Four months out from the 2008 presidential election, it's obvious that Barack Obama and John McCain offer a stark contrast on their positions on the key issues, their personalities and, most tellingly, their worldviews.
Obama is 47 and mixed-race, the product of a lower-middle-class background. His personal story evokes the Horatio Alger narrative: the person born in humble surroundings who overcomes numerous obstacles and rises to the top. Obama is the son of a biracial couple, abandoned by his father when he was two, raised by his white mother and grandmother, who worked his way through college and law school, and cut his teeth as a community organizer and civil-rights attorney. He's a classic example of someone who improved his station in life through hard work.
McCain is 72 and white, the product of an elite military family. A Navy man like his father and grandfather, he served for 23 years and entered politics in 1982. Having married into the wealthy Hensley family, McCain cannot claim to have pulled himself up by his bootstraps, as Obama did.
Those who know both men note differences in their temperaments. Obama is calm and collegial. McCain is described as mercurial and adversarial; he has become notorious for his temper tantrums and many believe he suffers from untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from his six years as a P.O.W.
Despite these marked personal differences, the starkest contrast between Obama and McCain is in their worldviews. Obama favors the benevolent community narrative: "I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper." While acknowledging our common problems, he expresses confidence Americans can overcome them, so long as we work together. He sees the U.S. electorate as hungry for leadership that will unite them in pursuit of the common good.
In his first ad for the general election, Country I Love, Barack Obama speaks about America's core values and their impact on him: "Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country. Working hard without making excuses. Treating your neighbor as you'd like to be treated."
Because of his worldview, Obama is a philosophical democrat. He has confidence that ordinary Americans can make wise decisions. When he speaks of his plans for America, Obama frequently uses the personal pronoun we. As in "we can work together to change America." Obama's inclusive style reminds many historians of Abraham Lincoln.
In contrast, John McCain's worldview is negative, emphasizing danger rather than hope, fear as opposed to opportunity. McCain favors the mob at the gates narrative. He sees the U.S. as a beacon of light in an ocean of darkness, where America needs a strong military to protect it from barbarian hordes. McCain views the "war" on terror as having broad boundaries: the U.S. is not at war exclusively with Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups, but rather with all of Islam.
In his first ad for the general election, Safe, McCain touts his military bona fides and concludes, "I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe."
McCain is a mainstream conservative Republican; a philosophical Manichean who sees the world in grim dualistic terms: America is the light and the rest of the world – particularly the Muslim world – is the dark. From this perspective, the role of the President is not to bring Americans together, but rather to defend us from the heathens that threaten our borders. McCain emphasizes his readiness to serve as commander-in-chief and the necessity for Americans to subjugate their domestic concerns to the struggle required to "win" the war on terror; a key element is achieving "success" in Iraq, even if this takes one hundred years.
When McCain speaks of his plans for America, he favors the personal pronoun I. Despite his reputation as a "maverick," McCain's core political philosophy is the same as contemporary Republican Presidents: he does not have deep confidence in the people but instead advocates empowering elites such as Wall Street brokers, military leaders, or White House insiders. Thus, McCain is an advocate of the "Imperial Presidency" style of George W. Bush, which justified usurping power from Congress and the judiciary by arguing that because America was at war the President's powers as commander-in-chief gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted. While many have compared Dubya to John Wayne's cowboy loner, McCain's outlook is closer to that of Sylvester Stallone's Rambo vigilante.
Given this stark contrast in worldview, Americans will have a clear choice in November. If you believe that infidels are storming the gates of fortress America, then you're likely to decide the optimal presidential candidate should be a hardened warrior. That logic propels McCain's presidential bid: vote for Rambo; he'll protect us.
On the other hand, if you believe that enlisting the strength and wisdom of the American people can solve our problems and keep us safe, then you'll want a president who can unite us. That's the logic that underlies the Obama campaign: elect Lincoln; he'll bring us together.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
Obama has already bailed on NAFTA, and he's going to bail on FISA. His rhetoric is brilliant, and he hasn't made a firm stand on much, except to further free trade, increase the troop forces in Afghanistan and maintain a military presence in Iraq. He lists Prez Ronnie as one he holds in admiration. He professes to have been against the Iraq War from the start and has voted in favor of every funding bill.
We're looking at two sides of the same coin - only one side was minted thirty or so years before the other side.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 176 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 8:38:18 AM
There is a ton in the opinion article that is misguided and historically inaccurate (notably the belief that Lincoln was somehow inclusive even though he completely marginalized the South with his very Presidency. To clarify, I'm not saying that the Southern point of view on slavery didn't need to be marginalized. It did. I'm simply saying that Lincoln wasn't inclusive and, supposing that Obama is as inclusive as you think, this alone suggests that your historical reference is the least errant and at worse an attempt to characterize a "good" v. "evil" mentality between the candidates that borders on the same fear you accuse Sen. McCain of later your article).
However, let me focus on a key inconsistency. The author states:
"Because of his worldview, Obama is a philosophical democrat. He has confidence that ordinary Americans can make wise decisions."
You cannot be a lover of liberty (respecting that people can make appropriate choices for themselves) and still propose massive change initiated solely by government spending. Obama is on the record suggesting that we need to change the way we live, and he intends to do that through governmental priorities and spending. That certainly is not "confidence that ordinary Americans can make wise decisions", rather it's the suggestion that Obama, and the government he appoints, knows what is best for the common american.
The individual who trusts the market trusts that common people can make decisions best (see, Free and Fair trade programs, Organic foods, etc., etc.). Obama clearly doesn't trust the market given his massive subsidy and interventionist proposals, so please don't suggest that he trusts the common american.
For more comparisons between the policies of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Obama please see <a href="itsalldicta.blogspot.com"> It's All Dicta </a>.
by
William Lowery (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM
War was the most weighty issue in the days of Lincoln and today. In that regard, I'd say that McCain very much parallels Lincoln, both in his determination to find a way to win, and in his understanding of the consequences of failure and the importance of honoring the sacrifice of fallen soldiers by finishing the job.
Obama on the other hand has demonstrated no such determination or understanding.
Just like the Civil War, the Iraq war has been tough and has taken many turns and many mistakes have been made. But Lincoln found a way to win, and it appears we have found that way in Iraq during the last year or so, which McCain pushed for and steadfastly supports. Obama, on the other hand, fought against and ridiculed that way.
In both cases it took/will take a long time and a lot of effort to repair and heal infrastructure and hurt feelings.
Most people would probably say that the civil war was worth it, even considering the hundreds of thousands of American lives lost, and I have a feeling that eventually most will view the effort in Iraq to have been worth it, even with its tiny in comparison but still regrettable death toll.
If one looks at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, there can be seen parallels with that war and today's war:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Speaking style, perhaps. Lankiness and height, most definitely. But on the approach to the most important issue of the day for each, McCain looks to very much mirror Lincoln, at least IMHO.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 648 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 4:25:42 PM
Obama has done nothing but promises the world to people then after thinking about it changed his mind. Obama in charge will be a complete disaster for America.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 608 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 5:14:02 PM
When it actually comes to the issues, the differences aren't so great. Both are very establishment in their views, militarist and corporatist.
Both consistently vote to fund the Iraq War, and both indicate they may well still have U.S. troops in Iraq in 2013 when the term of office covered by this fall's elections end.
They have close to identical proposals to increase the bloated military budget.
Both have been belligerent about other countries, McCain most notably in regard to Iran, Obama most notably in regard to Pakistan.
Both castigated the Supreme Court for limiting the death penalty.
Both support the FISA bill which compromises our civil liberties.
Both are somewhat mixed on environmental issues. Both support mandatory action on greenhouse gases. However, McCain favors offshore drilling and Obama carries water for the coal industry.
Both surround themselves with lobbyists, and have compromised their supposed stands for election reform - Obama worse than McCain.
If you favor change, you can't vote for a Presidential candidate from the duopoly. You'll have to go to a third party or independent.
by
Bill Samuel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 7:53:29 PM
What was Lincoln's private job? Not the logsplitter era, but as he was riding circuit and thinking of running for office?
Lincoln was a corporation lawyer. He helped to replace north/south trade with east/west trade when he represented railroads. Now that made it possible for the country to expand its real influence, and I'm not arguing with history. What I'm saying is that to have a bunch of plantation owners defect from the nation was no way to become modern in the 19th century.
Presidents who saw technological changes thereafter have done the same. FDR started as a Navy official and learned the necessity of better aviation, astronautics and cybernetics. He thought globally and left seeds of UN and world trade mechanisms.
After World War II, in my opinion, presidents took for granted new technology and thought of the US as center of human progress. Out of fear that other countries would enjoy too much of it, or use it in a hostile way, Americanism came to be egocentric.
Now citizens are befuddled by the knowledge that "the only Superpower" is a hollow boast. If Obama thinks he can make us feel good about ourselves, while keeping us from getting the big head, he might be a leader.
It's a two-way street. We must expect him to have forethought. He must have a chance to show he has. If he receives constructive criticism and fails to carry through, we will have the same muddled policy which has mired us in two hugely failed military expeditions.
by
Margaret Bassett (25 articles, 1651 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 996 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
