Dear editor,

Mr. Hoffman offered a very articulate column ["Why I'm supporting Barack Obama for president," January 16, 2008] on his support for Barack Obama. However, there are two key reasons not to, as well:

1) Mr. Obama’s Iraq policy is naive. His website sketches a plan for withdrawal and notes if al-Qaeda uses Iraq (“if”, as if al-Qaeda would bleed immensely to drive us out and then abandon its newfound prize), U.S. troops would remain “in Iraq or elsewhere in the region” to combat them. No details of how we would prosecute said missions while lacking contact with the Iraqi populace and having to fly hundreds of miles each time. No details of how he would handle de facto Iranian dominance of the world’s second-largest oil reserves. No details, beyond vaguely throwing around the terms “diplomacy” and “reconciliation”, of what compromises he expects from Iraqi politicians, how he would get them to accept those compromises, and how he would influence Iraq’s neighbors after having just lost a war. Further, his plan is built around getting us out of Iraq’s civil war… but if post-occupation violence turns genocidal (what are the chances?), he reserves the right to go back in.

To recommend withdrawal and acknowledge that we will have to live with the risks is a realistic, debatable viewpoint. To recommend withdrawal and propose we will somehow be more successful while sitting defeated on the sidelines is wishful thinking.

2) Mr. Obama’s pro-choice philosophy contributes to the long-term decline of the Democratic Party. Consider the following: According to year 2000 figures from Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the percentage of pregnancies ending in live births in Red Utah was 78%, while in Blue New York it was a dismal 53%; the percentages ending in induced abortion were 6% and 33%, respectively. While not as stark in other cases, this trend largely holds true between Red and Blue America.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the October 26 issue of USA Today reported that New York stands to lose two House seats after the next census. (The other losing states are Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Katrina-stricken Louisiana, which doesn’t bode well for the Blue side.) Presumably, they will eventually lose electoral votes, as well. So much for abortion being a “family values distraction” instead of a “real” issue.

Mr. Obama’s likable optimism and gifted rhetoric on unity feel good, but they are also old news – every presidential candidate promises to unite the country. As a hypothetical President Obama tries to manage policy on a chaotic Middle East and a global fight against terrorism, he will be a divider. When he applies a pro-choice litmus test to Supreme Court candidates, he will be a divider. When he presents the bill for his social initiatives and who he expects to pay for them, he will be a divider. All of this deserves consideration before we get caught up in Obama the persona, rather than Obama the president.

Bryan Kirchoff
University College

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under @Press. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.