I choose The Economist and Obama

ENDORSEMENT: It's time, The Economist, Oct 30th 2008

Talking to an Economist reporter today on an unrelated subject, so good a time as any to remind everyone of my great devotion to this mag. If I was stranded on the proverbial desert island (and I've said this for years), the Economist is the only subscription I'd carry.

This is the clincher for me, even though I voted nearly a month ago.

Obama's task is the great unwinding of the Bush debacle, which Bush himself started these past two years, but which is likely to go four more. If Obama spends his first term unwinding both the financial crisis and the two wars well, then he wins a second term and there stands his real chance to imprint a different world moving forward.

McCain is just not the guy to do the unwinds. I honestly think he'd be a complete disaster, so my expectations for Obama are suitably set: unwind and reset in first term, come out charging like the America the world needs in term two.

Done well, this is one of the great rule-set resets of American and world history.

But no question, the need is great and the time is now and McCain is definitely not the leader for the job.

Comments

[TEJ]

Weird. I was telling a friend the same thing yesterday about The Economist . . . .

Also get to learn English English words like 'spiv'.

[fionnlaech]

Right there with you Mr. Barnett. I grew up in Asia (my father was a diplomatic brat who made a smooth mid-life transition to businessman so I guess you could say I was a business brat) and started reading the Economist at 15 and I've had a subscription since then. I don't always agree with them, but they're the closest to an unbiased news/analysis source I've been able to find. Whoever the next president is and whoever they listen to I've said in the past that a leader could do pretty well just by reading the Economist.

[Lexington Green]

He had better move more quickly than that, front load it.

No president has ever had a good second term, starting with George Washington.

[Ted O'Connor]

I have a hunch that Biden might only do the first four years and that Hillary might be the VP candidate for the second term. Just a hunch.

[Justin]

I agree about the unwinding, but he also needs to be graceful in his unwinding. We can't be hearing in 2010 that whatever problem we're going through at the time is the result of George Bush. Barack is on his own now.

I don't even want to even think about another presidential election, but does Biden assume the presidency in 2010 so Barack can take 2 off years to run for president again? :)

[D Blair]

That would be a nice segue for her to get into the president's office.

[Tordenskiold]

Could not agree more on both accounts - speaking from the point of view of someone from a small Scandinavian country, Obama is a clear number one. Multilateralism has taken the back seat over the past 8 years, and to us, nothing is more needed than a new American president that is more concerned with making decisions together with others than he is with making them in despite of others!

On the Economist, what can I say, it continues to define the standard for a weekly "newspaper" - nothing comes close.

[Scott Tate]

Please don't lose your objectivity on these matters, and reserve judgment until next summer, at the earliest.

Just about every economists I read predicts the US/EU will be in a deep recession, and maybe the ROW/BRIC will be flat to down for the next 3-5 years. It is after all, the end of market style capitalism in the US, and a re-balancing of the global consumption order. It was a nice 25 year Bull run, while it lasted. (the 25 year market uptrend was broken for the first time since 1982, that's why) Then again, economists know nothing about the real word, so I will watch the bond traders as a report card on Obama and his policies.

One can only blame Bush for so long; but then again, FDR blamed Hoover and won three terms even though some of his early polices made the situation worse.[somewhat tongue and cheek]

[Dean Wakeham]

I don't really find this article all that persuasive. I look at Obama's moving to the middle on issues like Iraq, as saying what ever it takes to overcome the current hurdle. Troops out as soon as possible to win the primary, troops as long as needed to win the presidency, there seems to be a lack of principle there that in my mind exacerbates the risk of having him as President, especially with Nancy Peolsi and Harry Reid in charge of the Congress. I can see why the Economist and Tom would vote for him, and I understand their basis for doing so, but I don't know if I am willing to risk so much for the reward that Obama might bring. McCain might be bad, but will he be as bad as Obama could be? McCain might be good, but will he be as good as Tom hopes Obama to be? Maybe hedging the bet is the prudent course. Maybe McCain needs to call Tom about being an advisor ;)!

[stuart abrams]

This is a realigning election (1896, 1932, 1968) in which ideological battles that have dominated since 1968 get laid to rest. My 10-step future-history scenario:1. Recession is very deep. This dominates outset of Obama's first term.2. Obama resists pressure from Left. Actually vetoes stuff on trade, spending.3. Recession still in effect in '10. Republicans gain seats but do not gain control of Congress.4. Obama faces primary challenge(s) from the Left in '12, at least Kucinich, and possibly somebody else more serious.5. Economy starts to turn around by '12. Obama wins renomination easily.6. Republicans fail to grasp the nature of the political realignment, and are misled by their gains in '10 into thinking that Obama is Jimmy Carter. They run a typical culture-war campaign. Obama wins by a wide margin.7. Obama's second term starts to do really new things in international affairs (cooperative ventures with China and Russia in Africa and Central Asia, less concentration on the Middle East) and domestic policy (real tax reform, meaning movement away from income tax as the principal revenue generator and towards a VAT, with some retention of income tax and estate tax at very high wealth levels in order to preserve some progressivity).8. Obama begins outreach to evangelicals by moving towards consensus on abortion: prohibition is not an option, but promoting a general climate of opinion unfavorable to abortion is a legitimate government objective.9. Obama leaves office with fairly high approval ratings.10. Republicans get the message and nominate a candidate able to compete in the new political environment (post culture wars).

[Dean Wakeham]

An interesting counter point to this article from the WSJ. I find the hope expressed by Tom and by this article in what Obama may be able to do described in this article by Fouad Ajami from JHU, as the perception of the crowds and their projection of all that Obama can be, but may not end up being.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html

[Pilgrim]

Right, Obama will do the unwinds, take care of the rule-set resets and deal with the possible system perturbations so clumsily referred to by Joe Biden. Obama has paid notice to the need for doing more than one thing at a time.

[Steve J. Nelson]

I still find the Economist to have wildly double standards when it comes to their coverage of Russia versus China...from their reporting, you would think it was the former and not the latter engaged in a military buildup, using foreign investment for political ends, and oppressing its population more.

As for Biden, he seemed to be making a reference to Russia. It remains to be seen whether the Obama team will be just as reckless as the McCain-Scheunemann team would have been when it comes to dealing with Moscow.

[Lexington Green]

Stuart's scenario sounds good. I could get behind it. But it would take Stuart being president, not Barack, to do it.

Sen. Obama has a stunning ability to make people see in him what they want to see happen. To just pick one item, the abortion position that is attributed to a hypothetical future Pres. Obama. It bears zero relation to his voting record or his public pronouncements on abortion. His speech on abortion to, I think it was, NOW or maybe NARAL was absolutely dismissive, contemptuously dismissive, of the pro-Life side. He is free to behave in that way, that is a core constituency. Further, his abortion voting record is absolutely pro-choice, including later term abortions and other things that mainstream Americans, not just pro-Life activists, consider to be over the line. What I don't get is how these data points never enter the calculus of my friends who perceive a very different Barack Obama than the one I am seeing.

What Sen. Obama's words and voting record indicate is that he is not going end the culture wars by compromise, he is going to end them by victory for his side, once and for all.

There is no factual basis to think he favors any kind of compromise on this issue.

[UKBen]

Following up on Lex's point. I suspect that GOPpers has been spooked by the possibility of a democratic landslide and are overestimating Obama's ability to implement a liberal agenda. But, now that I think about it, I don't have a lot of evidence beyond his recent campaigning tactics (FISA, stance on war on terror, Biden) to point to that would indicate that Obama will move towards the centre as president. Anyone have more insight?

[stuart abrams]

I don't think Obama is much of an ideologue. I think he is a superb politician, which is the factor that makes people see in him what they want to see (FDR did it too, to some extent Reagan also did). This is a skill Americans greatly devalue - unfortunate, because skilled politicians are essential to making democracy work. Politics, not ideology, are most likely to drive his actions. Deep ideological splits are bad for democracy, democracy works best when the parties gravitate towards consensus. This is where Obama - the skilled politician - wants to go. I think he has long had his eye on younger evangelicals as a group that the Democrats should try to attract. It shows in his rhetoric (reference to "an awesome God" in his '04 speech, the kind of thing Democrats never say), his outreach to people like Brownback re Darfur, his insistence on doing the evangelical debate contrary to Democratic conventional wisdom, etc. Obama's efforts to push this were impeded this year by his connection to Wright, which sort of tainted his religious credentials; in 4 years, he will be in a different position.

[Tom Barnett]

I make it a point never to confuse leadership potential with legislative votes/records. I find them highly unrevealing.

[Dean Wakeham]

But what about leadership potential with principle and/or character...