Disclaimer: the purpose of this post is not to discuss the policies put forth in these ads; rather, it is to explore the delivery, format, and content of the ads.
There has been a lot of press covering the latest political ads from both the McCain and Obama campaigns. Visit the following links to view the Reuters reports (here and here).
Here is one of the latest ads from John McCain, entitled "The One".
Here is Obama's latest ad, entitled "Pocket".
Let's break down each ad as objectively as possible.
The McCain Ad: From the beginning of the ad, there is a very sarcastic tone. The commentator speaks in pseudo-scriptural language referring to Barack Obama as "The One" who will bless the world. It says that Obama has "anointed himself" to take on the burden of solving the world's problems. The ad continues by showing Barack Obama say some self-aggrandizing things, followed by a clip of Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea in the epic movie, "The Ten Commandments". The ad concludes by asking if Barack Obama is ready to lead. There are no policy statements in this ad whatsoever.
I have watched this ad several times; each time I view it, it strikes me how immature it is. There is no real substance to this ad. It seems that all it is aiming to do is to satirically show Obama as a Messiah-like figure. This ad does nothing to promote John McCain's campaign; instead, I feel it exposes the cynical nature of John McCain. Seriously, is the only thing that McCain can do is take jabs at Obama's wide ranging appeal? Seems immature and juvenile to me.
The Obama Ad: This ad begins by showing somebody filling up the gas tank in a car, and states that each time you fill up gas companies are making record profits. These gas companies have contributed two million dollars to John McCain's campaign. The ad continues by highlighting a difference between Obama and McCain. It states that McCain wants to give the gas companies further tax credits, while Obama seeks to tax their wind-fall profits. It then shows a picture of President Bush with John McCain by his side, saying that we cannot afford another president who is beholden to gas companies like these two. At the conclusion of the ad, it says that Obama will give a $1000 energy rebate to consumers, paid for by the wind-fall taxes received from the big gas companies.
I felt that this ad did a great job of highlighting a difference between the two candidates and then showing what Obama's plan to improve the situation is. I felt it was unfair to lump McCain's energy policy together with President Bush's. However, I felt this ad did a good job of stating a problem, a differing solution, and then putting forth Obama's solution.
To restate what I said at the beginning of this post, the object of this discussion is not whether the policies are good. Instead, it is to discuss the overall tone, content, and delivery of the ads. Obama's ad stayed above personal attacks (aside from the pairing of Bush and McCain... but that in and of itself is not necessarily an "attack", per se: they are both Republicans). From an objective point of view, I felt Obama came off looking better. He focused on his policies, rather than trying to mock McCain.
In this recent exchange of political ads, I felt Obama came off victor.
Paradoxically, McCain has improved in the polls. Apparently Americans like McCain's tactics.
Read this Telegraph article for further discussion on that topic.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Obama's Economists
This writing positives about Obama is really hard to do. I struggle finding good things to say about his positions, policies, and ideas. But I like the premise of our site here.
One of the most prominent people on his domestic team up until now has been Austan Goolsbe, a University of Chicago professor who many expect will to head President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. He is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (GSB) among many other distinguished positions and recognitions; many of them progressive and aligned with the Democratic party. Although a UofC professor, he was not a part of the Milton Friedman school of thought as he received his degrees from Yale and MIT (PhD).
Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has some quirky ideas, after all he is a Democrat, about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.
Mr. Goolsbee has a record and history towards supporting globalised capitalism and no apparent desire for large scale redistribution. If you recall, he caused a bit of turmoil earlier in the year for telling the Canadians not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA language in the primaries and while campaigning. Although those were low level discussions and Goolsbee did not necessarily speak for the administration, his record in writ and in the classroom tend to support his free-trade tendencies. This is further supported by Obama's other economic director, Jason Furman, an economist in the Clinton administration and a top aide to John Kerry in 2004. Furman is a staunch free-trader who once praised WalMart and has even favoured lower corporate taxes.
Back to Goolsbee: he is a proponent of markets when it comes to income inequality as well. The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety that has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill."
In 1980, people with college degrees made on average 30 percent more than those with only high school diplomas. That disparity has widened to 70 percent. In the same year, the average earnings of people with advanced degrees were 50 percent more than those with only high school diplomas; today, it is more than 100 percent.
The market is shouting "Stay in school!" and Goolsbee's conservative colleagues at Chicago say a high tax rate on high earners is "a tax on going to college." Conservatives say: Don't tax something unless you are willing to have less of it. But Goolsbee says: Conservatives often exaggerate the behavioral response to increased tax rates. The solution is to invest more in education, which will raise wages, reduce inequality and move toward equilibrium. The GI Bill was, he says, so prolific in stimulating investment in "human capital" -- particularly, college education -- that for a while the return on it went down relative to high school.
"Globalization" means free trade and various deregulations that supposedly put downward pressure on American wages because of imports from low-wage countries. Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says that "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; so do auto mechanics, dentists and many others.
Goolsbee's rough estimate is that technology -- meaning all that the phrase "information economy" denotes -- accounts for more than 80 percent of the increase in earnings disparities, whereas trade accounts for much less than 20 percent. This is something congressional Democrats need to hear from a Democratic economist as they resist free trade agreements.
As regards China, Goolsbee -- who favors a tougher approach, especially through the World Trade Organization -- notes that all imports are only 16.7 percent of the U.S. economy and imports from China are a small portion of all imports. Those from China amount to 2.2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Mexico, he says, is genuinely stressed by China, whose exported products "overlap" with nearly two-thirds of Mexico's. China's exports overlap with 5 to 10 percent of America's economy. Rising imports from China predominantly replace those from other lower-skilled countries. Were China to be pressured into revaluing its currency in isolation, Goolsbee says, America would not start making the kind of toys it has been importing from China -- America would import toys from Vietnam.
Thus, if we have to have Obama in the White House, it is nice to know that at least a little bit of Chicago's business culture has rubbed off on one of his economic consultants.
One of the most prominent people on his domestic team up until now has been Austan Goolsbe, a University of Chicago professor who many expect will to head President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. He is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (GSB) among many other distinguished positions and recognitions; many of them progressive and aligned with the Democratic party. Although a UofC professor, he was not a part of the Milton Friedman school of thought as he received his degrees from Yale and MIT (PhD).
Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has some quirky ideas, after all he is a Democrat, about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.
Mr. Goolsbee has a record and history towards supporting globalised capitalism and no apparent desire for large scale redistribution. If you recall, he caused a bit of turmoil earlier in the year for telling the Canadians not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA language in the primaries and while campaigning. Although those were low level discussions and Goolsbee did not necessarily speak for the administration, his record in writ and in the classroom tend to support his free-trade tendencies. This is further supported by Obama's other economic director, Jason Furman, an economist in the Clinton administration and a top aide to John Kerry in 2004. Furman is a staunch free-trader who once praised WalMart and has even favoured lower corporate taxes.
Back to Goolsbee: he is a proponent of markets when it comes to income inequality as well. The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety that has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill."
In 1980, people with college degrees made on average 30 percent more than those with only high school diplomas. That disparity has widened to 70 percent. In the same year, the average earnings of people with advanced degrees were 50 percent more than those with only high school diplomas; today, it is more than 100 percent.
The market is shouting "Stay in school!" and Goolsbee's conservative colleagues at Chicago say a high tax rate on high earners is "a tax on going to college." Conservatives say: Don't tax something unless you are willing to have less of it. But Goolsbee says: Conservatives often exaggerate the behavioral response to increased tax rates. The solution is to invest more in education, which will raise wages, reduce inequality and move toward equilibrium. The GI Bill was, he says, so prolific in stimulating investment in "human capital" -- particularly, college education -- that for a while the return on it went down relative to high school.
"Globalization" means free trade and various deregulations that supposedly put downward pressure on American wages because of imports from low-wage countries. Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says that "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; so do auto mechanics, dentists and many others.
Goolsbee's rough estimate is that technology -- meaning all that the phrase "information economy" denotes -- accounts for more than 80 percent of the increase in earnings disparities, whereas trade accounts for much less than 20 percent. This is something congressional Democrats need to hear from a Democratic economist as they resist free trade agreements.
As regards China, Goolsbee -- who favors a tougher approach, especially through the World Trade Organization -- notes that all imports are only 16.7 percent of the U.S. economy and imports from China are a small portion of all imports. Those from China amount to 2.2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Mexico, he says, is genuinely stressed by China, whose exported products "overlap" with nearly two-thirds of Mexico's. China's exports overlap with 5 to 10 percent of America's economy. Rising imports from China predominantly replace those from other lower-skilled countries. Were China to be pressured into revaluing its currency in isolation, Goolsbee says, America would not start making the kind of toys it has been importing from China -- America would import toys from Vietnam.
Thus, if we have to have Obama in the White House, it is nice to know that at least a little bit of Chicago's business culture has rubbed off on one of his economic consultants.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Obama and Respect
In January of 2008, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Gordon Hinckley) passed away.
Barack Obama responded in a couple of simple, yet compassionate ways. First, he personally called President Monson (then the presumptive new leader of the Church) to express his condolences. This is what Obama said: "Last night I spoke with President Thomas Monson and expressed my deepest sympathies to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the passing of President Gordon B. Hinckley". Surely, this is a simple gesture. Additionally, most people in this country probably didn't even know who President Hinckley was, or even cared that he died. It was a sign of sensitivity and class that Obama personally made a phone call to express his sympathies. Secondly, he cancelled a rally in Utah that happened to fall on the same day as President Hinckley's funeral. Obama understood that President Hinckley was more than just a religious leader--he was a man who was proactive in extending the hand of friendship to people of all walks of life throughout communities across the globe. Obama's gesture was a true sign of respect. There are groups of people who view the Mormon church as out of touch with mainstream Christianity--or even a cult. Even though he doesn't ascribe to Mormonism, Obama displayed a high level of class and sensitivity by acting in such a way. He could have gone on as scheduled--not paying any attention to the events of a seemingly insignificant western state--and the media would not have criticized him for doing so. However, his touch of sensitivity impressed me. His seemingly insignificant gestures didn't attract much media coverage, but for those of us who were paying attention, it gave us a glimpse of Barack Obama's character.
Other than Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), I am not aware of any other Presidential candidate who expressed similar condolences. As somebody living in Utah, I was pleased to see that Obama valued what was going on in this state. It seemed that he truly cared about Utah's residents, and viewed Utah as more than just another state on his Super Tuesday campaign trail.
Barack Obama responded in a couple of simple, yet compassionate ways. First, he personally called President Monson (then the presumptive new leader of the Church) to express his condolences. This is what Obama said: "Last night I spoke with President Thomas Monson and expressed my deepest sympathies to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the passing of President Gordon B. Hinckley". Surely, this is a simple gesture. Additionally, most people in this country probably didn't even know who President Hinckley was, or even cared that he died. It was a sign of sensitivity and class that Obama personally made a phone call to express his sympathies. Secondly, he cancelled a rally in Utah that happened to fall on the same day as President Hinckley's funeral. Obama understood that President Hinckley was more than just a religious leader--he was a man who was proactive in extending the hand of friendship to people of all walks of life throughout communities across the globe. Obama's gesture was a true sign of respect. There are groups of people who view the Mormon church as out of touch with mainstream Christianity--or even a cult. Even though he doesn't ascribe to Mormonism, Obama displayed a high level of class and sensitivity by acting in such a way. He could have gone on as scheduled--not paying any attention to the events of a seemingly insignificant western state--and the media would not have criticized him for doing so. However, his touch of sensitivity impressed me. His seemingly insignificant gestures didn't attract much media coverage, but for those of us who were paying attention, it gave us a glimpse of Barack Obama's character.
Other than Mitt Romney (who is a Mormon), I am not aware of any other Presidential candidate who expressed similar condolences. As somebody living in Utah, I was pleased to see that Obama valued what was going on in this state. It seemed that he truly cared about Utah's residents, and viewed Utah as more than just another state on his Super Tuesday campaign trail.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Obama of Hyde Park
As a University of Chicago graduate and proud alumni, I have a profound love and admiration for Hyde Park, Illinois. It is quite an iconic location on the South Side of Chicago with the Lake on the East Side, the Midway to the south, the interesting 47th street on the north, and an abrupt western boundary near cricket, baseball, and soccer fields.
I have to disagree with Andrew Ferguson's June 16th Weekly Standard piece about "Mr. Obama's Neighborhood" (an interesting read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/197wxqsf.asp). In the article, Ferguson says, "Hyde Park is different from any neighborhood in Chicago - different from anywhere in American for that matter...The place seems unrooted. It's neither one thing nor the other...it lacks the surprises and variety of a healthy city neighborhood." He goes on to call the community "gated" and "elitist". And perhaps most scathing, Ferguson says that “Everyone seems from somewhere else”. Is Hyde Park different and elitist???
True the undergraduate slogan is "where fun comes to die", and the university has been rated the least fun in the country narrowly edging out Army, Navy, and the Coast Guard Academy. You are likely to find a population that enjoys devouring couscous and other far eastern cuisines while discussing Robert Frost poetry and Kierkegaard. Dogs and cats are named after astrologers, poets, and literary heroes. Corduroy runs amuck. It might be the only place in the country where professors in tweed jackets on bicycles, carefree children with homemade instruments and art projects, athletes, nerds, musicians, environmentalists, Marxists, supply-side economists, and panhandlers can run into each other at an intersection at the same time and think nothing of the encounter. The dating can be summed up: where the odds are good but the goods are odd!
All around this beautiful, traditional campus lays an impoverished ghetto with much crime, drugs, and violence. I used to work at Kozminski elementary school on 54th street. The children were nearly all black, poor, and most likely to fit your stereotypes of South Side Chicago (although it continues to see its testing improve and has a very dedicated and vibrant teaching class that works amazingly hard). The surrounding area is quite unlike the campus community with its comfortable condos, million dollar mansions (think Louis Farrakhan right around the corner) and a plethora of student housing as most students live off campus after their mandatory freshman year in the dorms (the University police department is one of the largest in the country and its officer to citizen ratio is pretty high; keeping the campus area quite safe despite its rough neighborhood).
It is within this mixed area that Barack Obama lives; not too far from Kozminski Elementary where I spent many undergraduate days. For a very wealthy, educated, and famous man, he lives right in the midst of the community. One could walk right up to his front step (before he required Secret Service protection and attention of course), around his home, passed his children on their way to school and so on without even knowing that this important man lived there. Within a few blocks of his home were crime, poverty, drugs; yet he chose to live in Hyde Park and remains a proud and devoted citizen. Most people would not feel comfortable walking the neighborhood even during the day.
It is a man who is willing to be real and not use his fame and fortune to “escape” the realities of the world that I would like to be my president. A man who lives amongst people and joins the struggle while being an actual part of the community should demand our respect. Too many politicians deliberately live in their golden towers, far removed from the ordinary people that make this country diverse and great. Barack Obama lives in my famous, quirky little paradise Hyde Park.
Ferguson was wrong. Depending on the somewhere else you’re from, Hyde Park’s shifting identity can offer all the surprises and variety needed to make you stay. It was enough to make Obama stay and for that, I can be proud of him!
I have to disagree with Andrew Ferguson's June 16th Weekly Standard piece about "Mr. Obama's Neighborhood" (an interesting read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/197wxqsf.asp). In the article, Ferguson says, "Hyde Park is different from any neighborhood in Chicago - different from anywhere in American for that matter...The place seems unrooted. It's neither one thing nor the other...it lacks the surprises and variety of a healthy city neighborhood." He goes on to call the community "gated" and "elitist". And perhaps most scathing, Ferguson says that “Everyone seems from somewhere else”. Is Hyde Park different and elitist???
True the undergraduate slogan is "where fun comes to die", and the university has been rated the least fun in the country narrowly edging out Army, Navy, and the Coast Guard Academy. You are likely to find a population that enjoys devouring couscous and other far eastern cuisines while discussing Robert Frost poetry and Kierkegaard. Dogs and cats are named after astrologers, poets, and literary heroes. Corduroy runs amuck. It might be the only place in the country where professors in tweed jackets on bicycles, carefree children with homemade instruments and art projects, athletes, nerds, musicians, environmentalists, Marxists, supply-side economists, and panhandlers can run into each other at an intersection at the same time and think nothing of the encounter. The dating can be summed up: where the odds are good but the goods are odd!
All around this beautiful, traditional campus lays an impoverished ghetto with much crime, drugs, and violence. I used to work at Kozminski elementary school on 54th street. The children were nearly all black, poor, and most likely to fit your stereotypes of South Side Chicago (although it continues to see its testing improve and has a very dedicated and vibrant teaching class that works amazingly hard). The surrounding area is quite unlike the campus community with its comfortable condos, million dollar mansions (think Louis Farrakhan right around the corner) and a plethora of student housing as most students live off campus after their mandatory freshman year in the dorms (the University police department is one of the largest in the country and its officer to citizen ratio is pretty high; keeping the campus area quite safe despite its rough neighborhood).
It is within this mixed area that Barack Obama lives; not too far from Kozminski Elementary where I spent many undergraduate days. For a very wealthy, educated, and famous man, he lives right in the midst of the community. One could walk right up to his front step (before he required Secret Service protection and attention of course), around his home, passed his children on their way to school and so on without even knowing that this important man lived there. Within a few blocks of his home were crime, poverty, drugs; yet he chose to live in Hyde Park and remains a proud and devoted citizen. Most people would not feel comfortable walking the neighborhood even during the day.
It is a man who is willing to be real and not use his fame and fortune to “escape” the realities of the world that I would like to be my president. A man who lives amongst people and joins the struggle while being an actual part of the community should demand our respect. Too many politicians deliberately live in their golden towers, far removed from the ordinary people that make this country diverse and great. Barack Obama lives in my famous, quirky little paradise Hyde Park.
Ferguson was wrong. Depending on the somewhere else you’re from, Hyde Park’s shifting identity can offer all the surprises and variety needed to make you stay. It was enough to make Obama stay and for that, I can be proud of him!
Obama in Berlin
Visit this link for a full transcript and video of Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, Germany.
This speech was attended by nearly 200,000 people--by far the largest crowd that Barack Obama has ever seen. The fact that so many people went to hear him speak in a foreign country is amazing to me. According to reports, Berliners apparently loved his speech.
Admittedly, there is nothing in this speech that would qualify it as "policy" or "platform" rich; however, it certainly seems that Obama has something intangible--he has a leadership style that can inspire people, and it could even improve relations with our allies and foes world-wide. Certainly, voting for somebody based solely on charisma and charm can lead to disaster and disappointment. However, one thing that Barack Obama has going for him is the ability to get people excited about government and politics. In a time when the image of the US is suffering abroad, his open leadership style could be a boon for future American foreign relations. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his policies, this is admittedly a huge strength.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)