Why I voted for Obama

I didn't vote for Obama. I couldn't care less for his name, race, or socioeconomic status. I voted against him because I believe he has bad economic policy ideas and because he's an elitist.

If you believe the attacks against Obama were unfair, the media was twice as biased against McCain, and that's a fact. It was even worse with poor Sarah Palin.

Yes, Obama beat McCain handily, but if you add an unpopular war, an even more unpopular president, an economy in shambles, a biased media, and a superior Obama campaign organization, it shouldn't have been as close as it was. A mandate he has not.

He is not the Messiah nor the devil, but he better improve things quickly in this country before he's called an "Uncle Tom."

Well, only in America can a black man grow up poor [ed: middle class] & go to college on financial aid be called "elitist." So that's progress! I would also point out that his policy ideas are closer to those of Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nixon than McCain's were.

I like the last point, which I have thought about from time to time--I also get tired of the 1960s framing today's politics to such a degree.

mcentellas: What makes you think we was poor? In Indonesia he attended a parocial school for 3 years and a elite state run school for one year. The same school that the son of former Indonesian president Soeharto attended.

From 5-12 grades he attended an expensive school (Tuition is over $16k) in Hawaii, mostly paid for by is grandmother who was a vice president at the Bank of Hawaii.

@dv: Fair enough, perhaps I fell for the "son of a millworker" kind of rhetoric. Although I hardly think Obama would fit the category of "elite" in the US (or any other Western society). I also recognize, of course, that his mother was an academic. But I still think his experience as an "outsider" in at least two societies growing up count for something.

But I should point out that a disproportionate number of students in third world countries attend "private" schools. So his enrollment in a Catholic parochial school isn't all that odd. His later enrollment in an Indonesian (secular) public school isn't odd either. And from what I can tell, it wasn't an "elite" school in the same sense that the Roland Park Five (the five posh private schools in Baltimore) are. But you're right, his attendance of an expensive private prep school in Hawaii (the Punahou School) suggests he didn't grow up poor. But at best his upbringing can be described as "middle class," not "elite."

I think this YouTube video is a good indicator who is out of touch and elitist in this country..

mcentellas: I am not elite enough to know what constitutes elite, very likely. But he was lucky enough that his family had the will and the means to make sure he had the best education growing up. The public school he attended for a year in Indonesia was the school where the Presidents and Vice-Presidents sent their children.

A third of students in New Orleans and half in the metro area attend private, mostly parochial schools, so point taken, attending a parochial school isn't necessarily an indicator elite status. But there are many levels of tuition and I have to tell you that no school is quite that "elite" here. To put it in perspective, Ursuline Academy (girls: Tuition:$ 8k), founded in 1725 is the oldest in the country. Jesuit High School(boys) is about $6k. The average of about 100 schools is about $4k. $16k for the Punahou School would be pretty elite here.

His grandmother as VP of the Bank of Hawaii regularly spoke to at least one of Hawaii's senators and Governors because they both contradicted Obama when he said that his grand mother used derogatory terms when referring blacks. Those type of contacts can really open doors when its time to go to college. Just ask Bush. If Obama is not elite then he is more privileged than average. I do give him credit for experiencing growing up between two societies, certainly giving him a perspective that might be useful.
--
By the way, in Maryland people use the term Parochial to mean something other than a Catholic school? Over here we use the term "private" for non Catholic private schools.

DV -

"Parochial school" is a specific type of Catholic school - elementary school associated with a specific parish.

@dv: Thanks for the tip on "Maryland speak" (I'm still learning to say "Bal'more"). As for whether Obama is "elite" ... well, clearly he is in the sense that he was able to run for president. But I suspect he's less "elitist" than the son & grandson of Admirals. Or the typical Roland Park resident, even. Was he privileged? Yes. And it's a fact he frequently acknowledged. But I found it hard to swallow the GOP line that he was an "elitist". Had he been running against Huckabee, maybe that line could stick. But not against McCain.

The Bush family established a dynasty with multi-million dollar deals with Saudi sheikhs. They manipulated evangelical churches into quasi-political organisations, cynically using culture-wars that they themselves often scoffed at, openly applying Straussian techniques to motivate voters they sneered at in private.

That is elitism, and it is an elitism that Obama could never hope to achieve.

Obama is painted as an elitist because of his intellect, but it is an intellectualism that had served America well from Jefferson to Holmes. Maybe some of the posters here should investigate the roots of the founding fathers. This elitism stuff is a PR packaged, fed-to-you opinion that purveyors of the term should be heartily embarrassed of. Come up with an opinion of your own.

mcentellas: I am often flumoxed by the love for Reagan. The contras and inhumane programs in South America, the irresponsible "my enemy's enemy is my friend" doctrine he practiced with the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan (a program which led to predictable disaster for America and the middle-east). His embrace of Friedman economics, which ultimately destroyed the working class in America, increased the divide between rich and poor, and laid the framework for the greed and corruption that led to the culture of deregulation we see in the stock market today.

A man who claimed distain for the Iranian theocracy, made it a cornerstone of his presidency, then sent tons of Hawk missiles to Iran (with a signed bible) to the Ayatollah so he could fund his black-ops in South America. Considering his support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and condoned their use of chemical weapons, this proved him a man without morals. A pragmatist of terrors.

Sure the guy was a superb political mover, knew how to appeal to the everyman, re-wrote the American political map. But as a great, I cannot fathom that - not with his moral record. In any other Western country his utter hypocrisy over the Iran-Contra affair would have buried his reputation and his presidency.

Scratch the last part about any other Western country. I just thought about Blair being caught with his pants down lying about Sadaam's weapons capabilities, and the white-wash that ensued.

@Steve: I certainly agree w/ you on the question of elitism. As for Reagan ... well, the US presidency's hypocrisy knows no bounds. Look closely even at Carter's legacy, and you'll see a number of morally questionable problems.

Whether I like Reagan or not, his approach to US foreign policy was significantly different in some regards. He significantly shifted US foreign policy towards advocating democracy in Latin America & backing away from dictators (including Pinochet). He began a new process of engagement w/ the Soviets, which led to the end of the Cold War. He also spoke that message of hope, which Obama borrows from (the idea of the US as a "beacon of light" is very Reaganesque).

But would his hypocrisy in the Iran-Contra affair have buried him in any other Western country? I'm not so sure. I suspect that in many such countries such scandal wouldn't have been much of a scandal at all. Take France's role in Rwanda, for example. I didn't see many in France bat an eye about that. Or how about Belgium in the Congo? Remarkably, while other Western countries focus almost exclusively on their interests, the US has historically been caught in a tension between interests & ideal, power & principle. There was no debate about imperialism in 19th & early 20th century Britain or France; there was in the US. Perhaps Reagan was a hypocrite. But in other countries, where amoral politics is the accepted norm, I doubt he'd be viewed that way at all.

Great post Miguel, but I feel I must address some of the replies to this entry.

The notion that Obama can be casually dismissed as another ivy league-educated “liberal elitist” belies the nature of his actions in public life, particularly when one considers the way in which his presidential campaign was constructed.

Elitism, as I understand the term, refers to a belief that social, economic, and political elites are those most capable, most worthy, and most fit to guide our social, economic, and governmental institutions. We could consider actions that serve to perpetuate elite control over these institutions as Elitist.

The lack of reflection and willful ignorance required to argue that Obama embodies this worldview is stunning and ultimately, pathetic.

He organized union workers and the poor in way that enhanced their ability to affect economic and policy outcomes at the local level.

His campaign has (forgive the hyperbole) done more to empower ordinary Americans than any in the modern era. Leaders were trained in organizational techniques and strategy, and were place at the neighborhood level in at least 45 states. More than 3,000 paid organizers were deployed to link neighborhood team leaders across voting precincts. More than one million individuals engaged in organizing activities, such as canvassing, phone banking, and voter registration.

The networks and skills developed in this process will not magically evaporate now that election has ended. There are city-, county-, and state-level issues and elections that will undoubtedly be affected by the ability of ordinary Americans to organize and effectively influence outcomes.

Q.E.D.

For those that regurgitate the (rather stale) talking point of liberal elitism, this election is your warning. Either pick leaders and build institutions that can empower individuals and effectively counterbalance our “communist/fascist/black nationalist” takeover, or be doomed to repeated defeat at the hands of an efficient and motivated progressive movement.

The genie is out of the bottle, folks.

Thanks, David! BTW, how's William & Mary treating you? Are you planning on attending either MPSA or APSA? I'm not sure about this year's APSA, but I just got notified that I'll be presenting at MPSA. You & Allison should come meet K8 & I (and Javi!) in Chicago for that!

You are a damn elite, not me!

That sums up the current political debate — whether we look at charges that John McCain has so many houses he can’t remember any longer the actual number of them; or that poor Barack Obama is depressed at the soaring price of arugula; or that Fightin’ Joe Biden once bootstrapped himself up at ten in Scranton; or that moose-hunting Sarah snowmachines as naturally as Barack Obama trips over himself in a bowling lane.

A nation of wood-cutters

In short, we remain log-cabin America, formed as the frontier antithesis of Europe. Apparently, we are determined, at least in mind, to stay that way — rightly or wrongly sneering at both natural Francophile John Kerry’s spandex, and also poor forced and uncomfortable duck-hunting John Kerry, decked out in camouflage, and looking as uncomfortable with a dead duck as Mike Dukakis in a tank helmet. We don’t like snooty elitists, and don’t give them a break when they clumsily try at election time in the eleventh hour to morph into one of the people.

A state of mind

So what is elitism? And who is an elitist? We can start by remembering that objecting to elitism in hardly anti-intellectualism. Elitism itself cannot be defined necessarily by social status, money, blue-chip degrees, or tony zip codes — though all that can make an elitist’s task much easier than can a CSU Bakersfield BA and residence in Oildale.

Rather, elitism is a state of mind. It is a world view in which one’s refinements from the commons — whether they are natural or acquired tastes and interests, whether they be intellectual, musical, artistic, architectural, or simply social — are seen as exclusive rather than inclusive.

Looking up with, rather than down at, others

Poet and intellectual Dana Gioia, the head of the National Endowment of the Arts, is not an elitist, primarily because he works to bring his knowledge of poetry, music, and art to Middle America, rather than to subsidize yet another talentless endowed Professor of Art’s postmodern pornographic paper-machês that could not exist as art, outside of the university lounge. He believes that music or poetry not only enriches life, but that most in rural areas, or the ghetto, or the middle-class suburbs agree, if only they are given steady opportunity and encouragement for such enjoyment, and the arts are presented in a context of shared tastes and the desire for commonality and fellowship, rather than the condescending bestowal from a superior to his pawn.

Renaissance man Teddy

Teddy Roosevelt was not for long seen as a snooty Ivy-League bore once he went West, fought with the Rough Riders, and in his fifties ended up with malaria in the Amazon, determined that the value of his education was to lead others and enrich his own rather full and often arduous physical life. He read Tolstoy while chasing outlaws out West. In that sense, his Harvard education was of benefit only to the degree learning acquired in Cambridge proved in the real world of some value in sharpening Roosevelt’s acumen, his sense of beauty, his judgment, his knowledge, and his ability to enlighten others. It surely did in matters intellectual, since Roosevelt wrote persuasively about the West and South America, as he drew on word and deed. If education does not do such things — and it often does not for many — then refinement and intellectual prowess are as valuable as a crystal paper weight: sometimes impressive to the eye, but more frequently of no utility, not quite art, not quite an implement.

Something gained, but something also lost

Second, elitism is the deliberate deprecation, in active or passive fashion, of the other world of physicality and pragmatism. The true elitist values his books, his music, his refined taste in furniture, food, and fashion to the neglect of how one makes a book, to the absolute uninterest in the construction of a violin, a chair, a fig, or a pair of pants. The elitist always fails to appreciate, (1) that his existence, and his much cherished rarified world, are impossible without others that are as smart and as skilled as he, and thus due commensurate thanks and acknowledgment, and (2) that in the zero-sum game of life, hours spent at the piano, Smyth’s Greek grammar, the Sunday morning opera, or the Guggenheim Museum are a tragic trade-off in which one forfeits commensurate time invested in the physical challenge of chain-sawing limbs, the aesthetic sense of accomplishment in weeding an overgrown garden, or the satisfaction of re-roofing a house. The elitist, in contrast, simply cannot imagine that such tasks are as necessary as his own, or that such muscular experience can reflect upon character and knowledge as much as those interests of his own softer and more sophisticated world. Again, knowing how to chain-saw or hammer may be more valuable in dealing with Chavez or Putin than distinguishing Virgil from Horace.

Forgetting Plato’s warning about wisdom

Third, the elitist, by his very nature, proves overreaching. That is, he seems in anti-Platonic fashion, to think his expertise in one field is instantly transferable to another. The good tractor mechanic may, with dirty nails and the odor of diesel, instinctively sense that he has shorted rhetoric and diction, and so has to prepare and tread carefully when dealing with the probate lawyer, county assessor, or local professor at night school.
Again, in contrast, the elitist seems to think that his Harvard Law Degree or Stanford PhD, or Victorian on Pacific Heights instantly makes him a far better guide to human nature, diplomacy, warmaking, and governance — almost anything — than does the sheet-rocker or crane operator (cf. the Obama sermon on clinging Pennsylvanians). That is, the elitist does not understand that his admirable hours spent investigating French provincial furniture or understanding the pedigree of good silverware may be of no more utility in cultivating logic, good judgment, and moral character than in mastering checkers.

William F. Buckley, who knew something of the Ivy League, was not being (just) flippant when he quipped: “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

etc.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092808.html

OK. I fail to remember a time when Obama argued that he deserved to be president because of his elite status. You seem to suggest that elitism is an attitude, not an attribute. Obama & McCain were both elite; I fail to see how either one set out to deliberately present himself as "elitist" by your definition. But the first mark of elitism is to reject the will of the people, when they vote for something that we elites don't prefer. I think "the rabble" spoke pretty convincingly on November 4. Whether they voted for elitist or not, that's up to you. But to disparage or "look down on" their choice is elitist. N'est pas?

@David Reynolds: You seem to be the only one bringing up liberal into this. I was pointing out that Obama went to fancy schools that the average person doesn't get to go to. His "toot" who was a VP at a Bank, regularly spoke to Senators and Governors - we are not talking about someone who grew up with limited means here. Nor do I deny that McCain was given similar extraordinary opportunities by his family.

To me Obama epitomizes the elitist approach - the idea that a select group of people with outstanding intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience are best suited to lead. Contrast this to the populist Bolivian President Evo Morales - who didnt even finish high school and rose up through the unions. Obama didnt rise up from unions - he was on the board of directors of organizations.
It does seem that organizing get out the vote campaigns has been the area he is most recognized for in chicago, and the democrats had been slow to improve in that area. I dont know what to say about the “communist/fascist/black nationalist” takeover stuff, but I do recognize that the 52% of the vote Obama got is the highest since the George H. W. Bush campaign got 53%. Of course that only lasted one term.

To me Obama epitomizes the elitist approach - the idea that a select group of people with outstanding intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience are best suited to lead. Contrast this to the populist Bolivian President Evo Morales - who didnt even finish high school and rose up through the unions. Obama didnt rise up from unions - he was on the board of directors of organizations.

So basically your definition of an elitist is somebody who has displayed excellence in the fields of education or business. Aren't these sorts of people always the preferable group to select leaders from?

Evo Morales story is inspiring, and he has displayed a natural talent for leadership. But his lack of education shows painfully at times, and it would be great if in Evo's story he had more time for education.

The idea that the best and the brightest should lead America has been one of it's virtues. Men like Jefferson were also the leading intellectuals of their age, and it showed.

In saying that, Halberstam's "Best and the Brightest" showed what can happen when you get a bunch of world-beaters with no self-doubt into an administration: Vietnam and Iraq II.

Regardless whether Obama is elitist or not, isn't the most important question now what is he going to do to lift the US out of this economic sinkhole in which it is currently in?

This is what he said he'll do: "...Obama said, [his priority] is to get Congress to approve an economic stimulus plan that would extend jobless benefits, send food aid to the poor, dispatch Medicaid funds to states and spend tens of billions of dollars on public works projects."

In other words, the government will have to come up with a lot of money to "stimulate" the economy. And I ask myself, how is Obama thinking he'll pay for these policies?????

He said he wants to tax well-to-do people (

But here him well: "...I think that the plan that we've put forward is the right one, but obviously over the next several weeks and months, we're going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what's taking place in the economy as a whole,".

Believe me, I am not trying to take these quotes out of context. He did signal he MIGHT consider raising taxes not only for the wealthy.

I ask again, otherwise, how will he pay for his stimulus plan???

At the same time, I look at the national debt counter in NY and see that it needs to be replaced because it lacks one more digit to keep counting. I also see that the US has a tremendous trade deficit. What does this mean? These problems are more long-term that Obama's policies are considering.

Good, perhaps building roads are going to create jobs for the next 8 years he intends to stay in office. But, what about beyond?

I think the important thing is that Obama picks his cabinet and advisers wisely and that these people manage to slow down somewhat the hit the economy is going to suffer in short.

@MABB: It worries me that we have added 1.2 trillion on to a 3 trillion dollar budget. Obama wants to add another 250 billion with another "stimulus package." In order to pay for this we will have to issue bonds much faster than we ever had at a time when interest rates are now down to 1%. No one will buy these bonds. In Chicago, traders are already complaining that the bond market isn't working correctly. When money flows into or out of the stock market, the bond market normally does the opposite. This reflects the flow of capital. But right now the bond market isn't working like that. So what do we do? Make the situation worse by borrowing more and lowering interest rates.

What we should have done months ago is raise interest rates, let the bad companies and investments fail. We would come out of the recession in a couple of years much stronger. Instead we are throwing money at the situation.

The bailout wont work to restart the housing market. If you were an individual or institution that lost your money on a bad loan, and miracle of miracles, the government made you whole in a bail out, would you put your regained wealth in the same risky investment again? No I think you would go home and consider yourself lucky.

---

@mcentellas: I saw an archived cspan video were Obama talked about himself when he was promoting his book in late 2004. A person asked about the experience he would bring to his new job a senator of Illinois due to growing up in Indonesia. Obama said that a dictator was over thrown while he was there and there was social upheaval, but being so young, we was oblivious to the whole thing. It didn't make an impression on him. He said that his mother didn't really understand what was going on either because she was new to the culture.

He said that he thinks the cause of terrorism is desperation caused by poverty. That if there was more economic opportunity there would not be the problem with terrorists. Sound like pretty standard stuff.

It worries me that we have added 1.2 trillion on to a 3 trillion dollar budget.

I was of the understanding that Obama was going to make large cuts to the existing 3 trillion budget, and *claims* there will be a net cut in spending.

Also, he has indicated that the full amount will not be added immediately, only as the economic conditions allow.

Additionally, would would expect higher tax revenue with Obama. I'm a little fuzzy on this part - is there a net tax cut even with the extra 3% tax increase on the wealthy?

Might want to study Keynes.

Oh, I understand the concept of using fiscal policy to mitigate a recession. There are consequences of Bush and Obama pushing these bailouts and stimulus packages. If we produce more bonds than we can sell we will have to raise interest rates as we did in the 70s. Besides, as long as banks see high risk and danger in lending they wont lend. It doesnt matter how much the fed reduces rates.

You might want to study japan in the 90s. Their government cut interest rates to nothing and spent like mad. And got zero growth.