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.
* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.
* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.
To pay for this program, which admittedly is far more costly and ambitious than McCain’s, Obama would use the bulk of the savings from eliminating the Bush tax cuts. While many have questioned his claim that he would save the average family $2500 per year in medical costs, most experts are agreed that a government-sponsored health care plan is needed to ease the burden off a system that is teetering on the brink of collapse and is stifling family and corporate budgets. Advantage: Obama.

The Iraq War and the War on Terror: Of all the Democratic candidates, Barack Obama was the only one who openly questioned the need to go to war with Iraq in the first place, and criticized the decision to invade. His call for a timetable to draw down troops and transfer all power to the Iraqi government came under fire, even from members of his own party; now the Bush Administration is negotiating with Iraqi leaders to initiate a “time horizon” for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama was also the first to bring to light that Afghanistan, and not Iraq, was the central front in the war on terror. Now Pentagon officials have confirmed that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and more troops will be needed to ensure that it does not fall back into the hands of the Taliban. John McCain has been adamant in his claim that the surge in Iraq, which he supported, should be the focal point in any discussions about the conflict, and not how we got there in the first place. While even his staunchest critics concede that the surge has been a success, the political solution that was expected in Iraq still has proven elusive. Violence may be down, but the Iraqi government still has not put to rest the one, overriding concern many in the region still have: can they govern themselves without U.S. troops in place? The question may be moot as well as irrelevant. It seems that the Iraqi government is prepared to kick the training wheels off their bikes and give it a go, whether a President John McCain likes it or not. Huge advantage: Obama.

Family Values & The Supreme Court: Evangelicals may have legitimate concerns over Obama’s stance with respect to abortion and gay rights. Certainly these are important, hot-button issues within the Christian community. While I would never attempt to lecture to a believer what his or her priorities should be, I do feel strongly that before a candidate is eliminated from consideration that a thorough look at all his beliefs be in order. While it is true that Obama supports Roe v. Wade, he has opposed late-term abortions. With respect to gay rights, both he and Joe Biden have stated publicly that they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They both oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution, preferring to let states decide the issue for themselves. Even John McCain opposes this amendment. On other fronts, Obama would be a far better steward of the environment, both locally and globally. He supports green technology and believes the U.S. has a moral obligation to lead the world in this endeavor. John McCain has frankly been a Johnny come lately to this cause; it has only been recently that he has even mentioned alternative fuel sources. Obama’s stance with respect to the economy and the working families of America falls directly in line with the finest tradition of Christian moral values.

The next president will almost certainly be nominating one if not two justices to the Supreme Court. Again, while Roe v. Wade is an important consideration for many Christians, it is not the only issue that the Court will be dealing with. The decades’ old debate between “strict constructionist” and “interpretive” justices is critical here. Simply put, most of the desegregation and anti-pollution decisions that the Court handed down throughout the 1950s and 1960s would not have happened had a more conservative Court been in charge. A prime example of just such a decision was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In his opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “We conclude that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Can you imagine a Chief Justice Roberts writing those words? That decision and others like it will undoubtedly come under review if the Court tilts further to the Right. It is important to consider this when choosing the next president. Advantage: Obama.

Experience and Temperament: Let’s be honest, the moment John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, the issue of experience went out the window. You may not agree with all of their stances, but both Barack Obama and Joe Biden bring far more relevant experience to Washington than McCain and Palin. It has become painfully apparent with each passing day that the governor of Alaska is unqualified and not even remotely ready to assume the duties of the presidency of the United States of America. Worse yet, she has displayed a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity vital to any understanding of the complexities that exist in the world we live in today. Blaming an elite and leftist media for “gotcha” questions is not selling on Main Street. Despite her many charming attributes, the job is clearly beyond her abilities. And her definition of the duties of a vice president are alarmingly familiar to another vice president who also has a problem with understanding what the Constitution says and what it doesn’t say.

With respect to temperament, what has impressed me most about Obama lately has been how steady he has been, even under the stress of an economic crisis and the intense negative ads that the McCain campaign has thrown at him. He has looked far more presidential than his counterpart. Colin Powell’s endorsement of him said it best calling him a "transformational figure" and citing "his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities", in addition to his "style and substance." In contrast, John McCain has seemed eratic and uncertain at times. His campaign has struggled to come up with a coherent and relevent message to the electorate, relying almost exclusively on viscious attack ads that are simply not resonating with the voters. His pick of Sarah Palin has caused many even in his own party to question his judgement. The maverick that John McCain was died and was buried during that 2000 presidnetial bid when he lost to a savagely brutal Bush campaign. Since then he has been far less the maverick and far more the predictable conservative Bush clone. No matter how many times he says he is not Bush, his actions, particularly those of the last eight years are what is relevent. Huge advantage: Obama.

Well there you have it. Five up and five down. I admit I am not very objective in my opinion. You may disagree, which is your prerogative. What is not open to discussion is the fact that this presidential election is among the most important in decades. Men and women on both sides of the political spectrum have passionate views and deservedly so. This election promises to make history; the question that still begs to be answered is, when we look back four years from now, will we be better off than we are now, or further on down the road of despair?