Lileks doubts Obama's magical healing powers

That known environmental and climate change heretic James Lileks apparently has some doubts about the all-healing powers of Barack Obama:

On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It's a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isn't a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. You're pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They don't.

If he wins, I do look forward to dissenting; since it's been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect. Shhhh! He's dissenting.

Among the arguments offered by the callers:

* He will help save the planet by encouraging everyone to recycle cans and bottles and paper (the caller discussed a local drought, and said she did not think that recycling would stop it, but if everyone recycled — something she thought Obama would bring about through a general new era of ecological concern — future droughts would not occur.)

* He will pay for college tuition (the caller thought tuition was too expensive, and did not want to be burdened with loans)

* He will meet with the Iranians, personally, and conduct a frank personal interrogation about their nuclear intentions

* He will inspire the Youth of America to get involved in politics again

* He will prevent American companies from moving manufacturing overseas (The caller was unsure how this could be done, only that it would be done, because it should be done)

* He will not raise taxes on anyone except maybe millionaires (The caller was surprised to be asked if Obama would raise taxes; it was a strange, peculiar, irrelevant issue)

* He will give everyone health care (This would make American industry competitive, since companies would be freed of the obligation of making it an employee benefit)

* He will talk to the Europeans

And so on. There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. I remember the same zeitgeist afoot in the land in 1992; change was the mantra then, too. Odd how things turn out — I'd be happier with Hillary as President than Obama, simply because she seems a bit more seasoned and realistic. And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone's ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don't mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.

Although it's (obviously, from these sample responses) easy to poke fun at the Obamaniacs, I still have to say that the idea of Hillary Clinton as President bothers me even more than the idea of President Obama. Clinton is as reflexive an authoritarian as you're likely to find in modern American politics. She is as strongly anti-market in her economic rhetoric as she is communitarian in her social rhetoric. About the only thing that would keep the US economy running smoothly during another Clinton presidency is that the President actually has fairly small ability to make changes over the economic side (certainly compared to the powers of congress).

On the other side of the fence, I think John McCain is likely to be the Republican candidate, and he's remarkably similar to Clinton in his views on the economy. For a Republican, he'd make a fine Democrat on economic issues. Both Clinton and McCain are likely to continue existing intervention in the affairs of foreign nations (not just in the Middle East, but more so there than elsewhere)

If you prefer your government to keep its nose out of the economy, and avoid creating or exacerbating foreign tensions, you're probably out of luck regardless of who wins the election in November.

Update: Jeff Taylor has some thoughts on the election:

Is Barack Obama more Michael Dukakis or Bill Clinton? Don't laugh. The answer is far more salient to who becomes the next President than feverish declarations that Obama in the heir to JFK or that McCain is really Winston Churchill.

Let's also stipulate that Hillary Clinton should not be forgot — not until the last spark of energy is wrung from her battle-chassis will she concede, and perhaps not then. Still in her playbook — the triple-whammy cry, where she and Bill and Chelsea all cut loose. Don't rule it out.

But the GOP's electoral offering is locked in stone, and one half of the November equation is set. McCain has an absolute ceiling as a candidate above which he cannot rise. He cannot out-debate or out-speechify his opponent, and he is prickly and prone to outbursts. In short, voters absolutely must prefer him on substance, not style, for McCain to win.

So, what about that substance? Here we find McCain in favor of perpetual war in Iraq, possibly a new war with Iran, an immigration reform process loathed by conservatives, and rewriting the First Amendment to protect incumbent federal office holders, plus hatred of earmark spending and support for tax cuts, then opposition to tax cuts, now morphed into a pledge against future tax hikes. Overlay this with a general suspicion of all motives not directly tied in to government "service" and you have a candidate with something to offend very many voting blocs.

Now recall that in 1988 Bush I was a similar polyglot — East Coast blue blood, Texas oilman, Nixon Republican suspicious of "voodoo economics," loyal Veep to Hollywood shaman — but he had the considerable advantage of running for Ronald Reagan's third term. And that was enough to beat a Dukakis.

Four years later a rudderless Poppy was helpless before Bill Clinton's mix of energy, outsider myth, and rope-a-hope symbolism. Whatever we can say today about Obama, surely one of the truest things is that stylistically he is no Dukakis. If so, McCain must find some substantial difference to hold up in front of voters or go the way of GHWB and the last aging senator/war hero the GOP coughed up for commander-in-chief, Bob Dole.