Isn’t that the stupidest title for a newspaper article you’ve ever heard? I mean seriously, maybe the Onion could have done slightly better with Obama Joins Race With Goals Set Low.
But let’s really look at this for a minute. First, it is assumed that running for POTUS is a lofty objective. That’s what Obama wants. The article discusses that he has officially joined the Presidential race for 2008. Just as apt a title could have been Obama Joins Race.
But could I be wrong? Maybe the ‘Gloals’ doesn’t mean winning the election, but what he wants done if he were to win. Some of these grandiose ideas include:
- Having all US troops home from Iraq by March of 2008
- eliminating poverty
- ensuring universal health care
- creating energy independence
Not bad. But let’s be honest here; the US military really really really likes being in Iraq. So much so, that they have delayed their successes to stay. Hell, it’s sunnier than Florida there and everywhere, it’s like a beach (except without the water… and the bikinis).
I must admit though. Obama is good. To quote the article in WaPo, Obama has, “a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.” He’s so good, he doesn’t even need the the power of the Presidency to get that Iraq issue resolved, because he’ll have it taken care off EIGHT months before elections. He feels this will let, “the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever, ” and that this, “is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.” I think the kind of pressure Obama is referring to is the kind he’s going to apply when he flies to Iraq and twists the Sunnis and Shias arms until they say uncle.
And why isn’t this a high goal? One, because it’s impossible to do well. And also, everyone is doing it. What Presidential candidate doesn’t want peace and stability in the Middle East without US troop involvement? None of them.
Next, he wants to eliminate poverty. Poverty is a relative thing. Truly, it is. Poverty in the USA is much nicer than average living conditions in many, many parts of the world. I say, let the free markets find the proper balance. But, he’s against free markets handling complex situations affecting many people. Again this is about as high as a goal as it was when Miss America said it. Rating: not so high.
He wants universal. Huh, another complex situation affecting many people. Now, I’m on the fence with universal health care. I mean, we pay taxes to ensure the fire and police departments exist. We could leave these to the free markets to a much greater degree by all have personal bodyguards, but that is a bit extreme. Meanwhile, it seems we have a fire department, because a fire can be so disorderly it can wipe out many a livelihood in a single blaze. Whereas with health care, it is a much more slow and patient issue (pun intended). I think I would be for universal health care if it was privatized, like privatising the US postal system, and if you made it a federal requirement, but a state’s responsibility. I like states’ rights. Rating: neither high nor low.
Lastly, he mentioned creating energy independence. Hmm. How about instead eliminating almost all of the tariffs and subsidies and letting the free market control which energy medium we prefer best. It seems like that would work pretty well. But he’s not a Libertarian, just a Liberal. Rating: low.
So, yes, the WaPo article title really should be changed. The most politically correct title would be Obama Joins Race. On the surface, it is factual and doesn’t really stir up controversy. Other titles which may be a bit more, saucy could be Obama Joins Race with Goals We’ve Heard Many Times Before, Obama Joins Race, Queries Voodoo Gods to Help with Impossible Tasks, or Obama Joins Race and Sounds Just Like Politicians We Don’t Like.
Yeah. There is still more to learn over the next 20 months about Obama before Election Day 2008. Maybe he has no place else to go but up? Nah.
Since you brought it up, I thought I’d mention that the ideal of universal fire suppression is relatively new and not entirely realized. Back in the 1800s, fire brigades were funded by insurance companies; the insurers would pay fire companies that fought fires at their insured property. In certain parts of rural America, fire coverage is still not assured; if an affected homeowner doesn’t pay the annual fire suppression fee, the local fire department will not put out fires in his house. It turns out that firefighting is very expensive; so is unviersal health care (albeit on a much larger scale). My primary concern is the cost, and I’m not sure that shifting the burden to the states would make things cheaper.
The idea of shifting it to the states, instead of federal government, is that states are large enough to achieve economies of scale, but more localized, as to provide the services that it’s constituents wants/needs the most. Different insurance companies can then bid on a state-level to handle that state’s health care. And it also would reduce the size of the federal government. I’m not a fan of big government.