The Platform, Week 1: Obama vs. Romney, Electing a President Posted by DJ Dharmic X on 10/04/12 | Filed under Opinion, Politics, The Platform, 2012 Election

Over the next few weeks, Refined Hype and political-economic analysis blog Nitro Citizen will host The Platform, a series in which contributors from RH, Nitro, and the music industry comment on the structure of politics and how we are affected by what's on the ballot.

Starting with the president, and moving into how we might take the conditions created by federal policy to act at the local level, we will look at all levels of government and social activism from the ground-up. So if you feel nauseous about voting, you might be looking too high up on the ballot or you might find other avenues to help create progress through The Platform.

This week, Dharmic X for Refined Hype and BroadNMarket for Nitro Citizen discuss the presidential campaign following Wednesday night's debate.

BroadNMarket (Nitro Citizen):

The fatigue of election season is starting to set in. The candidates have said about all that they can say about themselves and each other, and the tale of the (47%) tape may have graciously ended this contest. Obama's 49% of the vote, if it holds on November 6, would amount to support from 26% of the voting-age population (an estimated 61 million people) based on an average voter turnout of 54% during the 3 most recent elections.

This would give the president no more breathing room than he had during his first term. The fiscal cliff hangs over our heads, unemployment may continue to tick down by tenths of points from 8.1%, the Fed will continue its bond-buying, troubles in Europe (our largest trading partner) will probably remain unresolved, and consumer confidence - among other indicators - will probably continue to look schizophrenic at least in the short-term. We all know the money and political will aren't there to put more government investment into infrastructure and education, or to support many statewide and local programs. Long-term debt issues will put pressure on Obama to take up where he left off with Simpson-Bowles and the Grand Bargain negotiations and enact trillions of dollars in spending cuts to social programs and entitlements that we're paying into as insurance once we're too old to work. The private sector will continue to grow - we're almost indisputably better off than we were on January 20, 2009 and this weekend discovered that there was a net job gain in Obama's first term - so the best counter-argument has always been shouldn't we be farther along by now? The hope we were looking for in 2008 tanked with Lehman Brothers, and we haven't stood a chance since.

But we're not completely stranded. A re-elected Obama will be able to push back on the conservative resistance to small tax increases, which would offset some cuts to social programs. The Affordable Care Act (healthcare reform) won't take effect until 2014, so we are still years away from realizing its full benefits and savings. Much of his agenda consists of big picture items, the type that create domino effects that eventually impact everyday lives, but he is not directly pulling levers. And he has to balance the interests of all citizens, as opposed to the conservatives' approximate half. If Obama returns to office, he'll continue not to get you a phone and more or think that "you didn't build that" as conservatives desperately claim (well, you probably didn't have a hand in one of Eisenhower's lasting contributions to our country). At this point, we're just hoping that he can lead. He's shown an ability to, most notably during the lame duck period in late 2010, but at best he will only outline the path for us to follow, as we will discuss later on in the Platform.

As for Romney, Jason Sudeikis is sitting on a goldmine. That's all I have to say.

Dharmic X (Refined Hype):

This November is the first time I ever vote in an election to determine the nation’s President. Regardless of the cynicism that grows in the hearts of many Americans, including myself, I do find it important for me to cast a vote come November. Voting is a hard-earned right won by the struggles of generations that came before me, and to simply surrender this right would be foolish. That said, I am well aware of the lack of power my individual vote has, especially voting from a state like Massachusetts, a smaller state with little say in the electoral college and a nearly predetermined selection based on party lines. I wouldn’t be foolish enough to claim that I will be casting an important vote in the Presidential election.

That said, it’s a downright shame that the election this year features a real battle of two evils, down to even their respective running mates. It’s obvious that these past four years under Obama’s presidency have been far from great for the nation from an economic standpoint, especially focusing on unemployment. But what’s been far more disconcerting for me has been the President’s foreign policy and homeland security stances. From repeated drone strikes into Pakistan without formally declaring war to re-authorizing provisions of the invasive Patriot Act, Obama has played upon the same fears of a “War on Terror” that his predecessor used for eight years.

But if Barack Obama is a scary candidate, Mitt Romney is even scarier, emphasized by his dimwitted (and likely, costly) “forty-seven percent” comment at a fundraising dinner. For me, my issues with Romney started much earlier, as I started looking at the people the supposedly “moderate” ex-governor of Massachusetts had roped in to help him. Notable names included Karl Rove protege Beth Myers and co-author of the Patriot Act, Michael Chertoff. The result of this type of team has been apparent on the campaign trail, as Romney has continued to appeal to a conservative base more and more, eventually reaching a point where he abandoned nearly half the population for being too attached to government.

To put it simply, Barack Obama is the lesser of two evils, and therefore the man I will vote for in November.

Closing Thoughts:

Last night's debate, in some ways, only made Obama more difficult to stand behind. But neither candidate was willing to delve into many specific, forward-looking plans. Governor Romney's brand new deduction cap idea is potentially a good one, but it doesn't necessarily make his tax reform plan revenue neutral. And the "repeal and replace" mantra applies to healthcare, banking reform, and pretty much anything with Obama's signature on it - without more than a cursory web-based description of what "replace" might mean. Nitro expanded on this earlier today.

Romney may have shaken his etch-a-sketch to sound more centrist than he has in awhile, and that's definitely a good thing. But it's still quite clear that many of the policies that are causes of concern for us - on civil liberties, military strategies, foreign policy, "justice" and drug enforcement policy, looming austerity measures - would not look any different under a President Romney, and others would look much worse. Still, at the end of the day, presidents are constrained by Congress, concerns over precedent, representation of broad and disparate constituencies, among other things. Regardless of who wins in November, most of us can only stamp our votes and move on to affecting policy at the levels we'll talk about throughout the rest of the Platform.

See Also: President Obama Clears Up This Annoying Nicki Minaj/Mitt Romney “Controversy”