Like my colleague, I have no love of public funding for campaigns. I think it makes it too easy for government to control parties and candidates. So I am not exactly sorry if Obama has driven the nail into the coffin of the public financing system. Likewise, I do not think that Obama acted differently than any other viable candidate would have in the same situation. Were the circumstances reversed, John McCain would certainly be offering the same lame excuses as Obama is now offering, or if not, he would think of others, equally as lame. I would like to think that SDP would not, in that case, be making incoherent arguments in defense of McCain, but that is no solemn pledge on my part.
But it's not out of line for us to point out that Obama is breaking a solemn pledge (see SDP's Jason Heppler), and that he is acting against the principles his party claims to stand for. I am therefore puzzled at the reaction of our esteemed Keloland colleague, Scott Ehrisman. Scott seems to think that public financing is like holy water in a vampire movie: it makes all evil scream in pain and withdraw. I think that's utter nonsense, but one did believe it, wouldn't one be furious with Obama?
The New York Times is deeply disappointed.
The excitement underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election.
Mr. Obama is the first presidential candidate to rebuff the public system’s restrictions for the general election since they were enacted after the Watergate scandal. In doing so, he pronounced the public system “broken” and turned away from his earlier strong suggestion — greatly applauded at the time — that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate to preserve the publicly subsidized restraints this fall [my emphasis].
Barack Obama has done unprecedented damage to the public system. The Washington Post agrees with the NYTs, and what is more interesting, the Post points out that Obama agrees.
BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.
Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.
Now I think it is nonsense for the Times to talk about "departing from self-interested politics." Politics is always a tapestry woven out of a vast number of self-interests. The trick is to weave them into coherent positions on the public good. In a regime with freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, you can't shut out those "greedy lobbyist boot lickers" that Scott despises. They will find some way to use their numbers and purses to influence politics. Besides, they shouldn't be shut out. The unions, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, have every right to want to use their clout to advance their interests in Washington. So do the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the NRA. Obama will need their support after the election. It's a good idea to get it now.
What this incident shows is not that Obama is a bad man or bad candidate. It shows that he is a candidate. This is how they behave, like it or not. I am not shocked or offended by this. But someone who believes that Barack Obama represents a new kind of candidate, a departure from the politics of the past, might find this a convenient time to come back to planet earth.
Recent Comments