Barack Obama's platform on five major presidential issues

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's Platform

The issues forming the basis of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barak Obama's platform are much the same as have been the platforms of democrats and republicans alike for decades. There are the issues of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Social Security reform, education funding reform, and, since Roe v Wade, circa 1974, the issue of abortion. In contemporary America, we can add to these three issues gay marriage, illegal immigration, and American healthcare. While the first three issues have been debated for decades, the latter two are relatively new to the presidential platform, but are hotly contested issues that could potentially swing the vote to either side. Democratic candidate Barak Obama, presenting a cool and calm picture of rational thinking for the voters, is, albeit eloquently, taking the democratic high road on the issues; that is, saying what the majority of American liberals want to hear him say. At the same time, Republican candidate John McCain is taking the position as would be expected of him by party leaders and conservative voters. Looking closely at the issues, looking past the calm, cool and handsome persona that is Obama, what is he actually telling liberals about these issues?

This essay examines the democratic candidate's platform to determine if his position on the five elements referred to above are typically democratic in nature; that is, reflecting a historic democratic thinking. Or is his position closer to the conservative platform than many democrats realize? To do this, five of the issues referenced above will be taken one at a time and analyzed here according to the latest updates on information: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, gay marriage, healthcare, abortion, and illegal immigration.

The War in Iraq and Afghanistan

American liberals are tired of the war, more so because it has become an enormous black hole that, like black holes in the universe, continues to swallow American lives and dollars whole, never to be seen again. It is perhaps the first, but not the most hotly debated issue that Obama is forced to deal with as a candidate, and, if elected, as the President of the United States. The question that has been put to the candidates time and again is: How will you get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? To which Obama has been consistent in responding that there is no easy way out of the war on either front, but that he projects he would have American troops out of Iraq within 16 months (on the Issues, 2008, found online at (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#Iraq_War).What is interesting, is that this subject category is no longer on Obama's web site, and that is reason for concern that the candidate has back burnered his goal for bringing the troops home in 16 months. It never did seem a realistic goal, given the need for support and commitment to Iraq that was made in a Saddam era invasion of the country. That Iraq now suffers internal civil war power struggles, was to be expected, because that is the nature of regime replacement, whether or not one agrees with how the U.S. And Iraq arrived at that place. It is no longer about how and why George Bush took us into Iraq, only about how to reasonably come out of Iraq, turn that government over to the elected Iraqi leadership, and whether or not the U.S. owes it to that democratically elected government to support them to a point of stability.

Barak Obama says that if elected president, he will take seriously the advice of the military experts, like General David Petraeus, whom Obama says has, in his opinion, done a good job in Iraq (on the Issues, online). When asked whether or not Obama would replace Petraeus, once in office, if Petraeus' counsel to Obama differs than what Obama has been telling the American people he would do (on the Issue, online). Obama says he will tell Petraeus that they have a "new mission (on the Issue, online)." Obama says that, as commander in chief, he will be responsible for making the decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq (on the Issue, online).

Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" MSNBC's Tim Russert, who moderated the debate, asked Senator Barack Obama.

I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible," Sen. Obama responded. "We don't know what contingency will be out there," he continued. The best he could do was declare: "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there (Jasper, William F., 2007, 8)."

The problem with Obama's 16-month plan is that, like most politicians, it is subject to the circumstances of the office he holds once elected. There is no way to predict the outcome of the war Iraq. Once in office, there is every reason to expect that the liberal base that elects Obama will change its direction. A large contingent of that base is looking to Obama not to extricate America from conflict, but to further involve America in conflict. The liberal outcries about the Darfur region of Sudan are frightening to think about, because there is every indication that the people who have been generous in supporting Obama's election bid, will expect to see the taxpayer return on their investment with action taken on their personal favorite causes, like Darfur.

There is no way that the U.S. can impact the situation in Darfur without physically going into Darfur. It has been the cry of Obama supporters like actor George Clooney and others that America should take on the responsibility of solving the problems in Darfur. Clooney is not crying the UN should take on that responsibility he is putting it squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. - although he readily criticizes the Bush administration for not going through the UN, which has proven ineffective in resolving the genocide in Darfur.

On April 28, 2006, George Clooney joined Senator Barak Obama in calling for.".. greater action to address what is being described as genocide in Sudan's Darfur region (CNN.COM, 2006, found online at (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/darfur.clooney/).

It is doubtful whether or not the same liberals, like Clooney, who have supported Obama's bid for the presidency, who call for action in Darfur because of genocide, are going to expect Obama to pull out of Iraq when that country is embroiled in a civil war, where there are Christians, Jews, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds, who were persecuted by Saddam Hussein in a genocidal affront against them by the former dictator.

Iraqi army directed its attention to squashing the Kurdish movement. In the process, hundreds of Kurdish villages were razed to the ground, with the large majority of their inhabitants either executed, or resettled in new towns or concentration camps. The army also routinely used chemical weapons. According to various sources, up to 100,000 may have been killed in what was described as military operations tantamount to a full-fledged genocide campaign (Meho, 1997, 15)."

Americans are not going to trade genocide in Iraq for genocide in Darfur. They will forgive Obama his inability to keep his campaign promise; at least the liberals will, while the Republicans will take copious notes for the election four years later. Obama's commitment to bringing Americans home is no longer found on his official web site, as of today, August 25, 2006. The other issues referenced, however, are there.

Illegal Immigration

If elected, Obama will be forced to confront a perhaps liberal and conservative concern: illegal immigration. Plans to build a wall along the entire length of the southern U.S. border with Mexico has proved to be as futile in fact as it was flawed in philosophy. Those plans abandoned, there are some serious issues that confront Obama on this issue: the exposure of Americans to illegal immigrant contagious diseases like TB, HIV / AIDS, and other high risk ailments (Porter, Lakeisha, 2006, 66).

The link on Barakobama.com regarding his comments on illegal immigration are from August 19, 2008, in an interview with Sun-News reporter, Diana M. Alba (Alba, 2008, found online at (http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10241460).Obama says his plan for confronting the illegal immigration problem is: increasing border security, cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens, and he supports the 'Initiative Jump-Start,' in place now, which involves the presence of National Guard forces to bolster the appearance of border security (Alba, online at (http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10241460).On this issue, Obama is taking the safe road, because each of the areas of the issues that he says he supports are already in place. The individual states have been proactive in addressing the issue of illegal immigration along their borders by implementing strict hiring penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants. The National Guard already is putting in an "appearance" with border patrol.

His final objective as concerns illegal immigrants: create a legal pathway for those millions already in the U.S. To become legal, U.S. citizens (Alba, online at (http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_10241460).That pathway was created in 2001, under Section 245 of the Life Act Amnesty of 2000 (Porter, 16). If it fails, Obama can pass the buck to the Bush Administration for implementing the plan. It also leaves the door open for Obama to do a new amnesty program at some point during his administration, to make good on his campaign promise of providing a legal pathway for illegal immigrants, who will surely continue to enter the U.S. By the thousands every day.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is not found on Obama's web site as of this date, August 25, 2008.

This is an issue that could bode ill for Obama, because the moral majority that is perhaps disgruntled with the conservatives, or to whom John McCain does not appeal, will be considering turning their vote in favor of Obama. As has been seen here, Obama and the conservative camp do not greatly differ on the issues, but gay marriage is an issue where, again, it is perceived that there is a huge difference in opinion. That difference of opinion was established, if not somewhat covertly, when, in early 2007, the highly sought after political support of entertainment billionaire David Geffen defected from the presumed Clinton camp, to the Obama camp (Mccollom, Roy, 2007, 40). Geffen not only defected in his support of the Clinton machine, but he bad-mouthed it on his way out saying that Hillary Clinton and husband, former president Bill Clinton, "lie with such ease it's troubling (Mccullom, 40)."

Geffen's support of Obama could be construed as an unspoken nod towards gay marriage by Obama. However, at this point, prior to the November elections, it would be political suicide for Obama to openly agree to gay marriage. The moral majority, whose vote Obama needs, would indeed turn its back on Obama quicker than it would on any other campaign issue, except perhaps abortion. Abortion is probably as important to the moral majority as is preserving the sanctity of marriage for heterosexual couples.

The candidates need our votes because gay people have become a powerful voice across the country, economically and politically," he adds. "And it's far too early to commit to a candidate. Think of it like a fancy ball or a party. You want to flirt and laugh and make the cute guy get your attention. That's what we need to do so they can keep pursuing the gay vote and eventually move on some issues. You don't go to the dance floor with the first guy who asks you; you look around and assess your options. That's what we should do (Mccullom, 40)."

The gay vote does not represent a majority in the population, but they are influential in business and in entertainment, as evidenced by the powerful billionaire Geffen. There are many for whom Geffen's support of Obama will be indicative of Obama's position on gays. However, Obama is an adept speaker, and politicians, and the momentum of his endorsement by the Kennedys has reawakened the baby boomer's sense of nostalgia as they reminisce the "could-have-beens," of the Kennedy years.

What, then, is the moral case for gay marriage? The case begins with a tragic fact about the structure of our society. Our culture provides a limited number of social scripts that people are expected to follow to live a good life. (27) These scripts work for some people, and, for these people, they may be a good thing. Perhaps ordinary people are simply incapable of facing the virtually infinite range of choices theoretically available for how to live, and perhaps, if faced with a virtually infinite range of choices, people would make bad ones. Indeed, it is hard to imagine even in principle how people could start from scratch, choosing from an endless menu of cultures, social structures, and modes of living (Seidman, Louis Michael, 2008, 135)."So far, McCain has not forced the issue of gay marriage with Obama, but it is likely that as November, 2008 approaches, McCain will attempt to force Obama to make public statements for, or against gay marriage and unions.

American Healthcare

It is a subject about which Obama is very vocal, and he has a plan. Obama's plan is to extend to 47 million Americans who have no health insurance, subsidized coverage that will ensure they have access to health care (Flint, Samuel S. And Gorin, Stephen H., 2008). The problem is that Obama is addressing the problem of non-coverage, not access to healthcare. Since the onset of managed care in the 1980s, healthcare access has become a myriad of formalities and paperwork that delays access to vitally needed services and physicians (Zelman, Walter a, and Berenson, Robert a., 1998) (Altman, Stuart H., Reinhardt, Uwe, and Schactman, David, 1999) (Birembaum, Edward, 1997). It is the job of managed care to determine what services and care can be accessed based on the outcome of the diagnosis (Birenbaum, 13-14).

Obama's plan does not eliminate, or even minimize the role of managed care in American healthcare. Indeed, if his plan is to succeed without creating a healthcare budget deficit to equal that created by the war Iraq, then Obama needs managed care to prevent the Americans he will extend coverage to from accessing healthcare in a "preventative" fashion, as opposed to the managed care "outcome" philosophy (Birenbaum, 13-14).

That there has been little response from Americans on Obama's plan, which is better than no insurance if one knows how to maneuver the system; is that they do not see beyond the coverage. They do not for the most part understand that their access to their healthcare will be dependent upon managed care case managers who are incentivized to prevent them from that access, sometimes to the point of illegal and certainly immoral decision making (Altman, Reinhardt, Schactman, xxi)."Policy analysts viewing issues like increased regulation of managed care often start from opposite points-of-view. Some start from the position that markets are ill-suited to the task of providing health care services. These analysts view health care as a public good to be provided to all citizens, as a matter of right, like education or our transportation infrastructure. They are particularly suspicious of managed care because it can be seen as altering financial incentives for providers toward providing less care. They also maintain that the private, for-profit delivery system siphons profits away from the health care system, potentially raising the costs of health care for society. Also, because consumers are not able to evaluate medical judgments, quality can suffer as market competition encourages providers to compete on the basis of cost by cutting corners (Altman, Reinhardt, Schactman, xxi)."

This is an issue that could come back to haunt Obama. It will not take long for the vast majority of Americans who are now uninsured to become dissatisfied with the inaccessibility of their healthcare. The inability to access care and services will be very familiar to those who have been uninsured.