Is Barack Obama Like Franklin D. Rosevelt (FDR) To John McCain's Herbert Hoover?
Obama, like FDR, a good fit for Kentucky
By Charles Baker
This election year has a close parallel in U.S. history.
In 1932, the nation also faced an economic crisis: stocks were falling, banks were in trouble and unemployment was rising. A Republican was in the White House.
The GOP candidate, incumbent Herbert Hoover, preached a strong ideology founded on a belief in free-market capitalism. Like John McCain, this year's GOP nominee, Hoover supported balancing the budget by cutting programs, cutting taxes to promote growth and bashing — and blaming — liberals.
The Democratic candidate was by no means a liberal. Franklin D. Roosevelt also believed in a balanced budget and conservative fiscal policies. In his speeches, he did express more sympathy for the unemployed than his opponent did, but two factors eventually led to his election.
First, and perhaps most important, the financial situation was dire, and voters decided in favor of change.
Second, like this year's Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, Roosevelt seemed to exude a quality of optimism and self-confidence that drew people to him.
Born into wealth and privilege, Roosevelt voiced a conservative fiscal policy. But more than anything else, he was a practical leader. Faced with the grim days of the Great Depression, he was determined to try a variety of programs in search of something that worked.
And that must be our hope if Obama is elected: that he won't be bound by traditional conservative or liberal ideology, that he'll search for practical ways to get us out of the mess we're in. There are a number of signs that this could be the case.
In the health care debate, Obama's plan is not much more progressive than McCain's, but there are two important differences.
First, Obama's proposal more directly addresses the poor and those without medical insurance. Thousands of Kentuckians would benefit from this approach. McCain telegraphed his own beliefs by voting against the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Second, when Obama stated in the recent debate that health care should be a right — McCain called it a responsibility — the Democrat gave notice of his commitment to intervene in the out-of-control health care system, while McCain's plan is based on the defunct ideology that the market will cure all.
Obama also emulates Roosevelt by surrounding himself with advisers who voice a wide range of views. While McCain's pool of advisers is largely made up of those with a narrow focus on traditional Republican ideology, Obama's are not traditional Democrats.
His economic think tank, for example, includes traditionally conservative economists such as Paul Volcker, successful entrepreneurs such as billionaire Warren Buffet and non-traditional thinkers such as Jared Bernstein.
Obama stimulates a heated debate among his advisers and then makes up his own mind, a method for which Roosevelt was famous. McCain, on the other hand, seems to be frustrated by changing events, jumping from one position to another.
Most important, in regard to both health care and Social Security, Obama indicates he favors an end to the "Yo-Yo" (you're on your own) policy trend of the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, McCain's heath care tax credit and his warning that Social Security benefits will be less in the future, are a continuation of that downward slide that hurts the average Kentuckian.
McCain should get credit for his stance against earmarks — a rather awkward policy position for Kentucky's Sen. Mitch McConnell, whose supporters tout his ability to bring home the pork.
Kentucky, thanks in good measure to the independent and self-reliant nature of the good people of the mountains, usually takes a practical rather than an ideological approach to problem solving. This makes Obama a good fit for Kentucky.
Charles L. Baker is the retired mayor of Buckhorn. E-mail him at CharlieBaker@mac.com.
By Charles Baker
This election year has a close parallel in U.S. history.
In 1932, the nation also faced an economic crisis: stocks were falling, banks were in trouble and unemployment was rising. A Republican was in the White House.
The GOP candidate, incumbent Herbert Hoover, preached a strong ideology founded on a belief in free-market capitalism. Like John McCain, this year's GOP nominee, Hoover supported balancing the budget by cutting programs, cutting taxes to promote growth and bashing — and blaming — liberals.
The Democratic candidate was by no means a liberal. Franklin D. Roosevelt also believed in a balanced budget and conservative fiscal policies. In his speeches, he did express more sympathy for the unemployed than his opponent did, but two factors eventually led to his election.
First, and perhaps most important, the financial situation was dire, and voters decided in favor of change.
Second, like this year's Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, Roosevelt seemed to exude a quality of optimism and self-confidence that drew people to him.
Born into wealth and privilege, Roosevelt voiced a conservative fiscal policy. But more than anything else, he was a practical leader. Faced with the grim days of the Great Depression, he was determined to try a variety of programs in search of something that worked.
And that must be our hope if Obama is elected: that he won't be bound by traditional conservative or liberal ideology, that he'll search for practical ways to get us out of the mess we're in. There are a number of signs that this could be the case.
In the health care debate, Obama's plan is not much more progressive than McCain's, but there are two important differences.
First, Obama's proposal more directly addresses the poor and those without medical insurance. Thousands of Kentuckians would benefit from this approach. McCain telegraphed his own beliefs by voting against the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Second, when Obama stated in the recent debate that health care should be a right — McCain called it a responsibility — the Democrat gave notice of his commitment to intervene in the out-of-control health care system, while McCain's plan is based on the defunct ideology that the market will cure all.
Obama also emulates Roosevelt by surrounding himself with advisers who voice a wide range of views. While McCain's pool of advisers is largely made up of those with a narrow focus on traditional Republican ideology, Obama's are not traditional Democrats.
His economic think tank, for example, includes traditionally conservative economists such as Paul Volcker, successful entrepreneurs such as billionaire Warren Buffet and non-traditional thinkers such as Jared Bernstein.
Obama stimulates a heated debate among his advisers and then makes up his own mind, a method for which Roosevelt was famous. McCain, on the other hand, seems to be frustrated by changing events, jumping from one position to another.
Most important, in regard to both health care and Social Security, Obama indicates he favors an end to the "Yo-Yo" (you're on your own) policy trend of the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, McCain's heath care tax credit and his warning that Social Security benefits will be less in the future, are a continuation of that downward slide that hurts the average Kentuckian.
McCain should get credit for his stance against earmarks — a rather awkward policy position for Kentucky's Sen. Mitch McConnell, whose supporters tout his ability to bring home the pork.
Kentucky, thanks in good measure to the independent and self-reliant nature of the good people of the mountains, usually takes a practical rather than an ideological approach to problem solving. This makes Obama a good fit for Kentucky.
Charles L. Baker is the retired mayor of Buckhorn. E-mail him at CharlieBaker@mac.com.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 3:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home