Why I’m Supporting Obama (In Letter Form)

By Daniel Miessler on September 11th, 2008: Tagged as Obama | Politics

A couple that is friends with my girl and I are big McCain supporters. They were devastated when they found out I was supporting Obama. I asked them to come talk about it over dinner but they refused, saying they’re likely to get too upset about it.

They said to send an email, which I have included below. It’s not cleanly edited, but I think it captures much of the essence of my arguments. I may clean it up later if it resonates and make it a real post.

–

So here’s my pitch. Let me start by saying that I’m sorry we can’t have this discussion in person, but I understand that it can be an upsetting topic. I hope you’ll reconsider, however, and perhaps consider that it’s o.k. for friends to get upset with each other within the context of intense discussion without it affecting the relationship adversely. In other words, I’d be nice to be able to have the conversation(s), get upset, and then move on to more pleasant topics and/or other heavy ones that we agree on.

Just think about it. If you don’t want to then that’s fine too.

Anyway, I think the best place to start is where we agree. I think we’re both self-starters who take control over our own destinies and take responsibility for our actions. I also think we, to some degree, look down on those that do not do these things. Fair enough. I have very strong feelings in this area, and that’s why I originally supported Ron Paul—the Republican/Libertarian candidate. He’s a guy with core, original Republican views who was praised repeatedly by Reagan. He is also exceedingly honest—which is something I value very highly.

On the other side, however, I also am aware of the fact that people don’t make choices without influence. Young children in Saudi Arabia, for example, don’t “choose” to become Muslim. They just do. Similarly, “trashy” people do not “choose” to become trashy. They just do. This is a fact. There is very little choice in the matter.

Where I break with the liberals is in saying, “They’re victims, so we have to just leave them be. It’s not their fault.” My stance is that regardless of whose fault it is, the problem still exists. There are still bars on the windows of my liquor stores. I still have to lock my doors at night. This problem is infringing on MY freedom, therefore it must be handled.

I liken this problem to that of a child playing with a firearm. You shouldn’t just let them do it because it’d be “wrong” to infringe on their rights. They’re killing themselves. It’s sickening. And we as a responsible society need to take the required steps to keep it from happening. This does NOT mean giving them sustenance to keep them happy. All they do is multiply and continue causing additional suffering to themselves and those around them.

No, what’s needed is much more direct and intervention-based. I’m not sure what that is, but it involves re-educating their children out of their lifestyle while simultaneously removing the negativity. That’s a topic in and of itself, so I’ll leave it at that.

My point is that I am NOT for taking money from the intelligent and prosperous and using it to perpetuate failure and suffering. In fact I’m strongly against that. See Ron Paul.

However, I’m also against building a societal structure where the intelligent, educated, and powerful do not try and fix the problem. I do not support internal isolationism, whereby the rich seclude themselves in nice areas and allow the trash to fend for themselves. It may sound like a good idea, but the rich cannot survive alone. They need a middle class, and that’s who they’d be killing if they tried this.

So we do need social programs, but programs designed at rescuing young minds, not placating those who we’ve already lost. I am against throwing money at the failure of the lower class in an unintelligent way. All that does is perpetuate the failure.

So that brings us to Obama.

I will be disappointed if he initiates any sort of programs that placate the suffering masses rather than try and keep them from perpetuating. But I won’t be bothered by ANY potential social program. Again, we NEED our middle class, and it needs a rescue. It just needs to be based on logic rather than emotion.

So if he ends up being for a bunch of lame social programs, I’ll be against that. And I’ll make that known via letters to my representatives.

I am also pro 2nd Amendment. Obama recognizes it but says local government should be allowed to place restrictions on it, as he supported in Chicago. I do not like this. It’s a mark against him, in my opinion.

Taxes.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen the actual tax charts put out by each campaign. Here’s the summary. If you make less than 111K, you get more taxes back from Obama, not McCain. McCain helps those above that more, which I understand includes you. It will also include me very soon, but I’ll still support the Obama plan.

Why?

Because the middle class is the base of the country. We in the creative class don’t live without them. That’s why the country is in such bad shape now. If there is no spending because people have no money, the rich are screwed. So I support bolstering the middle/working classes in order to allow the go-getters to continue to thrive. In short, if the economy fails, we’re all screwed—not just the poor.

Giving the tax cuts mostly to the rich is part of the isolationist campaign I talked about earlier. It means we’ll do better for a while, but the core of the country will rot. We’ll have small, secured parts of the country where we can move, and the rest will be taken over by trash. That is not America. If you want to remain at the top of a great nation you have to support the ability of every American to make it to the center. Again, no handouts—but fair chances.

Science and Religion.

We differ here, so perhaps there won’t be much agreement. Basically, I support abortion and stem cell research, and I abhor the idea of creationism being taught next to real science. I equally hate the idea of abortion being used as birth control, but it’s honestly a better solution than a country full of unwanted babies. To me it’s a calculation of suffering. More suffering comes to more people when unwanted babies are brought into the world than comes to the tiny fetuses that are aborted. That’s cold and harsh, but I see suffering as the main thing to avoid.

National Security.

This is something I am knowledgeable on. Not only do I do security for a living (the concepts are very similar regardless of area), but I also served in the Infantry for 6 years. So I’ve thought about it a lot. Here are a few things to consider.

Threats have the ability to increase at a far greater rate than we can defend. We cannot possibly prevent attacks here if we make enough people angry. The Bush / McCain strategy is to be an asshole with a large Army. It’s a horribly bad idea. We are far less safe now than we were after 9/11 simply because we’ve increased the number of people who want to do us harm, and we’ve lost support in the world.

World support is CRUCIAL. World support determines whether or not we’re respected as a Military. We cannot be alone. We were not alone in the Cold War with Reagan. We had the world behind us, because they saw how dangerous the Soviet Union was.

Well, now the roles are reversed. We’re the hated ones, and there is world support for attacking us.

This will only get worse with McCain, who is known for being a hotshot with a bad temper. Many who have served with him in the Military say he should not be President for this very reason. He can blow up and do things that will have major repercussions.

Obama is a truly ideal person for national security. Here’s how.

Obama will walk right into Putin’s office. Or the leader of Iran, or whoever…with a plan. He’ll lay it out to the ENTIRE WORLD. I’m going to offer this package. They say no. He says, “Ok, no problem. How about number 2 option?” They say no. He says, “Ok, how about this final option? Please work with us. Please work with the world.” They say no.

Here’s the good part.

WHEN OBAMA TURNS HIS BACK, AND SAYS TO THE WORLD, “I tried everything. They cannot be reasoned with.”

THE. WORLD. WILL. BELIEVE. HIM.

This is so important. More than anything. It means when we unleash our Military, it will be furious and without contention. Because it will truly be a last resort, and everyone will know it.

It’s complete transparency. It’s trust. It’s a statement that we will talk as much as possible, but if someone will not listen to logic we will take action. And the action will have WORLD SUPPORT.

Contrast this with McCain.

If McCain goes behind closed doors with Putin or anyone else and walks back out and says, “We have to go to war.”

NOBODY WILL BELIEVE HIM.

We’ll have a failure before we even start.

Our own military knows this. Why do you think the military is donating more to Obama’s campaign than to McCain’s? (look it up—it’s true). It’s not because they’re cowards and want to come home; it’s because they want to be respected in the world, which makes them more powerful. They need to be wielded by someone who commands respect.

McCain is simply another Bush. That’s why he’s voted with him 90% of the time — and 100% of the time in 2008.

In short, the quality of character determines trust. And Obama is trusted based on how he conducts himself and is willing to talk. This will make his use of the Military that much more formidable.

Experience.

This brings me to experience. Quite simply, experience is nothing compared to character. The majority of generals know we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq at this point. Obama was against it. That’s character, and that’s judgement. He says we should talk to our enemies. The Republicans disagreed until the whole world ridiculed them into doing exactly what Obama said. Now they’re over there talking to Iran just like Obama said. That’s character and judgement. The same goes for setting a time to leave Iraq. Obama said it first. And Iraq agreed. And now Bush agrees. Same thing.

Even more important than Obama having character, McCain has BAD experience. He supported a plan to have illegal aliens pay $5,000 for citizenship. The Republican’s killed him over it. Just a year ago the Republicans hated the guy. He’s flipflopped on more things than can be counted. He’s not trustworthy. Seriously. Amnesty for illegal Mexicans? For a fee? And citizenship? Look it up. It’s disgusting.

So I’m not one bit worried about Obama not being “tested”. His judgment is what matters, and we can see from his history on Iraq and his take on diplomacy that he was right about these things where McCain was wrong.

In short, I’m much worried about McCain’s BAD experience than about Obama’s supposed lack of it.

Freedom and the Constitution

I’m seriously afraid of having our constitution trampled on (A major, old-school Republican theme). McCain’s rhetoric is that of fear. He’ll build up the Patriot Acts, increase surveillance, and remove all kinds of additional freedoms in the name of “security”.

It’s not American.

Obama will resist this sort of thing, as you saw with his backlash against Palin on the “reading the terrorists their rights” issue. He, like Jefferson, knows that anyone who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Also, keep in mind that Obama has some knowledge and background in this due to his law degree from Harvard.

–

Ok, last push….

Bottom line:

Obama is not perfect, and if he were running against someone with his character and less socialist policies back home I’d be voting for him instead. And I’m not so sure about the socialized health care either… He’s far from ideal.

But to me foreign policy and security is the top priority. It affects everything—including our currency and our economy. And that perception of America—our public face—is what defines our prosperity.

Obama will rebuild that. McCain will do it more harm. Potentially WAY more harm.

This, combined with the McCain/Palin embrace of creationism and general rejection of science, says to me that Obama is the BETTER pick here. We have much bigger problems than a few too many social programs. We need to rebuild our education system and become a force in the world again, and this is done by bolstering our middle class, not by helping people like you and me separate from the garbage at the bottom. If we do that America will fall very soon.

So, with that…I await your response.

Warm regards,

-Daniel

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 26 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    Wow dude! I'm glad you support Obama but a lot of what you've written is racist. You could learn a lot by spending time with these "trashy people" who just "keep multiplying".

    • ^
    • v

    Jason, the majority of trashy people in the United States are white. Just because black people are included doesn't mean that mentioning trashy people is racist. If black people come to mind when someone mentions "trashy people" then that's your problem, not mine.


    I am, however, going to have to clean up my use of the word "trash" and/or find better synonyms for it. The language is a bit harsh, but not in the way you're thinking.

    • ^
    • v

    In regards to your tax argument, I believe it's incorrect. Sure, the plan right now is that Obama will help those making less than 111k. But what about when he implements the Socialist program known as Universal Healthcare? And by the way, you're kidding yourself if you don't think UH is Socialist. It would be state run healthcare! How much more "Russian" can you get?


    Back to my point. Obama has all these grand ideas of providing health care to all who need it. Sure, people like myself who make a decent living can always have private insurance, as long as I still put into the government healthcare program. Can people not see how this will end up exactly like Social Security? Either Obama will raise taxes to support UH, or UH will utterly fail (like Social Security) due to lack of funding and very, very poor management by the government.


    So no, if Obama wins, NO one is going to be getting any tax breaks.

    • ^
    • v

    Daniel (regarding your response to Jason),


    I do not believe that your statements about "trashy" people is racist (as you pointed out, it has nothing to do with race) or in any way prejudiced, though I can see how it could be construed as such.


    Many people confuse truth with prejudice. If I infer that a Hispanic person I know is Catholic, my statement would be considered racist, even though I'm simply making an assumption based on the fact that a great majority of Hispanic people are Catholic (something like 75%).


    I guess what I'm saying is that, though one should be careful with blanket statements, one should not be afraid to point out facts.


    The point of fact in this matter is that "trashy" people are more likely to have a greater number of children, either because they are less likely to user birth control methods or because the find some benefit to having more children.


    I also disagree that you shouldn't worry about finding synonyms for terms like "trash". In my opinion you should not placate your audience with political correctness by sacrificing a choice word or two. Sometimes a harsh word or two is necessary to prove a point. A spade is a spade, no matter what you call it.

    • ^
    • v

    Daniel,


    You are far from perfect, but damn you're good. This is an awesome essay. I plan on pointing people at it to help support my arguments. I think your analysis of McCain's approach to foreign policy is incredibly concise and insightful.


    The one thing your essay doesn't address that is probably as import to your philosophy as well as the continued health of this nation is the national debt. We went from surplus to record debt. Aside from the fact that this flys in the face of stated Republican values, it means that more and more of the value of this country is in the hands of foreign nationals. These are the same people whose behavior we need to watch, and watch closely.

    • ^
    • v

    Brilliant, brother. I will be sharing this with others.

    • ^
    • v

    Blessed are the trashy!

    • ^
    • v

    Daniel, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think you're kind of a dick.

    • ^
    • v

    Canry666,


    Thanks for being honest. I ask you to please read some other stuff of mine and see if it changes your mind. If you're like Dale, it probably won't, but it's worth a shot.


    But I'm willing to listen to anything and am willing to change my mind when exposed to a better model.

    • ^
    • v

    Republican or Democrat I would like what's best for America. Another dose of the same is NOT what America needs.


    I would be curious to know of the response from your friends. (If they still are your friends)
    Getting upset or angry over discussing political views with friends and or family defies what America is all about. If you can't keep it civil then go live somewhere else.

    • ^
    • v

    Very good.


    I'd add to it with the methods used by the GOP to win power - lies and distortion. They are shameless about it and rely on low information voters to accept the GOP version of events.


    Also, who would want to be on the same side as O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Guiliani, etc.?!


    McCain has run on a ticket of his experience over Obama's supposed lack of it - but then he selects Palin as VP! Given the age of McCain it is a realistic possibility that Palin gets to sit in the Big Chair. This is hypocrisy writ large.


    McCain has voted 95% with Bush (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/isit<...) - and yet he claims to represent change! More hypocrisy. Does anyone want continuation of the last 8 years?


    I could go on.... :)


    Good luck convincing your friends to do the right thing.

    • ^
    • v

    In response to Jonathon's comment "It would be state run healthcare! How much more 'Russian' can you get?"


    I believe you meant "It would be state run healthcare! How much more English, Irish, Welsh, Scoth, Canadian, Chilean, Brazilian, Peruvian, Cuban, Uruguayan, Venezuelan, Austrian, Belgian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech Republican, Dutch, Finnish, Estonian, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Maltan, Norwegian, Latvian, Polish, Portuguese , Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spainish, Swedish, Swiss and Russian can you get?"

    • ^
    • v

    To Jonathan,


    It is not Argument to simply declare something to be "Socialist" -- this word only provides a label for the concept (I could label it "shoehorn" -- equally meaningless unless I provide an explanation of why that would be a bad thing) -- in this case health care for all. Please give this a moments thought -- aren't we already providing health care for all? How could it be otherwise? Currently if someone is without insurance, they now go to a hospital and because of idealists like Hippocrates, doctors must assist people who need care -- regardless of their ability to pay.


    Why not leave things as they are? Well, currently we spend more per person for health care than any other country in the world and we have lower overall quality than many countries that spend less (I won't quote exact statistics but they are all about the same). Maybe that works for you. It seems like a waste of money to me. I think we have two choices -- eliminate the Hippocratic Oath and stop providing medical care to anyone who can't afford it or look seriously at how we now vend medical care and attempt to do it more efficiently so that all can be served and the quality can be improved. Consider the efficiency of "wellness care" as opposed to emergency treatment many receive as one way to save money.


    Or, suppose you choose option one (attractive in the "I've got mine school") -- I suspect that you might choose this, given your comments about health care and social security. Let's consider that choice. It is really very easy. Just read history. Start in about the 10th Century. Society was perfectly stratified. The King, his noblemen and the Church did pretty much whatever they wanted and the serfs, well, they did what they were told. This sounds like where you would like to live -- provided you had sufficient privilege. I'm assuming that you are not advocating this from the position of a serf. Well, from your point of view, this must have been a capitalist free-market paradise. How did we get here if that was so perfect? Read about it. You'll understand the importance of habeas corpus (as Palin said, "less interested in protecting you from terrorists than reading them their rights."), the birth of the ideas that founded this Country -- a nation of laws, not men. Please learn about these things. You are repeating things that you have heard but you don't know what they mean. We have done these things already. It was called the "Dark Ages" for a reason. I don't want to make the great leap backwards.


    Unless you are one of the few people internationally who really are the ruling elite, you are being duped. Do you really think that you can be a member of that club? They are letting you do their dirty work and you have no clue. I suspect that you are a job and a savings account away from poverty -- what actual capital do you own? Wake up, get educated and try not to be so selfish!

    • ^
    • v

    Coming from a 'socialist country' (Belgium), i feel the need to clarify a few things. Socialism isn't communism (it's not even close ...). We have 'left' and 'right' parties too, but even the 'right' parties wouldn't dream of taking away of healthcare of education. So we don't call those thing 'socialist', they just are.


    I honestly don't understand why you guys are so afraid of National Healthcare. Every European country (and a LOT of other countries) has it, so just pick the system you like best. We've had them for dozens of years, it should be easy to see what works and what doesn't.
    I don't understand what you have against it because:
    1. We pay less, a LOT less. The average cost for a European = $2100, the average cost for an American = +$5000. You'd be saving a lot of money!
    2. Not only would you be paying less, EVERYONE would have healthcare! Is that really a bad thing?
    3. The quality of healthcare would stay the same (again, just look at european countries).
    4. People with healthcare go to the doctor faster. Preventative medicine is cheaper. Getting a tetanus shot is a lot cheaper than amputating an arm (just an example).
    5. The most important thing: a healthy society is productive society!
    6. And don't worry about government regulated programs so much, would you really want the fire stations to be privately owned (and maybe not respond when they can't make a profit?)
    So to recap: you'll get exactly the samehealthcare, only cheaper and you'll even be helping out the less fortunate (and yes, maybe some people who don't deserve it ...). What's not to like? (honestly, i don't understand your perspective)


    There are even a few other 'socialist' systems that are also great. Like education for everyone. Basicly in Belgium, it costs us $500 a year to go to a university. If you don't earn a lot, it's $100, if you're near minimum wage (which is a LOT higher than in the US), it's free. And the quality of all these universities is absolutely superb.
    This probably sounds like a gigantic waste of money to you guys, but it's not.
    Belgium has absoluty nothing of value ... except a nation of highly skilled and educated workers. Which is why Flanders is one of the richest parts of the world. By getting a nice paycheck each month and paying my taxes, i'll earn back my education.


    Now on the other side: Belgium's taxes are way too high. It really is ridiculous. I also don't like the fact that unemployed people get money too easily. I'm not some 'lefty liberal fanatic', hell my last vote was for a party on the right. So it's not all great, but some things really are.
    And considering those 'leftist' European countries have a strong economy, you might want to take another look at why we're doing so good. I'll give you a hint: it's not tax cuts for the rich.
    And considering the worth of the dollar halved in a few years time (compared to the euro), it's hard for me to imagine that even the rich like the economic system in the US.


    ps: according to a very recent poll conducted in 22 countries around the world: We'd ALL choose Obama. Outside of the US, Obama wins with 80% vs 20%. So we're kind of baffled by how well McCain is doing.
    Not written by me, but a perfect reflection of how Europe (and maybe even the world) feels about the US election: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/se...>

    ps2: I commend you for explaining your views to your friends in such a friendly and reasonably way. Nicely done.

    • ^
    • v

    McCain's not perfect, and I don't agree with him on all things, but he's a Darn site better than Obam and supports Pro-Life. If we don't hold up the precious sanctity of life, whether on the battlefield or in the womb, the other issues are mute.


    RE: Science & Religion.


    So why don't we just go ahead and kill all the lame, elderly, mentally retarded, and other unproductive members of society who are 'suffering' and draining our social assistance and health programs. That will lower our taxes. They cause suffering to the others in society that must care of them .... just like the unwanted 'fetuses'!! Sounds like the Nazis! (That's where this type of logic/disregard for human life can lead.) "I equally hate the idea of abortion being used as birth control, but it’s honestly a better solution than a country full of unwanted babies. To me it’s a calculation of suffering. More suffering comes to more people when unwanted babies are brought into the world than comes to the tiny fetuses that are aborted." A calculation of suffering? A better solution? Destruction of a few for the good of the many (premeditated)? Come on! Have you ever researched how abortions or partial birth abortions are performed? Liquids injected into the womb that disolve/burn the skin til the baby dies and then it is scraped out of the womb; having their skulls crushed and brains suctioned out through a tube! To say these babies don't suffer is appalling!


    BTW, there is more scientific support for Creationism than Evolution. (Remember, it's called the "Theory" of Evolution.)


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/


    Just some things to ponder ......

    • ^
    • v

    If firemen refused to put out your burning house because you're not paying them a monthly fee, would that seem unreasonable to you?


    If so, then why is healthcare run that way?

    • ^
    • v

    @ Pro-life Supporter


    More scientific support for Creationism? There isn't a single solitary published paper in ANY scientifically reviewed journal even ABOUT Creationism, let alone supporting it. If you honestly believe what you've written, you are in no way a scientist or have access to any scientific journals.


    The usage of the word "theory" in science, for example, is the exact OPPOSITE of the usage of the word in day-to-day speech. A scientific theory is your highest level of confidence, not your lowest.


    @ Johnathon


    UHC doesn't need to cost more. There was a side-by-side comparison done in the late 1990s between the US system and the Canadian system and which found that they gave roughly equivalent care, but that the per capita cost for the Canadian system was about 1/4 of that of the US. Think about it ... yes, government run businesses have waste. Unfortunately, so do private companies. It's called "profit". Every dollar of profit is a dollar that isn't paying for care, medical supplies or medical staff. That's the very definition of waste.

    • ^
    • v

    Hmmmm more scientific support for Creationism than Evolution. From where? The Bible? And how many times has that been re-written and by whom?
    Certainly not going to take it from some biased brain washing website.

    • ^
    • v

    "trashy" people might be better characterized by the label "undereducated" or "low socioeconomic status"... the experience of such a lifestyle can lead to disillusionment and depressive behavior... calling them "trashy" is highly dismissive of the components of the problem.