Lifelong Republican, Voting for Obama

With two weeks left until the Presidential election, I have remained up until now an undecided voter.  I have been a lifelong republican (for reasons I’ll allude to below), but am a now a true independent with a particularly integral view of the world.  This election I will be voting for Barack Obama.

First, before I summarize why I’ve chosen to vote for Obama, let me add a few points of preface.  First, our form of democracy was established such that change occurs very slowly, regardless of who is in office or congress.  This characteristic, thus far, has worked well by ensuring that competing forces and a moderating structural system has kept the country largely on a plodding but improving course through history.  All of this to say that the rhetoric about this being the most important election in a generation is not a statement of fact but a statement of passion.  I think all elections are of some importance, but none are of particularly great importance.  This is actually the deep brilliance of our system of government.  So I don’t believe that an Obama administration or a McCain administration will be a final and grand deciding factor of our fate in the 21st century.  Also, I think this view enables a more rational, less emotional, less biased, and more integral capability of evaluating the candidates given the current conditions we face.

Second, both candidates and platforms are flawed in ways that a transpartisan voter will find conspicuous.  To the extent that both candidates are political products from our two major political parties - who by definition have enacted the values of their respective socio-political movements, with all their attendant historical baggage and political IOUs - both bring deep limitations to an integral voter seeking a transpartisan approach that can transcend and include the valid but partial strengths of both traditional conservatism and traditional liberalism.  And it is obvious to the integral voter that who we will choose to vote for is the person who best reflects back to us our most strongly-identified part of ourselves - much like the choices we make in fashion or autos or jobs or houses is one where we see some idealized version of ourselves identified with and reflected back at us in those products and lifestyles choices.  So awareness of how we strongly identify, and conversely disassociate, with the different reflections we see is a critical capability of the integral voter.  And a state practice where we begin to build a transpersonal view of self will serve to make us better voters as it diminishes the influence of political rhetoric and lessens the passions born of fear as we react to the partiality of any candidate.  If America at large were capable of voting this way, we’d see political discourse become smarter, deeper, more evolved, and more significant.

What follows is a summary of how I made my decision to vote for Obama.

Because he is black.  I disagree with several of Obama’s policies and philosophical presuppositions, but I am not a party voter nor a single issue voter.  In this election we have been given an opportunity to symbolically and in the most potent gesture available to a body politic heal a wound that has existed since this country’s birth.  If America is a young adult, then real and perceived racial bias is our first and final major developmental pathology, and this opportunity to heal it is in the grand scope of America’s life story a benefit that by orders of magnitude outweighs all other policy and party differences.  This is not a political vote, it is a vote to heal the human race.

Because capitalism will have to be forced to grow up.  Capitalism (along with religion, art and education, in my view) is the most powerful force for change for good in the world.  It is also just a system, values-free and brainless. It produces what it is told to produce, which is dictated by the values of the people who operate within the system (values which aren’t changing fast enough).  Capitalism is not capable of accounting for the externalities (hidden costs) of natural environment degradation and climate change, nor, as a blind system, does it have any real incentive to do so.  Solutions to environmental degradation are the most pressing and legacy-defining issue of our time (another degree or two of increase in average temperature on earth and we probably reach a self-propagating tipping point of accelerating heat-capture), and I believe that Obama understands the complexity of what’s at stake and has the political backing in the liberal movement to effect the changes that will only come through political force domestically and, globally, exemplary leadership on behalf of the world’s largest economic superpower.

Obama evidences a later-stage of human development than McCain.  It is fairly clear that in general McCain tends toward absolutistic language and caters more to security and self-esteem needs.  Obama tends to more nuanced, more contextually-sensitive, more cognitively complex (all of which he has been criticized for), and tends to evoke themes of self-actualization.  Incidentally, I think this is why Obama attracts younger voters.  (Though the downside of the self-actualizing levels is narcissism, I believe this level is the leading-edge from which our culture is conditioning our youth’s view of themselves.) Now, I admit to not knowing whether later-stage development is better in our President at this stage in history.  I believe that it is.  But I think George W. Bush might be the best thing to have happened to this country in a long-time.  At least in my lifetime I cannot recall the country being so introspective about our role in the world, our values, and our relationship to the constitution on which we were founded.  In a larger time-scale view, great growth is always preceded by great suffering, and it is hard to know which leader will be more pivotal to our long-term development.  But as I haven’t seen any data to inform this decision otherwise, I’ll bet on Obama’s integral capabilities as immensely important to the successful navigation of the Iran problem, climate change, human rights and moral leadership, better global governance and others.

McCain’s judgment in Sarah Palin is problematic.  I think McCain made a choice that was smart in the short-term and fatal in the long-term.  I made this prediction in these pages two months ago and it has played out as I expected.  She energized the base and put the Democrats back for about a month as they tried to figure out how to respond to her choice without sounding marginalizing.  And they did the smart thing: by ignoring her they allowed her lack of credentials to become her undoing.  But this also bespeaks too much about McCain: he is impulsive and ultimately by choosing Palin evidences a traditional worldview that is problematic and underqualified for the complexity and progressivity of America’s badly-needed global leadership at this juncture.

In fairness, here is where Obama worries me.

Philosophy of culture.  I worry about Obama’s capability to understand the philosophical problem inherent in the financial meltdown and our responses thereto.  The meltdown has not been a problem of deregulation or capitalism gone bad.  Those are mere symptoms of a culture that has been conditioned to believe that consumerism is what will fill the existential void that accompanies rejection of the interior life.   The financial meltdown was stupid and avoidable, but also warranted.  I am disappointed in both Obama and McCain for voting for the bailout.  We needed to learn that choices have consequence and that populist solutions that just seek to protect American citizens from the values-growth they inevitably have to undergo is only postponing this growth.  This whole episode and the attendant bailout may have retarded the values-growth of our citizenry for another generation by teaching them that instead of saving money, living within their means, and seeking the deeper compensation of the inner life, that instead government is where we look when we need protection.  Obama might really believe in the liberalism that holds that broader social policy is a cure for this disease, but it is obvious that it does nothing but address the symptom and pass it on for another generation to solve.  Of course, McCain didn’t vote against the bailout, so he failed, too.

Tax and fiscal policy.  McCain is right to look to incentivize saving (i.e., prudence and delayed gratification) by lowering the capital gains rate.  Instead of replying that this benefits the rich, we should be asking how do we encourage everyone to live in such a way that over time they too develop wealth.  Higher savings would also help us to lower our trade deficit, strengthen our currency, and keep interest rates manageable.  So I think Obama’s just wrong on the capital gains rate increase (though he has made it more populist by only imposing on those with more than $250,000 in annual income).  But, among the many other reasons Obama is getting my vote is that right now there is no true fiscally-conservative party in the U.S. Republicans of the past ten years don’t even recognize their own party - we talk about teaching creationism in school and we spend like our children don’t count - so I’m part of the missing middle that is hoping that Obama will demonstrate constraint and fight his own party’s deeply entrenched interests to spend our way through this downturn (though evidence suggests otherwise, like the hundreds of billions of pork that was tacked on to the bailout).

Economic ethnocentrism.  If the republican party has the corner on social bias/discrimination in the U.S., from positions on homosexuality, to traditional values to gender roles, the democratic party has the corner on economic bias/discrimination, from support of ethnocentric unions, ethnocentric protectionist trade policies, and judgmental marginalization of people because of their income or wealth.  I think about what the planet needs over what just Americans need, and I don’t believe that policies that unfairly preserve American capitalistic interests at the cost to African farmers (or others) is the type of economic discrimination we should accept, and I hope that over time the democratic party begins to find a worldcentric sensibility in its economic policies (which won’t happen anytime soon given its union base).  Globalization is a tremendous force for good if we can balance our needs with others’ while also accounting for environmental impacts.

So my vote is for Obama.  Even as I write that I am surprised of just how much of a mess the republicans have made of their own party.

Cross-posted to my Integral Life blog.

Comments

[Siri Dhyan Singh]

Hi Robb,

Do you see unions being able to progress? Collective bargaining power is a very important tool for working people. Union employees are generally better paid and have better benefits.

Some places like american apparel and whole foods have managed to avoid them because they actually meet the needs of their employees, but if you're at a company with ethnocentric leadership then you sure as Sh!# want a strong union.

At the same time I recognize problems with the unions and their protecting absolute crap employees. Having been a student in LAUSD I can testify that there are several teachers who do their job very poorly. Allowing administration to punish them is difficult because that power has been wielded with ethnocentric (or lower) bias quite often historically. I'd like to see the unions police themselves but that hasn't evolved yet.

Another anecdotal piece is that working for UC Berkeley in food service I saw many decently paid workers (myself included) not the most enthused about actually serving the customer in a way that engendered their repeat business above and beyond our local 'monopoly.' At some point I went back to visit campus and found a private cafe at the student library which was run by employees who I expect made significantly less than the unionized employees, yet provided more energy and enthusiasm with their customer service . . .

It is a complicated one to unwind.

Another interesting look at this is the documentary 'born rich' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457140802142500840) where an heir to the procter and gamble family fortune basically skewers the idea of america being a meritocracy from his perspective.

Please share your thoughts :)

[No good choices, but Obama wasn't the best one]

You are correct in your analysis that the candidates were both lacking. And I also agree that this election has been rife with rhetoric from both sides. Will this be the most pivotal election in US history? Nope, not even close, even with the media hype about how monumental it is to have a black president.

First of all, when Obama takes office, he still won't be the first black president. He will be the first president that has descended equally from a white parent and a black parent. He is no more black than white, so I think it very "ethnocentric" and disingenuous to label him as black. Such a label only seeks to polarize a vote based on his race, which is both a bigoted reason to vote for someone and a rationale that lacks in cerebral involvement. Would it be OK for people to choose McCain because he is white?

The other thing I disagree with is your assumption that Obama can basically do no harm since congress historically moves slow on change. While your premise is basically correct, the exception to the rule occurs when you have a super majority of one party in the house, senate, and presidency. Since we now have that super majority, we are going to see unprecedented collusion, payback of special interest lobbyists, and outright theft of taxpayer dollars. We saw the same thing under George Bush during the first 2 years as Republicans completely abolished the "conservate" moniker in favor of the spending spree democrats are noted for. Since Democrats have never really hesitated to spend tax payer dollars, and since no one can stop them at this point, I think we are all in for a disastrous borrowing spree over the next 4 years. How about a tax rebate for the lower income earners? Let's just borrow the money from China and we'll pay it back to them "whenever". How about national healthcare? Well, let's see, that takes money too...let's extend our line with China. How about bailouts for the auto industry...but wait, let's not bail out all of the auto industry - just the ones that were members of the American Auto Workers Union that helped get us elected. And let's extend our credit line with China to pay for that too. Yeah, that's wise spending 101.

By the way, let's raise taxes on "big business" so that we can offset all our spending projects, right? That will bring more money into the government coffers, right? Wrong and wrong. Time and time again, history has shown that raising the corporate tax rate does several things: (1) it discourages consumer spending. Consumers don't want to pay the higher rate that businesses charge for the same products and services they were getting cheaper before the tax hike (2) businesses have to cut back on employees because of reduced consumer spending. The easiest way for business to adapt to a decrease in consumer demand is to decrease their workfore (3)Less money is collected by the government in tax since there is less corporate revenue to tax

I know this is a difficult concept for the election day liberals (those that don't understand politics, but think the handouts sound like a nice idea), but it is really quite simple. Taxing businesses at a higher rate DOES NOT INCREASE TAX REVENUES!

The best we could have hoped for in this election was a mediocre John McCain who would have vetoed the democratic spending legislation. Nothing big would really get accomplished, but damage would have been minimal. As it now stands, we are positioned to incur some of the greatest debts our country has ever seen. Oh well, at least we have the nation's first half black half white president, right?

[Greg Gardner]

Robb,

I appreciate this blog. I, too, voted for Obama this year for many of the reasons that you sited. However, white guilt was not one of them.

There is however an additional reason that I wanted to share. I believe that 80% of the political discourse in this country is transitive. In other words, 80% of the argument is manufactured for the consumption of the hardened left and right. 20% of the debate is substantive.

This situation has lead to one of the most politically polarized times our country has seen. I fear that the situation is so serious that unless someone can really unite this divide, we are in for some really tough challenges ahead.

Few political leaders have the kind of talent necessary for this challenge. Obama does and has stated that he wants to unite our country. I voted for him because I am taking his word for it.

We will know fairly shortly whether or not these were just words but if he follows through on this, he will get my vote again in 08. If not, this will be a very short 4 years for Barrack.

Greg

[Robb Smith]

Greg - Time will tell on Obama, but what I was citing was not a matter of white guilt. I was citing one important way to heal a long-held cultural developmental pathology in the U.S. I think Obama's election is the most significant opportunity to do so and it is already clear just in the past 2 months that the notion of racial limitation has lost its hold as a credible social narrative. But this had to take place in the interiors of those who felt that way, not for those of us who have never experienced it.

Siri - I cannot generate a single argument that defends the existence and role of unions in a post-industrial economy. Another reason I think the bailouts are a tragedy for our auto industry.

No good - Obama is black, or if he isn't than that word doesn't mean anything. Technically, any signifier (i.e., word) is subject to the interpretive act of the user in a process of signification (i.e., interpretation) and thus words will only ever be a sliding and slippery reflection of an underlying ontology they can never quite approach. So while your rejection of "Obama is black" is true for you, it is also deeply partial and not stochastically true for the culture in which you are submerged (i.e., the culture at large interprets that Obama is black). Technically, the truth is both and neither.

By assuming that my suggestion of a vote for Obama because he is black is an ethnocentric move, you are committing a pre-trans fallacy. Both the pre-moral and trans-moral move focus on skin color as significant but for entirely different reasons. You assume that I am assigning a pre-moral normative value to Obama's skin color, which would indeed show up as bigotry, racism and the like. When one moves past this moral stage, developmentally, one begins to attempt to ignore skin color at all costs in an attempt to disassociate from the skin-color considerations of his/her prior moral stage of development.

I am assigning a trans-moral value to his being black in that his skin color is not only not constitutive of his character (a moral capability that emerged when I moved into a conventional moral stage) but it is also not insignificant as a reaffirmation of capability for Black Americans (a capability of post-conventional moral considerations). Recognizing that Black America suffers in part from a self-esteem crisis does not make me a racist (a pre-moral bias) but ignoring it also does not solve the deep limitations inherent to ignoring skin color altogether (conventional). Only in a post/trans-conventional view can one see how obvious this developmental healing is from a cultural standpoint.

As for fiscal and monetary policy, it's too long of a conversation to get in here, but let me summarize my position briefly: both parties are a disaster, very few people understand economics, and hopefully the crash comes that will put us back on a 100% gold standard where we will be forced to show some long-term fiscal and monetary discipline. We're so far from laissez-faire society that it's scary, and both parties are clueless.