an open letter to non-Obama/Biden voters: thinking outside the echo chamber

[jrtom]

I'm looking to have some conversations about the upcoming elections. (The US Presidential elections, primarily, although if there's anyone that wants to talk about WA Congressional or state-level elections, that's fine too.)



Most of my friends are, if not stalwart Democrats, pretty much in the tank for Obama. This means that I don't have as good a handle as I'd like on the views and motivations of everyone else: people that haven't decided, or that intend to vote for McCain/Palin, or that intend to vote for a third-party candidate, or that don't plan to vote at all.

If you are such a person, I would like to have a respectful conversation with you: to find out where you're coming from, and what your reasons and motivations are (and your fears, if applicable). I'm a bit of a political news junkie, so I've read any number of essays dissecting the mood of the electorate in various ways, but I'm not convinced that the pundits' and analysts' condensations of people's opinions are anything like the whole (or true) story. Anyway, ultimately it all comes down to people. You. Me. Everyone else here, whether you show up to vote or not. One way or another, we're all going to be living together after the election, and I think it's past time for me to learn more about you and why you think and feel as you do. Even if Obama were to win in a huge popular landslide--say, 65-35, which is unprecedented in recent memory--that's still more than a third of voters (and probably quite a lot of non-voters) that will really disagree with the outcome.


I freely admit that I am also an Obama partisan, although I do not agree with him on every issue. If you would like to ask _me_ where _I'm_ coming from (either my political philosophy, my feelings on various issues, or my own reasons for having decided to vote for Obama), that's welcome. I'd also be more than happy to help you convince yourself to vote for him, too, if that's what you want. (You are welcome, in turn, to try to convince me to vote for some other candidate, although you're unlikely to succeed.) But my _primary_ purpose here is to learn from (and about) people that are _not_ Obama partisans, not to proselytize.


People who support Obama/Biden are welcome to join in these conversations, but I want one thing clear from the start--to everyone, but especially to Obama partisans, because of my intended audience: be respectful, or your comments will be deleted. There's a lot of free-flowing anger and resentment, from a variety of sources and for a number of reasons. I want to understand those reasons and the opinions that underlie them, so please be respectful of them so that they'll be expressed freely.


If you fit the bill, and are interested in such conversations, feel free to post a comment to get the ball rolling, or to contact me via email. If you know someone else who you think might be interested, please point them here.



Let's talk.

Comments

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

This is fascinating. Until fairly recently, I'd heard McCain spoken of in the terms that you used to describe Obama--in essence, I've heard people say that they would consider voting for him on a basis of character and ability despite disagreement on issues--but not Obama.

One thing I want to sort out: what about Obama's foreign policy positions (not just his opposition to invading Iraq) do you object to?

How do you think that Obama's and McCain's approaches to current and anticipated foreign policy problems would differ?

Personally, I don't think that McCain has been a maverick for the sake of rebelling, as you put it, although I think he's grown very fond of that part of his image. I suspect that (a) he has no particular objection to voting his conscience regardless of his party's position (for which I commend him), (b) his notion of patriotism may actually impel him to disagree with his party occasionally so that people remember that the party isn't everything (again, if true, he gets points for this), and (c) he likes to trust his instincts, which are (in my opinion) somewhat erratic.

Thanks again.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

One of the most important foreign policy issues to a Jew with pro-Israel sympathies is the question, "If it became necessary, would the American President allow Israel to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?" This is not a question we have firm reassurances from on the part of Obama, whereas both McCain and Palin have been as firm as is politic. It's becoming frighteningly possible that this question may be more than academic in the next administration.

Likewise, Korea... There is no question in my mind that, claims of the EU be damned, one of the main reasons that countries like Korea and Libya have come to the bargaining table is because they don't want a repeat of Iraq in their backyard. McCain is willing to continue using that stick. Obama makes it clear, in his opposition to the War in Iraq, that he's not capable of effectively using that stick in negotiations with Korea. SNL parodied his commitment to non-preconditioned negotiations by suggesting that, if negotiations with Korea don't have any effect, he would "play the race card." I don't want to suggest that I think non-preconditioned negotiations are a bad idea, because I don't, and I think it's one of the silliest Republican smears on Obama, but I do think negotiating with a rogue nuclear state without a stick is a recipe for getting walked all over.

As to McCain, you're right. There is some degree to which principle is involved in his 'maverick' stances. I just usually can't tell what the principle is. Before he became the nominee, he was most famous for McCain-Feingold, yet he's been stomping all over that during this campaign.

See, I find principle comforting. I like knowing what a man stands for, and knowing that even if it'll be unpopular, he'll stick with it. John McCain seems like a man who'll stick with his unpopular principles. I just remain unsure what they are, and that's just as important as knowing he has convictions to me.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I'm curious to know if your Iran/Israel question has been resolved at all given the most recent debate (from this evening), in which this question came up.
As a side point, I'm not sure that there's any question of the US _allowing_ Israel to do anything. If Israel really, really wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, they'll nuke them themselves, and the US can't really stop that. Punish them after the fact, maybe (withdrawing aid, probably) but even that would be politically dicey.

Regarding Korea: I think that Korea has repeatedly come to the bargaining table in bad faith, and because they think there's something to gain (additional time for weapons development, perhaps). The evidence suggests that the best way to keep the US from kicking your ass even if it really doesn't like you is to get nuclear weapons. (To be fair, it's also worked pretty well for Israel and its own adversaries--and I say this as someone who has pro-Israel sympathies as well, if (probably) not as profound as yours.)
I don't claim to know the best answer for Korea. But we don't have a plausible "big stick" to shake at them, really. We can't successfully invade them (even if China weren't pretty much guaranteed to get involved) and we can't nuke them unless they nuke us first. I don't know how to make them negotiate in good faith, and the only reason I don't feel like a dumbass is that apparently no one else does, either.

I want to respect McCain more than I do, and to believe that he'll stick with his principles however unpopular, or at least openly acknowledge, in the case of a position change, his past error and the reason for his change. I am growing less and less convinced of this as time goes on, unfortunately. As I said in a recent LJ post, I wish that this were a harder choice for me.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

The problem with saying that Israel can just take out Iran's nuclear facilities without US support is that it's not true. Here's why: Russia and China need oil and they've been courting the Middle Eastern oil powers extremely heavily, and to some degree they've been supporting Iran's nuclear program. Israel can't afford to go up against Russia and China on the world stage, not for any military reason but because it would isolate them from the world community, unless the US backs them and keeps doors open for them. Israel might end up doing it anyway, but it'd have potentially disastrous consequences for Israel's economic, diplomatic, and political stability.

Actually, the odd thing about the debate was that, on places like Pakistan, Obama came out like the interventionist and McCain tried to stand on things like his refusal to enter Lebanon. It left me rather confused, because I've been following these campaigns for months and I've never seen Obama that aggressive on foreign policy. I mostly agreed with him, mind you, but seeing a shift like that makes me wary because when the candidates seem to shift this close to the election, it probably augurs them trying to win votes and not their actual position. (It's a big problem with trying to convince yourself to change your mind this late in the process. How do you know what they really mean?)

It didn't confuse me about McCain, though. Even though we agree on the War in Iraq, I've always known he's not a doctrinal interventionist. I'm not really clear on what his doctrine is about when military action is appropriate, but it's not the same as mine.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I think that if Israel perceived an imminent existential threat, they'd address it decisively and trust the US to back them up retroactively. I agree that the consequences might be disastrous, and I think that it would at best strain the heck out of the US/Israel relationship unless Israel could present hard evidence that they were about to be nuked themselves, but I suspect that Israel would rather deal with the consequences of an 'international incident' (so to speak) than be destroyed.

For the record, I don't know the right answer for how to cope with Iran, either. Stuffing the nuclear genie back in the bottle has never really struck me as a sustainable solution, and belligerent posturing in Iran's general direction seems to be counterproductive, but I don't think there's a magic bullet here. :P

(I'm still interested in your opinion on what each of them said on the subject of Israel, if you'd be willing to give it. As I said, I'm not as personally involved there so I'm not sure what precise statement you're looking for.)

For what it's worth, I believe that McCain's stance on Lebanon is somewhat of a red herring, sort of: we were already in Lebanon by the time that he entered Congress. I think he voted against an extension of our presence there. (For which I still give him credit, but I wish he'd stop framing it as he does.)

Obama basically quoted what he'd said a few months ago on Pakistan, so I didn't really see a shift there. I remember there being a big flap at the time about it.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

To directly respond to their answers, they were asked a different question than the one I was talking about.

If Iran bombed Israel, Israel would bomb back. We'd have a nuclear war and of course the United States would weigh in on Israel's side. Both McCain and Obama reassured on that grounds, but this is unsurprising. It would also be disastrous to the entire world.

The question I care about is Israeli preemption. Obama spoke to it more directly, but he responded by saying we should work to make sure it doesn't become an issue. He didn't say what he would do if Israel judged it necessary. McCain didn't respond to the issue at all, but we have Sarah Palin saying forthrightly that she'd support Israel through whatever they did, in the Charlie Gibson interview. And we've had other comparably strong assurances from McCain in the past.

By the by, what do you make of what Brokaw tried to frame as the "Obama Doctrine" (As I distilled it, "Humanitarian intervention is laudable but tactically foolish.")? Please let's ignore the garbled mess of the "McCain Doctrine".

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that there should be a single course of action that the US should take if _any_ nation is attacked, including the US. To me, the correct answer to the question of "what should the US do if Israel attacks Iran?" is, quite honestly, "It depends." Factors on which it would (or ought to, in my opinion) depend include:

* Were we notified ahead of time?
- No? Then that says something about the regard in which Israel holds the US, and perhaps what the nature of our response and support for Israel's actions ought to be.
- Yes?
- were we given the opportunity to suggest alternatives, or to offer assistance that might make such an attack unnecessary?
- were we presented with hard evidence that Iran was about to attack?
- was the force used reasonable and appropriately directed in our estimation?
* What were the reactions of other nations? Is Israel now in imminent danger of attack from Iran or from some other quarter?

I don't know what question you expect, or what complexity of answer, but the appropriate response depends so strongly on the conditions that unless you specify the conditions, I don't know how you might reasonably be satisfied.


Regarding the "Obama Doctrine": here's a link to the text of Obama's and McCain's answers to the "doctrine" question, for reference: http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/10/obama-doctrine.html

What that answer boils down to, it seems to me, is "We should do something, and we will if we can, but we can't address all such situations by ourselves; furthermore, our ability to materially affect the situation is much enhanced if we have allies and other countries that will aid if we ask for it, so we should cultivate such relationships."