Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

October 29, 2008

The Case Against Barack Obama

I will not insult your intelligence by pretending I have given careful and equal consideration to which presidential candidate will get my vote. I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in my life, and it’s hard to imagine the circumstances in which I ever would.

But even though none of them had a real chance to win my vote, most recent Democratic nominees at least had some strengths one could cite in attempting to make a case for them. Walter Mondale had extensive experience and understood the workings of the executive branch. Michael Dukakis had very little to recommend him, but at least as a governor he knew something about executive decision making. Bill Clinton was comfortable speaking the language of American exceptionalism. Al Gore had excellent knowledge of policy details. John Kerry had extensive knowledge about world affairs.

None of these men’s virtues came anywhere near overcoming their serious drawbacks. But at least they were not without something in their favor.

In the mind of this conservative, it is difficult to find a substantive point in favor of Barack Obama. He has no experience in any executive position. He has no useful background working in the private sector. He has no noteworthy legislative achievements during his exceedingly brief tenure as a U.S. senator.

We have heard much of Obama’s undistinguished record as an Illinois state senator, including his now-infamous record of voting “present” (essentially “don’t ask me”) more than 100 times. We have heard much of his association with radical individuals and organizations. While no one of these facts may alone disqualify him for the presidency, they make up a larger picture that is not hard to analyze:

Obama is a left-wing ideologue who embarked some time ago on a very ambitious political trajectory, using rough-and-tumble Chicago-style politics to get where he wanted to go. The recently discovered 2001 interview in which Obama speaks approvingly of “redistributive change” is no surprise at all. It’s the same thing he said to Joe the Plumber only two weeks ago. It’s the same thing his policies have long espoused if you’re paying attention.

Indeed, the most consistently disturbing thing about Obama is his complete lack of any understanding of how wealth is created and earned in this country. In one of his more recent broadsides against what he thinks have been the hyper-free-market policies of the past eight years, Obama declared that it hasn’t worked to “give more money to billionaires.”

The statement is astounding on its face. The government gives money to billionaires? Please. Billionaires give money, which they earned, to the government in the form of confiscatory taxation. Obama may not actually believe the government literally gives billionaires money (although I wouldn’t overestimate him), but what he does appear to believe is that government taxing billionaires less than Democrats would prefer amounts to “giving” them a gift. Obama’s economic illiteracy fuels his poor understanding of health care policy and energy policy, among others. It helps explain why he proposes massive spending increases even as he bemoans budget deficits.

Especially at a time when the financial world is in turmoil and needs a steady hand at the wheel, America would be insane to elect a man whose understanding of economics is, at best, embarrassing.

Obama’s understanding of world affairs is similarly appalling, and this is no surprise for two reasons. The first is his well documented lack of any relevant experience. The second is the left-wing worldview that informs his presumptions about events on the world stage. Much has been made of Obama’s foolish statement that he would meet without preconditions with murderous thugs like Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But the more astounding statement was the explanation he offered: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them is ridiculous.”

When the president of the United States grants an audience to anyone, no matter who it is, and no matter who the president is, it confers a degree of honor and legitimacy on that person. If Obama fails to understand this, he fails to understand the power and prestige of the very office he seeks. As to why he misunderstands it, we return again to his left-wing worldview, which rejects the notion of American exceptionalism and thus would have little patience for the idea that it’s anything special for a foreign leader to meet with America’s president.

Beyond his ignorance on domestic and international issues, Obama’s clearly elevated opinion of himself is frankly troubling. What would possess a man with such a thin record of achievement to seek the presidency? What would possess him to promise that, upon his election, the Earth will heal and the “rise of the oceans” will recede? What made him think he had earned the right, as a junior U.S. senator, to speak at the hallowed Brandenburg Gate in Germany?

Obama presents himself very smoothly and speaks very well. He comes off as unflappable and confident. Fine. The president of the United States makes serious policy formulations and has to work constructively with members of both parties in Congress to get his policies enacted. He has to make exceedingly difficult executive decisions, often in the face of a global crisis.

Barack Obama has never demonstrated an ability to do any of this. He is the most inexperienced, unqualified, unprepared major party candidate for president in memory. I can understand why a devoted left-winger, who cares about nothing but ideology, would vote for Obama. But for anyone else, a serious argument in Obama’s favor is simply impossible to construct.

This man has no business being president of the United States.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

This is Column # DC219. Request permission to publish here.