Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen H
Madtown: What about Obama do you disagree with? Especially interested in policies and so forth, similar to the nice list you made of what you like about his policies. Presumably it would be much shorter, though.
Returning to answer this.
Specifics on Energy (Nuclear and Ethanol) - I'm dissatisfied with both candidates on energy. I ultimately trust and agree with Obama more on the issue than McCain, but two areas where I agree with McCain are nuclear and ethanol.
Obama has largely equivocated on nuclear energy, saying that he is "not a nuclear proponent" and that it's not an energy panacea, but also indicating that he would consider it if it were "clean and safe." He's also taken a frustrating stance on ethanol (specifically, corn ethanol).
Any energy solution is, by necessity, going to involve multiple energy sources. It's also going to, by necessity, involve upgrades in our crumbling energy grid and a switch to electric or hybrid cars. All three of those things (increase in non-carbon energy, rebuilding the energy grid, and the change to electric/hybrids) are necessary for us to become energy independent: we need to have energy sources that are renewable (or effectively limitless, arguably the case with nuclear), we need to have a transportation system that is powered by that energy rather than oil, and we need the infrastructure to support those two shifts. This will also take much longer than the timelines that both campaigns are throwing out (no matter what energy sources they propose), but that's not particularly relevant.
Now, nuclear energy is
not an energy panacea; nuclear power is a base power method of production, which would largely replace coal power; fluctuations in power demand during the day are usually served by hydro or natural gas. However, nuclear energy already
is safe, and has a far smaller impact environmentally than carbon energy sources. The primary issue with nuclear is that it is overwhelmingly unpopular due to ATOMZ and Not In My Backyard mentality when it comes to waste storage (Yucca Mountain).
Corn ethanol is an abomination, energy-wise. Period. I support further research and use of cellulosic biofuels, but corn ethanol as it currently exists is worthless beyond winning the Iowa caucus. I can also rant about how corn ethanol connects to a ****load of other issues like food prices, farm subsidies, obesity, health care.
Gun Control - Not a gun enthusiast, although I do own three guns (from hunting when I was younger -- they're still back home) and will inherit dozens more at some point. This isn't a significant issue for me, personally or ideologically; I also don't see much changing on the issue no matter who wins. I also find the common rhetoric of the far-right and the far-left on the issue to both be abhorrent. Based purely on rhetoric, I'd side with Obama and the current 2008 Democratic party platform:
"... [W]e will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban ..."
I agree with everything up until the named changes. I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right that still is subject to reasonable regulation. The problem is that, particularly regarding the AWB, Democrats have illustrated little understanding of what would be common sense regulation. The AWB was silly, is silly, and will probably always be silly. It doesn't address the problem, and its primary accomplishment was pissing off gun enthusiasts.
I can go on further about gun control if you'd like, although like I said it's not an issue I'm significantly invested in. Ultimately though, I'd say preventing gun violence is not fundamentally a regulatory issue -- it's a social one. It requires improved education and job opportunities in inner-cities to deter youth from gangs, and it requires improved personal responsibility by gun owners to secure their guns from theft or use by minors. The federal legislation and regulation in place is already fairly reasonable philosophically.
Free Trade Rhetoric - This was an issue more in the primary than it is now, and I've talked about it already. Judging by his enunciated policies and his economic advisors, I'd actually agree with his policies here (pro-free trade, with stronger environmental and labor standards). I was just disappointed that he used populist rhetoric on this particular issue. It's an uncharacteristic pander.
FISA Vote - Insufficient court oversight. Telecom immunity. This got hashed over pretty hard over the summer.
Teacher Tenure - As with a lot of things, my opinion on education gets complicated quickly. I believe in public schools -- I do not believe in fully a privatized, free market approach to education. In fact, I think that would be disastrous. I do not believe in vouchers, although I do believe that private schools have a right to exist and that parents have a right to choose to send their children to them.
In light of that, I view education as a public service that must compete with -- and thus behave like -- the private sector. Thus I believe that the only way that public schools can be successful going forward is through both merit pay
and by holding teachers more accountable. And that means loosening the grip of the teachers union on teacher tenure, which I haven't seen Obama talk about.
They both raise additional issues -- who judges teacher performance, and using what criteria? -- but I don't think those are justifiable arguments to avoid implementing merit pay or to avoid challenging teacher tenure.
I'm sure I could think of some others, particularly if I drilled down deeper into specifics of other positions or policies I agree with. These are just the ones that I've actively thought about over the last year of the campaign.