Is it good to jump off the cliff?
There is a mentality that is making the rounds that is totally bizarre -- is it really good for Obama to win the election? Let me ask a counter-question -- is it good to jump off the cliff? In other words, are things so bad that the only way to fix things is to vote for the same people who got us into this mess and let them mess up our country some more?
The rationale is that somehow, Obama will never be able to accomplish what he set out to do as President. But the fact of the matter is that evern so-called idealists like Kennedy were practical enough to realize that they would not get all that they wanted. But people like Kennedy realized that it was still worth it to strive for the kind of country that we wanted to see. And everyone told FDR that he would never be successful and that we had never done things the way he was suggesting we do things. Yet that did not stop him from creating the kind of social safety net that brought peace and prosperity to this country for the next 75 years.
Compare that to what might have happened if we had continued with the same kind of failed policies that got us the Great Depression in the first place -- we might not have been mobilized to meet the massive threat that Nazi Germany and Japan posed to the world. It would have been every person for themselves. Yet that is what JBT would want us to do.
It's totally possible that Barack Obama's approval ratings could drop as people do not have the patience to stand with him during the long haul. But consider this -- we will have a much stronger majority in the House and Senate than last time. This suggests that the reason Congress is so unpopular is because of the Republicans who have shown that they are the Party of No rather than any kind of party for constructive change. This suggests that people want a Congress with a clear agenda rather than one that is bogged down in gridlock. That means that the Democratic agenda is much less likely to get bogged down in the first place.
Next, regarding Iraq and Afghanistan -- there is no status of forces agreement between Bush and Iraq that would commit our forces there for an indefinite period of time; if there were, then Obama would not be bound by such an agreement. Next, Iraq has held firm against such an open-ended committment proposed by the Bush administration. They know that the Bush administration is a lame-duck administration and that they can just stall for time until Obama comes to power. Next, Afghanistan has escalated, and the media has not caught on to that fact. But it will be much easier for Obama to call on international support for that mission than it was for Bush to get international support for Iraq. And Obama will be much more likely to realize that Afghanistan requires a political solution than George Bush has for Iraq. Obama has always placed diplomacy first in his foreign policy thinking.
And if you don't think that things will get worse under McCain, they will. For one thing, Sarah Palin, one of the most unqualified people in US history, is one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency. For another thing, John McCain would attack Iran, keep us in Iraq for 100 years, abolish the minimum wage, and make forced pregnancy the law of the land. If JBT doesn't think things will get worse, then that means that he has not lived through the Great Depression, a direct result of the failed policies of Herbert Hoover and the rest of the Republican administrations of the 1920's.
Then, he asks, what would be the consequences if Obama turned out to be a major disappointment? Now, that is a fair question, but that is a question that applies to everyone. The same question can be asked of Palin supporters, Hillary supporters, Bush supporters, McCain supporters, and supporters of every other candidate. The consequences of Obama being a major disappointment would be the same as any other President -- we would vote for someone different next time. That is what we have done for the last 200 years of our history. To ask this question of Obama while not asking this question of other candidates means that this diarist is following a double standard.