When compared to the yonks-long Democratic in-battle between Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, the actual US presidential election set for November begins to seem a tad anti-climatic. It shouldn’t. A young socialist black guy is going up against an old conservative white guy. It could only be more epic if each charged at the other over the plains of Narnia leading armies of laser-wielding piranhas.
Obama personificates the hopes of a nation weary of a warmongering Bush (whose recent popularity poll, incidentally, ranked him as slightly less desirable than being kicked in the groin), but his policies are not as ‘socialist’ as one would think it would be, coming from the more liberal Democrats. While Hilary would’ve taxed companies to pay for pro-worker initiatives and middle-class benefits, Obama’s campaign focused on providing incentives with pay-as-you-go fiscal policies as well as increasing taxes on the rich. He also courted the environmental vote and gave nod to labour laws. Similar tactics all in all in the Democrat camp, but the minor differences in regards to fiscal policies will matter in the long recession ahead.
On the other hand McCain seems to subscribe to the Reagan school of economic thought, tax cutting all the way. Most likely we’ll see further erosions on the dollar if he gets into the office, as well as a possible interest hike or two especially when he’s more or less given up trying to balance the budget in his presidency, what with his commitment to stay the course in the Middle East. However, he pledges safety and economic growth and these are wonderful things to whisper to the business class. His military record stands strong in his favour, as well as his five-year ordeal in the notorious ‘Hanoi Hotel’. It is interesting to note that he is in fact less conservative than he is made out to be: for one thing, Ann Coulter despises him so he can’t be all that bad.
As important as the economy is, the main jousts between the two camps centered on its foreign policy. Democrats plan for a withdrawal from Iraq, while the Republicans maintain that a strong show of force is essential for continued mainland security. Obama’s conciliatory approaches towards Ahmadinejad got him labeled as an appeaser by Bush recently and will most likely lose him a few votes from the more gung-ho states.
So who will win? Being the young man that I am, I’d cast for Obama if I were to have the chance. The Obama Girl is not so much of a tactic (even if it was, it'd still be a good one: I'll damn well vote for anyone Amber Lee Ettinger tells me to!) as an indicator of the sentiment of the younger voters. Issues such as the war and the environment, and how they are conveyed, matters more to them today than a few years back. Mc Cain is seen as an old foggy from a discredited party. Obama wins on the hip factor.
The black vote is a little harder to quantify. Its value has always been a bit overestimated what with blacks being quite disproportionately pandered upon despite only being 30% of the pop and even then many do not exercise their rights to vote. Bill Clinton relied on the black votes, nevertheless, to win his presidency as much as Bush Jr. relied on the evangelical vote showing that they will deliver. Problem is, Hilary Clinton campaigned with her husband’s political war machine with much of the same political base. To simply say that the blacks will vote for one of their own is being a little presumptuous, as would claiming the Democrat battle has embittered them all. The question of whether they will be cohesive enough to balance out the votes of the nationalists, the evangelicals and the businesses which would most likely be McCain’s.
What does it all matter to us Malaysians? Economically, it would be best to have some stability in the Mid-East. Boffins have calculated that the Second Gulf War cost the world eight trillion dollars in unnecessarily higher oil prices. With a poorer America, trade would drop and the world might enter a very inactive period that might last longer than any previous recession within these past two decades.
Higher oil prices driving up prices... increases in unemployment as demand falls… sounds a bit like the 1970s, ain’t it?
Obama personificates the hopes of a nation weary of a warmongering Bush (whose recent popularity poll, incidentally, ranked him as slightly less desirable than being kicked in the groin), but his policies are not as ‘socialist’ as one would think it would be, coming from the more liberal Democrats. While Hilary would’ve taxed companies to pay for pro-worker initiatives and middle-class benefits, Obama’s campaign focused on providing incentives with pay-as-you-go fiscal policies as well as increasing taxes on the rich. He also courted the environmental vote and gave nod to labour laws. Similar tactics all in all in the Democrat camp, but the minor differences in regards to fiscal policies will matter in the long recession ahead.
On the other hand McCain seems to subscribe to the Reagan school of economic thought, tax cutting all the way. Most likely we’ll see further erosions on the dollar if he gets into the office, as well as a possible interest hike or two especially when he’s more or less given up trying to balance the budget in his presidency, what with his commitment to stay the course in the Middle East. However, he pledges safety and economic growth and these are wonderful things to whisper to the business class. His military record stands strong in his favour, as well as his five-year ordeal in the notorious ‘Hanoi Hotel’. It is interesting to note that he is in fact less conservative than he is made out to be: for one thing, Ann Coulter despises him so he can’t be all that bad.
As important as the economy is, the main jousts between the two camps centered on its foreign policy. Democrats plan for a withdrawal from Iraq, while the Republicans maintain that a strong show of force is essential for continued mainland security. Obama’s conciliatory approaches towards Ahmadinejad got him labeled as an appeaser by Bush recently and will most likely lose him a few votes from the more gung-ho states.
So who will win? Being the young man that I am, I’d cast for Obama if I were to have the chance. The Obama Girl is not so much of a tactic (even if it was, it'd still be a good one: I'll damn well vote for anyone Amber Lee Ettinger tells me to!) as an indicator of the sentiment of the younger voters. Issues such as the war and the environment, and how they are conveyed, matters more to them today than a few years back. Mc Cain is seen as an old foggy from a discredited party. Obama wins on the hip factor.
The black vote is a little harder to quantify. Its value has always been a bit overestimated what with blacks being quite disproportionately pandered upon despite only being 30% of the pop and even then many do not exercise their rights to vote. Bill Clinton relied on the black votes, nevertheless, to win his presidency as much as Bush Jr. relied on the evangelical vote showing that they will deliver. Problem is, Hilary Clinton campaigned with her husband’s political war machine with much of the same political base. To simply say that the blacks will vote for one of their own is being a little presumptuous, as would claiming the Democrat battle has embittered them all. The question of whether they will be cohesive enough to balance out the votes of the nationalists, the evangelicals and the businesses which would most likely be McCain’s.
What does it all matter to us Malaysians? Economically, it would be best to have some stability in the Mid-East. Boffins have calculated that the Second Gulf War cost the world eight trillion dollars in unnecessarily higher oil prices. With a poorer America, trade would drop and the world might enter a very inactive period that might last longer than any previous recession within these past two decades.
Higher oil prices driving up prices... increases in unemployment as demand falls… sounds a bit like the 1970s, ain’t it?
