Why Obama Works

Well, there’s finally a lull over here in the UK with regards to the race to the US Presidency, so I finally have a moment to step back from the excitement and see how things look.

The UK Hacks are currently in a divisive mood with regard to the US Primaries. Mostly, the general impression they’re out to give, is that it’s in the bag or whoever the Democrats vote for, and the Republicans have no chance. Furthermore, there is no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Neither of these is exactly right. The first may be slightly off, circumstances pending, and the second is so far from accurate that it’s almost funny. But if you don’t look and really listen to what the two Democratic frontrunners are saying, it’s an easy mistake to make.

I won’t deal with the first point yet, because it relates to the second.

So secondly(!), Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Two identical peas in different packaging? Not quite.

I have to say, I actually supported the war in Iraq, and still do. However, I also agree with both Clinton and Obama. How on earth does any of that make sense? Well, when the case for war was made, I felt that removing a genocide-happy dictator from Iraq was a good thing. The evidence for WMDs seemed sound, (and was despite both the hyperbole from our governments and the antiwar movement, but that’s another story for another time), and that was good enough for me.

France, Russia and China all had veto powers and were using them at the UN. The fact that all three were all making money out of their oil dealings with Saddam didn’t seem to faze either the media or the anti-war movement that was building at the time. It still doesn’t seem to faze them now. So France, Russia and China’s votes were bought and paid for by Saddam. They didn’t want the US to go in and soil that little racket. So the US and the UK had to go ahead, regardless of the UNs support.

Now when I said I supported that, I actually supported it with a qualifier: that is, that the strategy for dealing with the aftermath was in place and judged to be effective. Despite the ease that we feel obliged to totally blame Bush/Blair for this, they can’t really be held totally accountable (I wonder how many of you I have lost now!). There was a chap that Rumsfield appointed to deal with the aftermath on the US side. It’s been well documented that this individual was a moron. He didn’t do his job right, if at all. In the UK, the department for dealing with financial aid, etc. was run by Claire Short, well know left-wing antiwar MP. It’s been said by a number of independent civil servants in the department at the time, that Claire Short’s group was essentially on strike during the build-up for war, because of their views. So both those individuals deserve some blame.

If most of us knew about this before the fact (and only a handful did), then there would have been a demand to get this aspect of the war right before the invasion.

So how on earth does this link continued supporters of the war like me, with initial supporters like Clinton, and ‘no-voters’ like Obama?

When I first predicted Clinton for the Whitehouse in 2002/2003, I said “she out-flanked Bush on the right”. By this, I meant she said “I support removing Saddam from power, only as long as the whole thing has been thought through properly.” Judging his remarks on the war (pre-electioneering), Obama, it seems, would have supported the war if he was more comfortable about everything being planned properly. The only difference is, unlike me and Hillary, he didn’t trust George W Bush’s administration on this issue. He was only right to do so after the fact, as the evidence at the time suggests that Clinton was right to put in that “as long as” qualifier. But Obama is also not afraid to take unilateral action where necessary.

So this seems to suggest that there’s no difference on certain issues. But the Hacks think therefore, it’s about who’s ‘fluff’ you believe. Whether or not you fell for Clinton’s tears, or get swept up in Obama’s performances. Again, I think this is quite wrong. And this is where the fundamental differences come in.

The tangible policy differences are not that different in the grand sense of the word, with most of the frontrunners on both sides. That’s why I feel very confident in a Clinton, Obama, Guliani, or McCain presidency. However, with the Democrat race, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting in two different directions.

I feel that Hillary is actually quite centrist. And she’d probably be so in office. But it has been decided, it seems, that her campaign will be on the left of the party. Barack has gone to the small-l libertarian wing. That is the best strategy.

Clinton’s vision is for big government changes. Enforced movements to the left. Obama wants some of the same changes, but wants to it happen voluntarily, in the free market. By all means, put incentives out there, but rely on the spirit and talent of America. A brilliant message. David Cameron, take some notes. You believe this too, and you have the talent to say it like this too.

Also I have to say, one of the reasons I like Obama (as do many small-l libertarians), is that despite him getting some issues wrong, he seems to me a bit like a Kinglsey Amis-type. Amis went from a far-left communist to a “fairly noisy Tory”, (to quote his son, the talented writer Martin Amis). He saw more and more the wrongs of his part and beliefs, and moved slowly over to a system that felt right. (Right as in correct!) I believe Obama has made this slow move to freedom. He’s nearly there. He’s nearly one of us! And his message on bi-partisanship means this will continue.

Obama believes in the free-market, in capitalism. Expanding the freedom to choose, while encouraging (through incentives) businesses and people to solve problems of the common good. “And can we make the right choices? Well by and large we have, and we will continue to do so, because we’re Americans, and making the choices that favour freedom is what we do best.” That’s the gist of it, and that’s what makes him so appealing, regardless of the political divide. Hillary Clinton’s strategy is too polarising.

He’s a few steps away from a Reagan-character in that regard. The free market as a path to social justice and a source for good we can all believe in, rather than an obstacle against it. He certainly has the inspirational buzz and pro-American economic and social liberalism about him that Ronnie had.

And so to finally come to the first point (told you we’d get there); at a time when the Bush administration have been in the big-government-camp of the left, he could gain not just inspired democrats and independents, but the disillusioned Reagan-Republicans too.

While so many (like me) are happy with whoever gets in out of the main group, he certainly fills me with the most inspiration of that golden 80s time. Good luck to him, I say.