In Medias Res

So there I was, walking aimlessly down the street, absorbed in thought over some trivial matter which I no longer remember. And all of a sudden, I was accosted by a man in a blue and red windbreaker who acted too quickly for me to look away and put on my headphones. He asked something along the lines of whether or not I wanted to support financially the man who would save America. Not Jesus, or the ninth avatar of Vishnu, or even Thomas Carcetti. After the third guess, he jumped on my moment of hesitation, and reminded me that it was of course none other than Barack H. Obama. How foolish of me. I almost forgot that he would be different from every other young charismatic politician who delivered not half a field and a mule's ass of whatever he (or she) had promised. Because he lived in Indonesia for a couple of years, so he has, like, an international perspective. He shot me a concerned glance. One that said, "Well I knew that you were young and disillusioned, if only because of your slightly overgrown beard. But not to believe in Obama? Have you no heart? Do you believe in nothing? Say what you want about the tenets of Neoconservatism, but at least it's an ethos!" But he of course went the more patronizing route in actual speech, saying "Well I'm cynical too. We all are. [knowing smile]. And I'm not saying Obama is perfect. But come on! He's the next JFK!"

And there we have it. He explained perhaps my main objection to Obama (and the 3- mile cloud of hype surrounding his every move). People all around me are comparing BHO to JFK like it's a good thing. What about Obama recalls Kennedy's amazing virtues? His cozy relationship with McCarthy and segregationists [note: he did vote for the 1957 Civil Rights Bill, but also voted for an earlier bill that prevented prosecution of those who violated any of its terms]? His escalation of the US military presence in Vietnam, including the authorization of napalm use in the north? His ability to win a Pulitzer prize for a book he didn't write? His support for the Bay of Pigs Invasion which he withdrew at the last second, guaranteeing BOTH its failure and great damage to America's reputation in the region, not to mention feeding Castro's anti-American rhetoric which helped keep him in power? Kennedy's presidency today is widely considered a success, despite relatively few accomplishments. Although he did create the Peace Corps. So he's got that going for him.

The real issue here is that Kennedy harnessed the power of the media to succeed with all style, and no substance. It was widely reported that a 1960 presidential campaign debate with Richard Nixon, was seen as a victory for Nixon by those who heard the debate on radio, and a victory for Kennedy by television audiences (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jopo/2003/00000065/00000002/art00015). Now perhaps the signs of Nixon's untrustworthiness picked up by the viewing public were not unfounded, the fact remains that those who heard the arguments divorced from the faces of the men delivering them found Kennedy wanting. Today, we have no such luxury of objectivity, and unlikable, untrustworthy Clinton's campaign is likely to end in a sulking return to her Senate seat. (This is not to say I support now, or ever have, her candidacy). Obama is a great speaker, and inspires confidence, even when holes are poked in his arguments.

Now this isn't to say I've entirely ruled out the possibility of voting for him. But I have to have a reason to vote for him other than his charisma and value as a "uniting" force. And his NAFTA-baiting, which already has our neighbors to the north and south worried, has not instilled confidence in me. A survey in the American Economic Review (May 1992) , polled economists of all political stripes on whether they agreed or not with certain statements. 93% agreed that "Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare." Now Obama hasn't advocated any such measures, but he's not going in the right direction with such talk. When asked why so many Americans think they are worse off because of free trade when virtually all economists would indicate otherwise, the traditional response is that politicians continually tell them so. It seems Barack is no exception. And to propose the lame defense that he "has to do this to get elected" tells me that he's already just another would-be idealist Democrat who promises a new day for everyone, only to leave office with the country in the same haze of darkness.