I need help with this election thingy.
I don't get to vote, as I can't apply for U.S. citizenship for another 13 months. Frak. But if I could, I would be flummoxed by the lack of significant differences between the two remaining Democrats on the issues I care about most. Which would be climate change, the environment, and respect for science. Fortunately, my wife can vote, and given the tight race between Obama and Clinton, North Carolina's delegates might actually count for something when this state holds its primary in May, I have a chance to influence at least one voter.
The good people at Grist have assembled a handy dandy chart comparison the candidates' stances on various green issues, and it isn't much help. Both support cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Their proposals on renewables, clean coal nonsense and auto fuel economy are also pretty near identical. David Roberts tries to tease apart the two, but fails, concluding that "Between the two remaining Dems, neither their histories nor their campaign proposals yield an obvious green favorite."
That leaves us, says Roberts, with "second-order" concerns, specifically who can get a green agenda through Congress and who can get more Democrats into the joint. On that score, he writes "if I was forced at gunpoint to pick the greener Dem this election, it would be Obama", adding that "It's hard for green Democrats to go wrong this year."
Hmmm. What about nuclear power? Again, they are both wafflers. Although it looks like Obama has been friendlier in the past, as he has with the coal industry, what that means for their positions in the White House is unclear. The LA Times sicked a couple of reporters on the issue. They found that "companies that have a stake in the nuclear energy industry are giving large sums to Democrats running for president."
As for the rest of the environmental portfolio -- protecting wildlife and wilderness, for example -- nobody speaks a word.
And on respect for science, there is a smidgen of a gap. Science magazine's analysis of Obama notes that he
accused the Bush Administration of ignoring or distorting data to shape its decisions on sciencerelated issues. He promised the audience that his policies would be based on "evidence and facts."
Clinton, apparently, agrees, but in what Science describes as "the most detailed examination of science policy that any presidential candidate has offered to date" she promises
To end what she calls President George W. Bush's "open season on open inquiry," the 60-year-old lawyer and former first lady says that her science adviser would report directly to her rather than be "filtered through political advisers." Government advisory committees must not be hamstrung by political considerations, she adds.
Just words, of course. Is there anyone out who can provide an evidence-based argument in favor of either Democrat?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If nothing else, Clinton's got the experience to, you know, know how to go about putting platform into practice.
Prioritize. The first priority is to keep the presidency out of Republican hands. Neither McCain nor Romney should be President. Of course the religious zealot also should not be President, should he win the Republican nomination. That means the choice of Democrat must take into account electability. In my experience, there is such hatred of Hillary Clinton among some voters that it will make it hard for her to win some states that Obama might win. Therefore, I would choose Obama despite my preference for some of Clinton's statements of position on certain issues.
Under Bush, we have seen a dangerous expansion of executive power, of the sort not seen since Nixon. Which candidate, as president, is most likely to unwind some of this? I think the answer is clear.
Experience is not all equal. Clinton was first lady for a long time, and that was a long time when progressive policies took a back seat. Look at what she did with health care last time, or the pledge to end "the era of big government," or the abandonment of gays in the military. The first and last of those were platform promises that went nowhere. Or look at her capitulation on authorizing force against Iraq, and setting the stage for war on Iran. Experienced, perhaps, but not the kind we necessarily want more of.
Obama's experience is much more substantive. He crafted compromises in the divided Illinois legislature to reform the state's flawed death penalty, to protect murder suspects from police brutality, to increase children's access to healthcare, and on, and on. Plus, he spoke out against the war in Iraq when too many Democrats thought that was political suicide.
That's my evidence-based argument for Obama.
I'm not so sure of that, Russell. Obama strikes me as the sort who would use the expanded executive power "for good", at least initially. Who knows what he'd actually do, though? He doesn't really say.
Actually, he has said. Obama has said that one of his first three priorities as president would be to conduct a review of all executive orders signed by Bush, to rescind those that offend Constitutionality. Now yeah, that might be a campaign promise that fades once he is in office. Still, Obama has percolated this issue to what he names as a top priority.
If you wish, you can peruse my election research notes and conclusions comparing the candidates. The short version is that Clinton can take us back to the 1990s, which would be a big improvement on the current state of affairs, but Obama can take us forward.
As you correctly stated, there is only a minuscule difference in the policies of Clinton and Obama. From a policy perspective I would be very happy with either candidate. However I do believe that there will be a significant difference in each candidate's ability to get their policies implemented once in office. Clinton really is hated by many Republicans and I fear she would be just as polarizing as Bush has been. That means more partisan gridlock and nothing of substance will be accomplished. Obama doesn't elicit the same amount of hatred and therefore I think (hope) he has a chance to unite a majority and truly bring much needed change to the U.S.
It's interesting to see that Obama did not duck any questions here, while Hillary ducked a couple fairly significant ones (these are technology-related, not "science", per se):
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9864581-38.html
Here's Lawrence Lessig's incredibly articulate and moving argument for Obama over Clinton:
http://blog.printf.net/articles/2008/02/05/transcript-of-lawrence-lessi…
Yes, Clinton has the experience, but her track record on translating that into practice is poor at best. I'll be voting for Obama in our primary next week.
Lawrence Lessig's comments explain some big reasons why I voted for Obama in our primary.
Thanks, everyone. The arguments and links were most helpful.
I haven't encountered all that many people who seem to be bothered by this, but I find the thought of the American presidential succession being Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton to be intolerable. That looks like something that should belong in an English history book about the War of the Roses.
The historian Gary Wills made a related argument in the New York Times about the potential danger of having a president/ex-president combo in the WH, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26wills.html?ref=opinion