Would America have been better off with President McCain?

by Guy Saperstein As we think ahead toward 2012, ponder this: Consider the possibility that we would be better off if John McCain had won in 2008. Heresy? Yes, but think about a few important points. Although TARP was passed during Bushs Presidency, it really was the beginning of Obamas term, as it could not have passed without Obamas strong public support and, indeed, as many books, such as Joseph Stiglitz Firefall, have outlined, he was intimately involved in the decisions which led to TARP, particularly the decision to pay Wall Street 100 cents on the dollar for toxic assets at a time when the private market was paying 20 cents, and decisions not to put strings and conditions on the money, such as requiring that 80% of the TARP money be lent out, not used for mergers and acquisitions, which have now enabled even greater concentration in the banking industry, thus putting the economy at even greater risk in the future. Could McCain have done any worse? If TARP had been viewed as a Republican plan all along, wouldnt the Democrats have been more vigilant in monitoring the giveaways to Wall Street? And, if McCain had been President, there would be no Tea Party today because they would not have arisen in opposition to Republican economic policies. Healthcare: Obama passed a Republican healthcare plan, one that originated with the Heritage Foundation, and which had the effect of

strengthening private insurance companies by adding 30 million new customers for them, without any meaningful cost controls. After running in the primaries against an individual mandate, as President, Obama promoted an individual mandate with no cost controls. It was an insurance industry wet dream, which is why they backed it with a $150 million ad campaign. Yes, it added coverage for millions, but it was a phony reform that will prevent real reform for a generation, or more. Even worse, it will lead to the collapse of the system because the costs which already are approximately DOUBLE per capita any other healthcare system in the worldare unsustainable. Had McCain been President, no healthcare bill would have been passed, but real reform would have remained on the table for a real Democratic President committed to Democratic Party values who would be willing to create Medicare for All, not shrink Medicare, as Obama did in the Affordable Healthcare Act by taking $500 billion out of it in alleged savings, and now by proposing to raise the age of eligibility and/or means-testing. With a Republican President, Democrats would have been more vigilant about protecting Democratic programs. A Democratic Congress would not have let a Republican President damage Medicare. Afghanistan: After the expensive fiasco in Iraq, would a Republican President have been able to shift from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency and escalate the war in Afghanistan? Maybe, but only over loud objections and close oversight by Congressional Democrats and the public. With Obama, Democratic opposition was muted and the war continues at an increased pace, while Obama privately tries to pressure the Iraqis to keep American troops there, at huge cost to American taxpayers. One of the major structural impediments to progressive change in America is the $1+ trillion we spend each year on defense, most of it

spent counter-productively. McCain might have succeeded in escalating the war in Afghanistan for a short while, but by now opposition in Congress and the country would have become irresistible. More importantly, at a time of calls for austerity and declining expectations, the public is less willing to continue to tolerate the expensive adventures of our military. With McCain at the helm arguing blindly for giving the military everything it wanted, the raw stupidity of the war in Afghanistan the stupidity of spending and trillions on defense would have become apparent to nearly everyone and real changes in defense spending would become possible. By contrast, with Obama, people gave him a pass on Afghanistan because he had opposed the Iraq war, opposition to the developing fiasco has been muted and there have been no real calls for reductions in defense spending, despite the possibility of reductions everywhere else in the federal budget. Worse, Obama has flat-out lied about defense spending cutbacks, exaggerating $8 billion in projected cuts to future programs into $400 billion in cutsa 50-1 ratio of deception that would challenge even Bush/Cheney. What Obama represents is bipartisan support for unconditional defense spending. With McCain as President, if we were talking today about deficit reduction at all, we would be talking seriously about including defense-spending cuts and when we elected a new Democratic President in 2016, there would be a far greater chance that we would legislate a new approach to security and a much-reduced defense budget. Bush Tax Cuts: There is no possible way McCain would have been able to continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That would have been the defining issue between Dems and Reps, the Dems would have been united in opposition, and tax cuts for the rich would not have passed. The idea of fairness and progressive taxation would have been

promoted, not undermined. But by dividing Democrats and legislating with Republicans, Obama accomplished something no Republican President would have been able to doand we are now paying the price in Obamas call for deficit-reduction, partly to make up the deficits caused by his tax revenue giveaways [including $282 billion of tax cuts in the stimulus bill]. Deficit Reduction: It now appears Obama is the one pushing for deficitreduction in the current debt limit negotiations, not the Republicans. Hes the deficit hawk; could McCain have been worse? Well, for starters, with McCain as President, we never would be in debt-limit negotiations at all, as McCain would have moved to raise the limit, just as every Rep president before him, and the Dems would not have objected. And if McCain had tried to cut entitlements, like Obama is willing to do, Democrats would have howled in outrage and been united in opposition. To recall some recent history, Bush tried for eight years to alter Social Security, Pelosi put up a good defense, and Bush failed. But in less than three years, Obama voluntarily has put Social Security [and Medicare] in more serious jeopardy than Bush, or any Republican President, ever managed to do. This is the lesson: On a variety of issues, Obama has been worse than a Republican because by dividing the Dems and pursuing Rep policies with Republican votes, he is capable of doing more damage to progressive values and legislation than the Reps can do on their own. The Economy: If McCain were President, he and the Reps would be getting blamed for economic stagnation; the emptiness of GOP economic theories would be plain to all. With Obama, we got a timid effort at Keynesian stimulus, followed by his unexplained pivot to Republican economic theoriessuch as the need for deficit reduction in

the middle of a recession. Obama has been so weak and conciliatory toward Reps, Democratic economic theories never really were tried. The economy will almost certainly go deeper into recession and Democrats will be blamed, so we get the worst of two worldsRepublican economic theories [promoted by a Democratic President] and blame for the Democrats. I could add many other issues where Obama acted as the Trojan Horse for Republican policies, but I think my point is clear: Obama is not governing as a Democrat, or with the Democratic Party. In fact, on issues such as Afghanistan funding, tax cuts for the rich, the bad February budget give-backs, he couldnt carry a majority of Democrats. Obama has divided the Democratic Party and governed with Rep votes. With McCain as President and the continuing lack of job creation, the Dems would have kept the House, not lost seats in the Senate, and the would probably have strengthened their numbers in both houses. Today, there would be a full-throated opposition, hammering at McCains economic failures and articulating an alternative vision of job creation. Instead, we have a DINO President espousing Republican economic theories with the Reps pushing the debate farther and farther to the right. Dems are not in the game; we have no voice in the national economic debate; Obama has defanged the Dems, divided them, made them voicelessas the economy melts. You want four more years of this? You want to dig a deeper hole? Then re-elect Obama. With austerity, we can safely predict the economy will stagnate and slide backwards. The Fed will do everything it can to prop up the economy and help Obamas re-election between now and Nov 2012, but they will exhaust their tricks by then and 2013-16 is likely to be very grim. I want the Reps to take the fall for that, not my party. I also dont want four more years of a DINO President intent on showing his independence by

hollowing out Democratic Party achievements. Five and a half more years of what weve seen from Obama for the last two and a half years and you can pretty much forget about the Democratic Party and Democratic Party programs. Some of you may argue that there will be one or more Supreme Court appointments in the next term. That is not insignificant, of course, but consider this: There is almost no chance any of the five Reps in the majority will retire in the next term; they are all either relatively young and/or healthy and none have made any indications they intend to leave, let alone leave an appointment to a Dem President. So there is no real chance that giving Obama a second term would fundamentally change the Supreme Court. The most likely next appointment will be to replace Ginsburg, who is not healthy, but replacing her with a Republican Justice doesnt change much, it just means more 6-3, instead of 5-4, votes. Is that enough of a consideration to override the many reasons why we should not want second term for a DINO who is melting down the Democratic Party and Democratic values? I dont think so. The core question is, do we want to limp along defending a failed President who has no allegiance to progressive values or Democratic Party achievements and then get blamed for the next 20 years for the economic non-recovery? Or do we want to get into oppositional mode and build a real progressive movement from the ground up in the expectation that a Republican Presidency in 2013-16 will fail, that Democrats will win back the Presidency in 2016 and not blow their opportunity a second time with a weak President, and that real change will become possible. Based on past performance with Obama, we can expect him to continue digging a hole for Democrats; giving him four more years most likely would mean the hole would be too deep to climb

out of. It is time for progressives to let Republicans take responsibility for digging that hole while we create an alternative. I, for one, vote for the long-term future, not unconditional support for a very weak President who has proved both incompetent and uncourageous on every single issue he has faced.