Okay, I'm discussing a Democrat today. No, I don't plan to vote Democratic, but I do have thoughts on some of the Democratic candidates.
Like many people, I first heard of Barack Obama in 2004, when he was about to give the keynote address for the Democratic National Convention. I listened to his speech on the radio, and I found it inspiring, even though I voted for Bush that November. One line that sticks out to me is this one:
"And [John Kerry] knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent."
Obama was promoting communitarianism. He wants America to be a nation where people care about one another. And, for him, that means big government. Sure, he denied that in his speech, but ask him (or most Democrats) what America should do about its problems, and he will rattle off a list of government programs.
My question is, "Does big government make America more of a community?" How does dealing with a vast, impersonal federal bureaucracy make people feel more connected? I remember watching Janice Rogers Brown on C-SPAN. As you may remember, Janice Rogers Brown was one of Bush's judicial nominees, whom the Democrats disliked for being "out-of-the-mainstream" (as if the Democrats were in the mainstream at that time). She said that having the federal government solve all of our problems discourages local communities from getting involved. For her, big government discourages community. She has a point. Big government does not necessarily make America more of a community. And small government does not have to mean utter individualism. Many conservatives have said that problems should be tackled by people who are closer to them, such as state and local governments, charities, and individuals. That promotes greater connectedness among Americans, not less.
As far as foreign policy goes, I think that Obama has gotten a bad rap, mainly from Hillary. Obama has said that he would talk to America's enemies as President, that he would bomb Pakistan, and that he would never use nuclear weapons. Hillary dismisses Obama as naive. She said that America needs leverage. And she is right. But why should we assume that Obama is making a gaffe? When James Baker III says that America should talk to her enemies, we're expected to go, "Ooooh, aaah! How sophisticated! If only Bush would listen to this expert rather than those neo-con numbskulls." Yet Obama says the same thing, and we're supposed to make fun of him? Or when George Wallace's 1968 running mate, General Curtis Lemay, said that we should not rule out using nuclear weapons, that was seen as a gaffe. So why is it a gaffe when Obama says the opposite? You just can't win!
Regarding social issues such as abortion, Obama's record is horrible. As both an Illinois legislator and as U.S. Senator, Obama opposed legislation that would protect babies who survive late-term abortions. See this article. Let's just finish them off, huh Barack?! And his stances in these cases made him more pro-abortion than the National Abortion Rights Action League. Imagine that!
For persona, I've always found him rather impressive. He comes across as a down-to-earth, humble guy. He seems to be a family man, for he spoke against "Obama girl." He also attends church. I know that Sean Hannity has criticized Obama's church for focusing on African-American concerns, but I don't see what the big deal is. What is wrong with a predominantly African-American church wanting to help its own community?
I will not vote for Obama, but he has gotten me thinking about some issues. I doubt he'll win the nomination (or, if he does, that he'll win the general election) because of his lack of experience. I mean, he's only been a Senator for three years, and before that he was a state legislator! But, then again, Rudy was only a mayor, and he has a good shot at the Presidency, so who knows?