The Romance with Barack Obama

The pundits and editorial writers of all political persuasions seem to be in love with Barack Obama. Maybe "in love" is the wrong phrase, but I am struck by their willingness to make all kinds of allowances for him, for instance, for his extravagant plans to revive the economy. In this uncritical stance, they are following a broad societal consensus that the country is in such dire straits that we must pull together and support our new leader. The romantic eye that cannot see the faults in the beloved is an apt analogy.

There is hardly a peep from Republican leaders about borrowing approximately another trillion dollars on top of all the Bush borrowing. There are vague promises from the president-elect that sometime in the future we will have to pay our way again. In the meantime, we hope that the communist bankers in China will continue to believe that we will pay them back – sometime in the future. This kind of thinking is often associated with liberals, who will usually support substantial borrowing for capital projects, but here we have the hard-headed businessmen, the financiers and the tycoons, all devout conservatives, pleading with Mr. Obama for bailouts and, yes, more and more borrowing.

The problem with the conservatives is they have very little credibility. President Bush and his financial advisers, all of whom classify themselves as conservative or neo-conservative, came into office, after eight years of Bill Clinton, with a budget surplus. They then proceeded to give big tax cuts to the rich, assuring us all that that this would result in a higher budget surplus – that by giving away huge sums of money to the rich in various ways, by some conservative magic, we would end up with more money in the tax coffers. A corollary to this economic approach is called the "dribble down" theory. This thinking assures us that by the rich getting richer, those in the lower echelons will also benefit with better wages and working conditions.

Well, these theories were tested over eight years, and the results are clear and indisputable. We have ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, and the living standards of the American middle-class have declined. In addition, the number of people living in poverty increased significantly during the Bush years. I don’t claim to understand all the dimensions and intricacies of the present economic crisis, but common sense tells me that if a society, no less than a family, is way off in balancing the books, in paying its way, year after year, then a serious day of reckoning will inevitably come.

Conservatives like to portray themselves as people who espouse traditional virtues. They stress the importance of thrift, of saving for the rainy day, of husbanding resources for possible future emergencies. Above all, it is anathema for any true conservative to run up bills that his family ends up having to pay. Well, guess who is going to pay for the reckless profligacy of the last eight years of conservative rule! Yes, our children and grandchildren. That is a disgrace and it is surely immoral by any ethical standard.

The American people got tired of the conservative humbug. It is not that that they suddenly embraced a liberal ideology, but on nearly every issue they rejected the conservative approach. Obama ran an anti-Bush, anti-status quo campaign. He argued for a tax break for the middle class, for a version of universal health care and for spending tax money on infrastructure at home, not on roads and bridges in Iraq. He made his case very eloquently, and the people rejected McCain as offering a continuation of the Bush policies. In September when the banks and insurance companies creaked, Obama remained very cool and argued that this new crisis strengthened his case for radical change, while McCain seemed flustered and showed uncertain leadership in the new situation.

Since then, the economic situation has worsened – unemployment has increased dramatically, mortgage foreclosures have multiplied and the stock market averages have become a tale of woe. The people and the pundits have no confidence in President Bush solving anything; instead, they have turned to the president-elect for leadership. Their mood is uncritical because they feel that they have no other place to turn.

They know that Obama is very bright and very serious about tackling the daunting problems in the country. He promises to launch a massive spending program that will create three or four million jobs. In addition, he says that he will make universal health care available to all Americans. We believe him because we need some new hope. In addition, he is somehow going to deal with the awful humanitarian crisis in Gaza, not to mention the challenges – to put it mildly – of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And, of course, he has promised an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.

We expect so much from him; high expectations are part of any romance. Can he deliver or are the negative forces that he is facing so formidable that we are bound to be disappointed?