Election Special Rant O' Doom: The Case For Obama in 2012

 THE CASE FOR OBAMA: Why the 2012 Election is Our Most Important Yet

- Well, here we are again. It feels like only a short time ago that I was here writing about the 2008 election - posting a series of editorials about the Democratic primaries and ultimately the general election. This year, while I've been active on Facebook and elsewhere talking about the campaign, I've been quiet here on the ol' blog. Unfortunately, my ability to post here has been severely limited by work and other obligations, so I've mostly kept to movie reviews as a means to keep to blog going. The truth is though, I enjoy writing about a variety of topics, and with the election now days away, I want to get in a final word before the big day arrives, and history is made once again.

As many have observed, 2012 doesn't have quite the same feeling of world-shaking hope and optimism that 2008 did, once upon a time. For the more liberally-minded of us, 2008 was a great moment for progressivism in America. Finally, the eight year reign of George W. Bush had come to an end. Finally, our country could move forwards and upwards. And even for those less liberally-minded, 2008 still carried with it a feeling of hard-to-ignore significance. The election of our first African-American president was, in and of itself, an historic moment that many who lived through the Civil Rights era never thought they'd live to see. For a moment, our country came together and was, mostly, united.

The last four years have seen continued economic hardship for the nation. There wasn't an overnight recovery from the worst economic recession in decades. The job market didn't suddenly spring to life, many industries continued to suffer, and the middle class was still in a hole. But to me, that's why this election is perhaps even more important than the one in 2008. Times have been tough, but that's the test: are we going to let tough times distract us from what's truly important? Are we going to become impatient, and just give up on the progressivism of the Obama years and turn back the clock to 2007 - to the Bush years?

In Mitt Romney, we have a GOP candidate who, several years ago, I likely would have praised as a moderate willing to work with his opposition in the name of compromise and pragmatism. I'll admit, I didn't know a lot about Mitt Romney while he served as governor of Massachusetts while I was attending Boston University. But what I did know gave me a semi-favorable impression. But as I've read and studied more about Romney over the last year or so, I'm now convinced that he is the worst kind of politician - a man with zero backbone, who will literally change his position on any major issue if it's to his political advantage. On healthcare, women's rights, foreign policy, the environment, and even on his own economic plan - Romney has completely reversed his position over the last several years - and in many cases even over the course of this election cycle. And these reversals have not been accompanied by explanations. We've heard no stories of evolving opinions or new information that helped convince Romney to change his mind. Romney has quite simply, retroactively, rewritten his own record - he's manipulated the public - blatantly - to try to get us to conveniently ignore his past positions on any number of key issues. This is indefensible for a man running for President. But Romney's thought-process here is actually pretty transparent - he's simply said what he needed to say to get through each phase of the election. He went to the right wing of his party during primary season to win the support of the GOP base - a base that is completely out of touch with most Americans on major issues. This is the base still controlled by holdovers from the Bush years - the Christian Right, the neo-cons, the Karl Roves and Grover Norquists of the world. And then, suddenly, when he had to win over moderates and undecided voters in battleground states like Ohio and Florida, Romney softened his stances and did his best to minimize some of his party's less-popular positions. Of course, there were still plenty of dimwitted politicians on the Republican side who reminded us about the party that Romney represents - a party where prominent members talk about "legitimate" rape and where its public voice, Rush Limbaugh, calls women's rights activists like Sandra Fluke a "slut." Romney has distanced himself from these elements of the party, but never fully chastised them either. And his running mate, Paul Ryan, is no better. Even while being heralded as a young, fresh face in the GOP, Ryan has continually shown that his ideas aren't new, but still very much tied to the conservative dogma that has worked to polarize our country over the last several election cycles. Haven't we had enough of this in our country? Haven't we had enough of people who claim there's a war on religion, but who themselves are trying to impose specific religious values on the entire country? Haven't we had enough of a the right-wing agenda - of the gun lobby, the oil companies, the religious right, and so on - dictating what is best for America?

But here we are, in 2012, and I'm seeing too many people ignoring the actual stakes, and acting as if a pretend set of stakes is really at issue. I divide the Republican supporters I know into two categories. The first are fiscal conservatives who oppose Obama's healthcare and other economic reforms. I'll talk about them in a minute. But the scarier category are the delusional Obama haters who still hold a paranoid fear of the existential "otherness" he represents. They see our country no longer being the lily-white America of old, and it scares them. They see a more liberal younger generation, and it scares them. They see a country that is becoming more accepting - of race, religion (or lack thereof), sexuality, etc. - and again, it scares them. To these people I say: wake up. Worry about the issues that affect your daily life, and ask yourself which candidate in this election is actually looking out for the most people (and who shows disdain for the "47%"). Don't let your political affiliation be dictated by fear - let it be dictated by pragmatism and the desire to get things done.

So let me run through some of the key issues here:

THE ECONOMY:

- This is obviously the trickiest of any of the major issues at stake, and the one issue where sensible people may question the progress we've made in the last four years, and wonder if we are indeed turning the corner, or whether a shift in direction is needed. Well, here is my question: when has "trickle-down" economics *ever* worked on a national basis? What we know is that the economic policies of the Bush era helped to fan the flames of an already dire situation brought on by two costly wars. We know that the Bush tax cuts did nothing to help the economy. We know that things were in freefall, until Obama came into office. At that point, a stimulus was passed which, remember, was not anywhere near what it could have been if not for the blockage of congressional Republicans. But it did help, it stopped the bleeding. And meanwhile, the auto industry was brought back from the brink and quickly made vast and steady recovery. Now - had Mitt Romney been President over the last four years - what would he have done differently? By all accounts, it sounds like he would have continued many of Bush's policies for another four years. He would have bankrupted the auto industry. He would have done little to fight for the middle class or the poor. And who knows where we'd be today. I mean, we can see Romney's economic philosophies at work in his time at Bain Capitol. Gut and kill businesses, and help a couple of key executives to make out like bandits while the rank and file employees get screwed over. Romney claims he knows how to get the economy up and running, but his experience has mostly been about getting a few people off scott free while the rest pay the price. Romney has personally invested in companies in China. He's evaded US taxes through Cayman Island accounts. His philosophy has always been "profit no matter the cost." That might have helped Bain become successful, but that's not a recipe for success on a national level. Romney's economic plan, his big five-point plan, is woefully vague. We know he wants to cut programs, but he's barely said what those programs would be. We know he wants to gut education and kill PBS - the former is bad policy and the latter is economically insignificant. But still, there's no indication of how Romney's plan really works or adds up. But what's worse is that his plan's theory is totally undercut by the Republican party's two big ideological roadblocks. One: extend the Bush tax cuts and don't ask the wealthiest Americans to pay any more than they are. Two: continually increase military spending for no reason other than, hell, that's what Republicans do, by god. So Romney - a man who purports to be a pragmatic businessman who will balance the budget, refuses to budge on his party's least-practical and most ideologically-driven economic policies. Ridiculous. The truth is - under four more years of an Obama presidency, we're poised for economic recovery. Barring a major war or disaster, the pieces are in place. And long term, we'll be in a position where we're investing in technology, green energy, education, and infrastructure. We'll be in a position to compete with China and the rest of the world. Look, I don't think any President is going to "solve" the economy. There are big-picture issues that will ultimately set us on a particular course. But again, we know that policies like Romney's have not worked in the past. We know that there are investments that need to be made. What makes our country great is The American Dream - the idea that anyone has a shot. Not just those born with a silver spoon. I give the edge to the guy whose policies are not just the more pragmatic, but that embody that spirit.

THE ENVIRONMENT:

- I put this near the top of my list because, hey, this is it - life and death, do or die. On one side, you've got the Republicans who could give a crap about the well-being of our planet. Romney dismissively mocked Obama's concern for climate change at the Republican convention. In fact, he's apparently not even sure if he believes global warming exists. For too long, the GOP has been the anti-science party, and it's getting absurd. I don't know that any President will crack the solution - if any exists - to completely curbing climate change in the next several years. But I do know that I demand a President who takes these issues seriously. Another example - Romney cavalierly supporting the Keystone XL pipeline, despite evidence that it was an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Obama should be commended for putting the kibosh on it. Meanwhile, you've got leas]ding environmentalists explicitly stating that the severity of storms like Sandy can be attributed to global warming. And yet you've still got the GOP deniers laughing at the notion, even as a smart guy like NYC's Mayor Bloomberg endorsing Obama in large part because of the gravity he bestows on this issue. Do we seriously want a President who seems to have zero interest in addressing climate change? Do we seriously want a President who still stands by the 2008 tagline of "drill baby drill" ...? Again, Romney on this issue is indeed the consummate businessman: profit at any cost, with no regard for the consequences. We all want to be off of foreign oil - so Romney, how about some innovative solutions and less of the same old tired crap?

HEALTHCARE:

 - "Obamacare" - the GOP has attempted to turn it into a pejorative expression. But mark my words - decades from now, it will be talked about as a great American policy. Universal health care is something that many presidents have tried to enact, and we should give Obama credit for pushing on this and getting the job done. The fact is, this is a policy that has drawn a line in the sand and taken away the ability of insurance companies to turn a person's health into business-as-usual. No wonder Romney hates it. Extending the time a parent can help to insure their child. Allowing people to get coverage despite pre-existing conditions. Allowing for more choice. Now, will there be a corporate backlash and higher premiums for some? Sure. But that is only going to last for so long. As with the economy as a whole, this is a policy that benefits the greater good and not just the privileged few. The Republicans have made this, again, an ideological issue - but I've yet to hear practical alternatives that address the same issues that Obamacare tackles.

SOCIAL POLICY AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS:

- This is another huge one. The good news is that, whatever the government policies of the next decade, we as a country are moving forward. We're becoming a society that treats women and minorities better, but we need a President who helps shape policy to match evolving societal attitudes. Obama has done some great things in this regard - repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, supported Equal Pay for Equal Work, and helped to include access to birth control for women as part of his health policy. Honestly, who knows what Mitt Romney really believes about these things. But what we do know is that he's been co-opted by the right-wingers and is espousing a conservative, out-of-touch agenda. Joe Biden put it quite well during the Vice Presidential debates - he has his own personal beliefs as a Catholic, but he's not out to impose them on others. As it should be. One's religious beliefs should exist within the broader framework of federal law - not the other way around. And that is a guiding principle of our country. A war on religion? There is supposed to be separation of church and state. Meaning, again, federal policy should not be dictated by religious law. I want to live in a society that is accepting of ALL beliefs. As long as your faith, as long as your actions aren't hurting anyone, then great - go for it. Be happy, be in love, live your life. But that's what is at stake here - a more or less accepting society. Roe vs. Wade could be overturned under Romney. Women could lose rights, could lose equal pay. Romney may have a "binder full of women," but he seems to lack the ability to break away from the conservative elements of his party and govern like it's 2012.

FOREIGN POLICY:

- Mitt Romney has zero foreign policy experience. Zero - and it shows in how he's talked about the many challenges facing the world today. And so far, his foreign policy positions have amounted to either a.) agreeing with Obama, or b.) attacking Obama over insubstantial, perceived errors. Romney and his GOP cohorts are attempting to, again, rewrite history, and to play on the fears of their base that Obama is somehow not one of us, not an American. They use this invented notion of an "apology tour" to cast Obama as a guy who doesn't love his country. It sickens me, frankly. The fact is ... America's standing in the world was poor under Bush. I know - I was in London and Europe in 2003 and saw firsthand that the US had become a joke in much of the world. Bush's cowboy bluster and simplistic worldview did our country no favors. It led us into a war based on false pretense, and hurt our relationship with many key allies. Obama, meanwhile, has been a beacon of goodwill since taking office. And a lot of that has been because of his smart, measured, thoughtful foreign policy - policy that has nonetheless been quite aggressive in that its relentlessly targeted terrorists and those who support them. The fact is, Obama has made numerous appeals not to the dictators and despots - but to the *people* of countries that have long been weary of the US. Obama has extended a hand of peace to those who would take it. At the same time, he's upped the focus on taking out terrorists. Bin Laden is dead, and you have to give Obama credit for doggedly sticking to that mission. Drones and special forces have made our military tactics more efficient and helped take down many top terror operatives. Obama very tactfully helped aid in the takedown and death of Libya's Gadafi with minimal military ops. The middle-east is a volatile region, and yes, there are situations where you take out one regime only to see other, potentially dangerous factions assume control. But Obama has also wisely recognized that America can only do so much nation-building. He ended the war in Iraq and is winding things down in Afghanistan. But he also hasn't rushed into a third war, as some of his opponents seem to want to do. Romney and Ryan can nitpick all they want about Iran, but the truth is, they wouldn't have done a thing differently, except apparently go back to the bluster of the Bush years in terms of the tone they use in public. Romney has also accused Obama of not being a friend to Israel. But again, that criticism seems to have more to do with certain semantics and perceived slights than any tangible policy. I tend to be incredibly sensitive to America's treatment of Israel, and I think that in Obama we have a President whose support of Israel actually comes from a legitimate place, not just because it ties into some insane "axis of evil" neo-con foreign policy scheme. Obama has continued to provide top of the line funding to Israel, aided in key defense projects, and has overseen never-better military cooperation between the two countries. Romney's attacks here are politics, nothing more - more of the same attempts to play on the fears that Obama is a Muslim or whatever. The fact is, Obama has done something remarkable. Not only has he restored America's reputation in the world, but he's also completely obliterated the notion that the Republicans are the "stronger" foreign policy party. In the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton questioned whether Obama was the man to answer those 3 am phone calls when the nation is in a state of crisis. The fact is, Obama has proven to be poised, determined, and intelligent when it comes to complicated matters of foreign policy - going after terrorists and other threats, but also making decisions because they are justified and necessary, driven by sense and not by swagger.

OTHER:

- Mitt Romney is quite simply on the wrong side of many issues. His thin economic plan has led him to promise cuts for crucial areas that need continued investment, like education, while his ties to the outdated GOP agenda have led him to take familiar ideological stances on a seemingly no-brainer issue like gun control (in a year filled with so much gun violence, should it really be so hard to support a stricter assault-weapons ban?). Meanwhile, Romney points to his time as MA governor as an example of his willingness to extend a hand across the aisle. And yet, that doesn't jive with the GOP's obstructionist agenda, which was explicitly stated to be about ensuring that Obama wouldn't get anything done as President. It also doesn't jive with Romney's quick turns to the hard right - and sometimes back again - on so many key issues this election season. It's why his Republican primary opponents were so quick to flat-out call him a liar while running against him. A Romney regime would seem to indicate a turn-back of the clock to the Bush years. But perhaps even more scarily, we can't be sure exactly. We don't know who the real Romney is or what he believes. Contrast that to Obama. Despite all the bigoted attempts to paint him as a man of mystery (thanks, Donald Trump), the man has mostly been a pretty open book. We know his story, and we've heard him articulate clearly and often quite eloquently a vision for America and its future.

IN CONCLUSION:

- Has Obama been a perfect President so far? No, of course not. He's had plenty of missteps, and has likely gotten too mired in the neverending political battles in Congress. He's certainly hardened - sometimes failing to project the same sort of starry-eyed optimism he once did. But it's hard to blame him when the Republicans have become obstructionists, when the Romney campaign has admitted that facts don't matter, and when fringe right-wingers are still questioning his citizenship. But I feel confident that Obama is on the right side of history. The biggest struggle of his Presidency - getting us out of a terrible recession - is poised to reach a turning point soon. As Bill Clinton so strongly articulated at the DNC - nothing and no one could have gotten us clear of this mess in four years. And with the opportunity to let the Bush tax cuts expire coming up soon, now is the time to finally turn that corner. But if we're going to turn it, let's also do it the right way - investing in education, the environment, green energy, science, and infrastructure. Let's do it with a guy who is progressive on social issues, who is moving forward instead of taking us back to the proverbial dark ages. Let's do it with someone who knows what it is to struggle and overcome odds, and not with a guy who consistently built himself up on the backs of others, at the expense of others. Honestly, though I don't always agree with him, I still feel lucky that we've got Obama leading this country. Rarely have we had a leader of this caliber in office. It would be an absolute shame to not let him serve out his term and finish the job. I think there is a real chance here. A chance to push ahead and never look back. A chance to turn the zealots and idealogues, once and for all, into a true minority in this county. Certainly, the demos do not favor them. Out with fear, in with forward momentum. Out with 47%, 1%, 99%, in with 100%. This is a big election. Affirmation of hope and change - cheesy as that might sound - or a retreat back to the failed policies of Bush and others of his ilk. Prove me wrong. Give me an argument. I've yet to hear a good one for the other side. Don't attack the tone or manner in which I speak, but the substance. But what I'll end with is this: please vote, please don't take this lightly, please don't complain about people talking or writing about or participating in the election when there is in fact so much at stake. Please make the voice of our generation heard.