Voter Political Blog

It happens every year, and this Thanksgiving will be no exception. Someone in the family will start talking politics. (Given the historic, wacky, pervasive nature of the campaign just past, this time it may not even be your blowhard know-it-all uncle.) And since politics is a volatile subject and family gatherings are fraught with tension, the ensuing discussion will lead to discord.

If you want to avoid such conflict, you may want to inquire after the young ones, busy yourself with doing the dishes, or ask the host about his grill or golf swing—topics that will tie up conversation until daybreak. But if you can’t shake free of a political debate, you may find yourself embracing Loudon Wainwright’s Thanksgiving prayer: “If I argue with a loved one, Lord, please make me the winner.” In that case, here’s some help: Slate’s guide to this year’s political arguments.

The Election

Obama won: He played a great hand well. He was disciplined, focused, and turned the Internet into a fundraising and voter-organizing machine.

McCain lost: So long as it didn’t have an (R) after its name, a wooden post could have won this election. Bush was unpopular, the Iraq war was unpopular—and yet McCain was nearly even in the September polls. Despite the hype, Obama didn’t raise any more from regular folks who gave small donations than Bush did. If it hadn’t been for the financial crisis, McCain might have won.

The Financial Mess

Blame the Democrats: Robert Rubin started the deregulation that led to this mess. Bill Clinton supported and signed key banking deregulation, and Obama’s incoming economic adviser, Larry Summers, was also a big champion. Democrats were relentlessly blind to the dangers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Blame the Republicans: Bush and the Republicans deregulated even more than Rubin did. Greenspan played a role, too, pushing the deregulation of derivatives. Their response has been indecisive at best and ineffective at worst.

Bonus argument: The party is clearly beholden to Wall Street.

The Detroit Bailout

Help ‘em: Sure, the auto companies screwed up, but the economy can’t afford to lose so many jobs right now. You can bail them out and make them restructure.

Screw ‘em: Did you see that the Big Three CEOs all flew private planes to testify in Washington? As for restructuring, it will happen only if they know they won’t get any help; as for the job losses, those workers will be better off in more viable industries. Did you see that the Big Three CEOs all flew private planes to testify in Washington?

Economic Stimulus

Against it: Our deficit will go through the roof, which will make us beholden to foreign creditors. A stimulus plan will delay needed behavioral changes among both individuals and companies. We’re becoming a socialist country.

For it: Most economists say it’s essential. Yes, the deficit will grow, but the alternative is widespread business failure and job loss. Here’s the definition of socialism.

Obama’s Mandate

Yes, he does: He won the biggest share of the popular vote of any Democrat since LBJ. He won nine red states, four of which a Democrat hasn’t won since 1964. With seven new Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House, it’s the largest partisan mandate since FDR.

Not so fast: They might have elected the man, but there’s no evidence people signed up for his policies. A lot of voters picked him because he wasn’t Bush. (See McCain lost, above.)

Obama’s Cabinet

No change: It’s all Clinton people. The lobbying rules aren’t as restrictive as he promised. He’s hiring a replacement for Karl Rove.

He’s the change: Change comes from the leader. He’s picking competent people to execute change. His economic team is not excessively ideological, and he’s likely to keep current Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Hillary at State

Great idea: She knows the issues, won’t be afraid to tell Obama what she thinks, and is the perfect embodiment of American ideals of opportunity and service.

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2205434/

New York Magazine’s John Heilemann is leading a panel at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco this morning on “The Web and Politics.” Joining him is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Arianna Huffington and Joe Trippi.

The session jumped right off with Heilemann saying the Internet played a disruptive role in the 2008 election in the same way television played a disruptive role in the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy to president. Neither medium was new in the respective elections, but both “came of age” and swung the election towards the winning candidate. Kennedy, in particular, used television ads extensively in his campaign to reach the American voters directly, and embraced simple things like makeup:

The televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon was probably the most decisive event for the election of 1960. The growth of TV as a new medium, and declined use of radio marked a significant change in how campaigns are ran today. For the TV appearence, Nixon refused to wear make-up and therefore appeared unshaven, tired and sweaty under the lights. Kennedy, however, did wear the make-up and so appeared cooler and more composed than Nixon. Kennedy, before the debate, returned tan and attractive from vacation. Not only did Kennedy appear to be better groomed, and handsome, his suit was navy popping off the grey back drop. Nixon’s suit was grey, blending in to the curtain behind him. With these factors combined, Among TV viewers agreed, Kennedy won the debate. Richard Nixon’s deep, strong, radio appealing voice won over all radio listeners, they agreed Nixon won the debate. Nixon entered the race ahead of Kennedy. Television as a new medium changed presidential elections from this point on, marking the election of 1960 significant. Radio voice failed to prevail over now “candidate centered” television campaigns.

Huffington says flat out that if it wasn’t for the Internet, Obama would not be president. Trippi notes that Obama’s YouTube spots gathered an aggregate of 14.5 million viewing hours. The Internet was used by candidate previously, he said, noting the Howard Dean campaign, but Obama really leveraged it fully with online video, blogging, social networking and fundraising.

The panelists also note how mainstream media tends to fail in politics, simply reporting on what each candidate says without saying who’s right or wrong. The blogosphere, they say (particularly Trippi and Huffington), tends to call out factual inaccuracies better than mainstream media.

Howard Dean showed that the Internet could be used to raise lots of money online, say the panelists. But Newsom says social networking is significantly more powerful and allows for the creation of much more meaningful connections between the candidate and voters. “I’m addicted to Facebook,” he said.

Newsom also notes that “every single thing a candidate says, and how he says it,” is available online for people to review and judge. And he questions whether candidates today are more authentic or less authentic now that they have to be “on” all the time.

I’m going to vote for Barack Obama. But you probably guessed that.

A few readers have, from time to time, chastised me for my enthusiasm for Obama, so I’d like to explain.

First off, I’m not someone who believes that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. On the contrary. No national election is ever going to be decided by a single vote, so I think you should vote for the candidate you believe in. People say that’s wasting your vote, but you can just as well argue it’s the other way around. When your vote is one of a hundred million, it counts for a lot less than when it’s one of a million or two. In that sense, a vote for a third party candidate counts more, not less. But, people always say, what if everyone thought that way? Well, then we’d elect the candidate we really want, not the lesser of two evils.

So that’s how I’ve voted most of my adult life. Usually, but not always. Sometimes the choice is so stark that I have to go with the lesser of two evils, quite deliberately. So I voted for Nader in 2000, but in 2004 I felt I had to vote for Kerry. I had no illusions about Kerry, but the evil of the Bush presidency was just too great. I knew the effect of my vote would be infinitesimal, but it was at least something.

I understand that the Democrats and Republicans are in many ways two wings of one Corporate Party, and I realize full well that most of today’s Democratic politicians are basically what Republicans used to be before the Republicans swung so hard to the right. That said, I don’t buy that there’s no difference between the parties. If Gore had become president in 2000, for example, he never would have invaded Iraq. It never would have even occurred to him. The Democrats aren’t progressives (there are a few exceptions), but they are better than the Republicans on most of the issues I care about. Of course that’s faint praise indeed.

So a Democratic president is preferable to a Republican president, but that still doesn’t explain my vote. After all, as I said, my one vote won’t affect the outcome. So why vote for Obama? And why enthusiastically?

At bottom, I think it’s not so much the laundry list of Obama’s positions, it’s more a question of who Obama is and what an Obama presidency will mean for this country.

First, as to who Obama is. I think he is self-evidently a man of rare gifts, with a level of emotional intelligence and maturity that is unequaled in American public life. He is a true grown-up, in the finest sense of the word. He embodies grace. It may sound like I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid, but that’s what I sense in the man. And I am obviously not alone.

Second, as to what an Obama presidency will mean for the country. Think of where we’ve come as a nation. American politics has become so cheapened, so coarsened, so brutalized and corrupted and dumbed down that I think it will take a leader with Obama’s gifts to pull us back from the brink. Think what it will mean to have a leader who appeals to what is best in us and not what is worst, who talks to us like fellow citizens of a great democracy, not like members of Jerry Springer’s studio audience, and who genuinely wants government to succeed.

There are lots of other reasons why an Obama presidency will be good for America — Obama’s standing in the eyes of the world; the transformative effect his presidency will have on American attitudes about race; Supreme Court nominations — but for me it’s really more personal. It’s the reasons I gave above. And it’s this: I want to live in a country where Barack Obama is president.