Comment upgrade: Party and access

Cory Markson commented:

As a military officer who read the original PNM esquire article and has always found you to be logical and well-reasoned, and who has recommended your articles/books to countess other officers and gov't personnel, I cannot understand how illogical and unreasoned your posts on this election have been. It's been a bit disappointing, as you don't see a partisan bias in your books, but now I've begun to reassess the logic in the books due to what I see as flawed logic here. I have no issue with being pro-Obama, it's just that the logic behind the support by you has been flimsy at best.

Tom replied:

Cory,

Clearly you do have a problem with my support for Obama, and that's fine. If the only way my strategic logic holds up for you is if I'm a Republican at heart, then I never really connected with you in the first place.

And that's also okay.

Frankly, I've never found my being a Democrat has cost me any access or acceptance by Republicans in the Bush administration. Despite all the stories of their hyper-partisanship, I have personally never been subjected to any. In fact, I find that everyone I've ever worked with in the administration knows I'm a Democrat and couldn't care less regarding the validity of my ideas.

Then again, during the Clinton years, I never found that being a Democrat ever got me any more acceptance than not being one.
In general, I find that it's easier to be an outsider pushing this stuff with the GOP than a perceived "part of the team" trying the same with the Dems, meaning I'd expect to have less influence in an Obama administration.

I still, however, believe he'll be more conservative in his foreign policy and that America needs that now. I also believe America is desperate to move beyond the Boomers' politics, and that Obama does that better.

Comments

[George Jones]

I still, however, believe he'll be more conservative in his foreign policy and that America needs that now. I also believe America is desperate to move beyond the Boomers' politics, and that Obama does that better.

While I agree that America needs desperately to move beyond the Boomers' politics, I'm not sure Obama does that. He might, but Obama is way too connected to the corrupt Chicago Democrat political machine to be certain he can move beyond Boomer politics.

It would help if you could explain why Obama will be more conservative in his foreign policy. Much of what Obama has said supports a completely different conclusion. This gets to the heart of the problems a lot of people have with Obama. We're asking who this guy is and what his positions are on the issues. If we're at the point where we are basing Obama's foreign policy (or other policies) on "belief" then how do we know our beliefs are correct? We would be better voting for a known quantity (McCain) since even if we find him not as good as our beliefs about Obama at least we know where we stand.

[Andrew in Baghdad]

McCain.. Obama. While I agree, to some extent, with your assessment of Obama's ... flexibility when it comes to international affairs - the domestic side of the house has me lamenting my choices.

Seventy trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities is an inevitability this country is going to have to face and neither candidate offers anything toward solving it. Gore gets ludicrous amounts of airtime and media love for the "great global threat" of climate change, but no one wants to face the very real national crisis we face with the potential to make the Weimar Republic look the paragon of economic stability. We refuse to learn. We refuse to stop spending. Fannie and Freddie are "too big to fail". The US government is "too big to fail." Wrong. The market will win this argument, as it always has.

When Bush, with majorities in both houses, tried to *partially* privatize social security, he got whacked. I really don't see Obama even attempting to rein in our government's profligate spending. Of course, McCain doesn't fare much better on this count, and he'll have no support from congress whatsoever.

My question, then (and thank you for your patience), is given our (yours, mine, and most of your readership) mutual desire to see globalization and interconnectivity continue to thrive, the Gap continue to shrink, and the increases in security with respect to the worst exports of the Gap, how is Obama going to adjust the internal domestic spending to prepare for the tremendous vertical shock once everyone realizes the US can't cover its debts and our currency tanks? Globalization is bigger than the US, but the regime is not set in stone yet. The process can be derailed and reset to zero; and as you point out, it has been in the past. How is Obama going to stop that? Nothing he advocates, nothing he proposes even comes close to addressing this.

[Gilbert Garza]

“I find that it's easier to be an outsider pushing this stuff with the GOP than a perceived "part of the team" trying the same with the Dems, meaning I'd expect to have less influence in an Obama administration. I still, however, believe he'll be more conservative in his foreign policy and that America needs that now.”

Tom, so, only as democrat team member (and not as a republican team member) can you have your cake and eat it too. That’s fine and smart. I would add that the democrat team needs the help and that bolstering them also pushes the republicans to do a better job of presenting their case and setting and enlarging their agenda. However in foreign policy, I just don’t know whether a more conservative US stance is necessary and/or advisable. If it is seen as materially necessary (from weakness) then the forces of moderation might (or might not) be able to jump in and succeed in significantly controlling the forces of a possibly more encouraged and more opportunistic radical extremism. I say we should strategically keep up the level of push as we increase and vary the pull of events connections and economic realities.

[Tom Barnett]

Well-reasoned comebacks.

Not a simple subject.