Robert Meyer
Why I won't be voting for Obama
By Robert Meyer
Just over three years ago I believed there was no way Obama could never win re-election. But if the election for president was held today, Obama would likely win, perhaps decisively in the Electoral College tally. So where did I go wrong? I made the mistake of thinking that a majority of people would see the Obama phenomenon the second time around, the way I saw it the first time. It might have been easy to believe the sentimentality and sensationalism that propelled Obama in 2008, would be fleeting glory this time. That may be true in some cases, but it is not as widespread as I anticipated.
Okay that's a quick thumbnail explanation, but it doesn't say anything about why I won't vote for Obama. First, let me tell you that I am economically situated with the 99%, although I'm not ideologically loyal to that mentality. For much of my life I have been in blue-collar occupations (including my current job) that lean heavily toward liberal political positions. I probably would qualify as one of those people with a traditional democratic profile.
Of course, many people vote for candidates in a party based on family tradition or economic identity. Some people tend to say "I've always been a Democrat and I'll always be a Democrat." But that sort of blind loyalty ignores that what was considered liberal at the time of J.F.K., might pass for right-of-center today. The Democratic Party of today is hardly the party with that same name of yesteryear. It's not your father's Democratic Party. For example, President Kennedy's inaugural admonition to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, seems a foreign platitude in today's liberal platform. One sees little of that sentiment watching the recent political convention of Obama's party.
That is my initial point of departure. While all of us need to make a living, and to some extent it's normal to be loyal to our wallets, it should never be such an overwhelming consideration that it defines each of us. The people who I have always admired most are those capable of limiting their personal interests, for what they perceive as benefiting the whole. My formal education is in business administration and finance. I can't help thinking that if I had chosen a career in those disciplines, I might be expected to have a different scheme of political loyalties — yet I'd be the same guy. There is something perversely robotic about the presumption that one's occupation must determine their political affiliation and economic philosophy. Obama seems to play socioeconomic stereotypes to his advantage. It's much more than just class warfare, it is fostering resentment and jealousy in people, building an entitlement mentality, and subscribing to the idea that true social justice demands equal outcomes. And I can't think of anything more annoying then the repetition of that ambiguous phrase "paying your fair share."
In the circles where I run, much was made out of Obama's associations and his mentors. In his own autobiography, Obama never was shy about telling those willing to read it that he "chose his friends carefully," though he meant something different by that than you would expect. Anybody can get caught up with a few bad apples that they need to disown, but what bothers me more than anything is that nobody seems to care about who influenced their president.
Undoubtedly, many people voted for Obama thinking his election would be a big step forward in closing the racial divide that has been an ugly spectre in this country's history. Many thought voting for Obama could assuage personal guilt over America's racist past. That may have been a reasonable assumption, but that expectation has gone largely unfulfilled, if it hasn't experienced a complete setback. In my opinion, Obama's tendency to pit groups against each other resulted in a squandered opportunity to further Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. A better course of action is to be for or against a candidate based of whether you agree or disagree with the idea's promoted by the candidate, regardless of his or her race.
Obama frequently invokes biblical themes in his economic speeches. Despite these allusions, it would be difficult to find someone who is a greater foe of the cultural principles held by pro-life Christians. Government imposed wealth redistribution has become a virtue that exceeds voluntary personal charity.
I find it interesting that no matter how much the Obama administration spends, it is justified by the supposition that the monies spent staved off a certain depression. Such a claim is largely speculative, depending on whether the assumptions of Keynesian economics are true. Such policies may have, in fact, prolonged the great Depression, rather than brought us out of it. Notice the same thing in principle is rejected as it applies to former president George W. Bush. Few people run around saying that Bush's aggressive stance on terrorism just might have kept America safer than it would have been otherwise.
I haven't even mentioned Obamacare yet, but that one was too obvious.
I could go on further, but this is only an editorial piece, not a book.
© Robert Meyer
September 14, 2012
Just over three years ago I believed there was no way Obama could never win re-election. But if the election for president was held today, Obama would likely win, perhaps decisively in the Electoral College tally. So where did I go wrong? I made the mistake of thinking that a majority of people would see the Obama phenomenon the second time around, the way I saw it the first time. It might have been easy to believe the sentimentality and sensationalism that propelled Obama in 2008, would be fleeting glory this time. That may be true in some cases, but it is not as widespread as I anticipated.
Okay that's a quick thumbnail explanation, but it doesn't say anything about why I won't vote for Obama. First, let me tell you that I am economically situated with the 99%, although I'm not ideologically loyal to that mentality. For much of my life I have been in blue-collar occupations (including my current job) that lean heavily toward liberal political positions. I probably would qualify as one of those people with a traditional democratic profile.
Of course, many people vote for candidates in a party based on family tradition or economic identity. Some people tend to say "I've always been a Democrat and I'll always be a Democrat." But that sort of blind loyalty ignores that what was considered liberal at the time of J.F.K., might pass for right-of-center today. The Democratic Party of today is hardly the party with that same name of yesteryear. It's not your father's Democratic Party. For example, President Kennedy's inaugural admonition to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, seems a foreign platitude in today's liberal platform. One sees little of that sentiment watching the recent political convention of Obama's party.
That is my initial point of departure. While all of us need to make a living, and to some extent it's normal to be loyal to our wallets, it should never be such an overwhelming consideration that it defines each of us. The people who I have always admired most are those capable of limiting their personal interests, for what they perceive as benefiting the whole. My formal education is in business administration and finance. I can't help thinking that if I had chosen a career in those disciplines, I might be expected to have a different scheme of political loyalties — yet I'd be the same guy. There is something perversely robotic about the presumption that one's occupation must determine their political affiliation and economic philosophy. Obama seems to play socioeconomic stereotypes to his advantage. It's much more than just class warfare, it is fostering resentment and jealousy in people, building an entitlement mentality, and subscribing to the idea that true social justice demands equal outcomes. And I can't think of anything more annoying then the repetition of that ambiguous phrase "paying your fair share."
In the circles where I run, much was made out of Obama's associations and his mentors. In his own autobiography, Obama never was shy about telling those willing to read it that he "chose his friends carefully," though he meant something different by that than you would expect. Anybody can get caught up with a few bad apples that they need to disown, but what bothers me more than anything is that nobody seems to care about who influenced their president.
Undoubtedly, many people voted for Obama thinking his election would be a big step forward in closing the racial divide that has been an ugly spectre in this country's history. Many thought voting for Obama could assuage personal guilt over America's racist past. That may have been a reasonable assumption, but that expectation has gone largely unfulfilled, if it hasn't experienced a complete setback. In my opinion, Obama's tendency to pit groups against each other resulted in a squandered opportunity to further Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. A better course of action is to be for or against a candidate based of whether you agree or disagree with the idea's promoted by the candidate, regardless of his or her race.
Obama frequently invokes biblical themes in his economic speeches. Despite these allusions, it would be difficult to find someone who is a greater foe of the cultural principles held by pro-life Christians. Government imposed wealth redistribution has become a virtue that exceeds voluntary personal charity.
I find it interesting that no matter how much the Obama administration spends, it is justified by the supposition that the monies spent staved off a certain depression. Such a claim is largely speculative, depending on whether the assumptions of Keynesian economics are true. Such policies may have, in fact, prolonged the great Depression, rather than brought us out of it. Notice the same thing in principle is rejected as it applies to former president George W. Bush. Few people run around saying that Bush's aggressive stance on terrorism just might have kept America safer than it would have been otherwise.
I haven't even mentioned Obamacare yet, but that one was too obvious.
I could go on further, but this is only an editorial piece, not a book.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
