More of the same... (Facebook comments)

A selection of comments from Facebook about the Obama article: Ashley-lein Wright (Oklahoma) wrote at 15:16 on 13 November 2008 One of the largest things that Obama has been saying over the course of his campaign is that he wants to surround himself not only with people he agrees with, but with those he doesn´t. Milton Friedman is a giant in economics, one with whom I completely disagree. His Chicago School, however, the one that supported the Pinochet coup and the dismantling of the Southeast Asian economies, is much more subdued than in the past. Goolsbee was trained at Yale and MIT, and was never a part of the major disaster capitalism movement at Chicago in the 70´s and 80´s. I think you would be hard pressed to find an economist who was not influenced my Friedman, which doesn´t mean they agree with everything he did. It would be similar to trying to find a physicist who was not influenced by Einstein or Feinman. Obama counts among his economic policy advisors a man named Joseph Stiglitz as well, who is a major critic of unfettered capitalism and the like. Campaign contributions in the United States are a tricky thing. The hopeful thing about Obama is that a majority of his donations came from the people, the difference between the donations into the Obama campaign and the Mccain campaign are incredible. Every modern president has taken money from a slew of companies, like Goldman Sachs or Lehman. I agree with your statement that actions speack louder than words, but as far as Obama´s policy goes, it looks as though it will err towards the people rather than corporations. He favors ending the Bush tax cuts, which have caused the middle and lower class in America to actually make less money today than 8 years ago, and raising the capital gains tax.

Report - Delete

Ashley-lein Wright (Oklahoma) wrote at 15:32 on 13 November 2008 Coming out against the war on drugs would have been impossible during a presidential campaign, He would have lost by a mile. Obama has consistently refused to take money from lobbyists, a common occurence that shatters the illusion of one person one vote. Middle Eastern policy is bound to be a touchy subject with Obama, after a campaign in which he was accused of being a terrorist and a ¨secret muslim.¨ I don´t think that his refusal to accept Ahmedinijad´s congratulations is a weakness, there is not a leader of a western country on Earth who would do so. On Latin America, Obama has expressed support of a referendum in Puerto Rico, a US colony, on what type of government the people would prefer. Giving the island a chance at self government, one that should have happened 50 years ago. I understand the trepidation, after 8 years of Bush in office it´s justified. I think that it´s too early to call whether Obama is capable of the things he has so eloquently spoken about. Even his election represents a massive change in the US electorate, however. Something which could be even more important than his term in office. Seventy percent of hispanics, and 70 percents of those under 25 voted Obama, which means they voted ¨against¨ homeland security, and for attempting to create a better society. The fear machine that has been in play since Reagan failed, just like the unregulated capitalist machine did a few months before. I belive that Obama will be able to execute a significant amount of change in US policy. He has already formed a commitee committed exclusively to dismantling many of the most harmful policy decisions of the Bush administrations. But even if he doesn´t, I believe the US electorate has finally woken up, which is something that can last much longer than a Presidential term in office. Great article, Jamie! Off to Colca Canyon... Report - Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 18:54 on 14 November 2008 Hey Ashley, thanks for the comments, nice to have an American perspective! I've read a lot about how Obama is intending to use advisers you wouldn't immediately associate him with and how he may even appoint Republicans in his administration (Robert Gates has been linked with the Defence position, worryingly enough), in order to get a kind of 'non-partisan' synthesis. In retrospect, I should have mentioned this really, because the point I'm making is that his election has been heralded around the world as a massive change in American foreign policy, but I believe there will be little difference. Although there will be advisers from both ends of the spectrum, I suspect the more conservative elements will temper any policies that are too progressive. Emanuel is effectively his gatekeeper, controlling who has his time and if Robert Gates is made Defence Sec, although it is only [well founded] speculation at the moment, it won't look promising. I kept the economic bit brief because the article is for a student audience, most of whom will only really be aware of the credit crunch rather than other economic issues, and I personally believe, as you say, there will be change for the good at home in America, but it has little relevance to us here. (Although I'd love to look into the relationship between domestic and foreign economic policy further) Anyway, this gives me a chance to include a bit I deleted from the article. From what I can find, Obama wants to double aid to $50 billion by 2012 to “invest in agriculture, infrastructure and economic growth”. Under the neoliberal, free market capitalism that's had a stranglehold on Washington for the best part of twenty years, we know the negative effects this can have on developing countries who are forced into trickle down economies rather than given the opportunity to develop of their own accord, and the subsequent resentment this causes for millions on the lowest rung of the economic and social ladder worldwide. Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 19:11 on 14 November 2008 Unfortunately, I'm not as clued up on Obama's foreign economic policy as other areas, and maybe you can help me out here, but in light of recent history and the current thinking of the powers that be, would it be likely that conditional aid full of austerity measures is going to continue? I also wasn't aware that Stiglitz is linked to Obama, hopefully his influence may act as a helpful counterweight to any conservative economists in the administration. One thing that does makes me think neoliberalism, to some degree, may be here to stay is that Obama has voiced support for the National Endowment for Democracy which only ever seems to promote democracy abroad if it is beneficial to US interests (Venezuela, for example). Obama also supports intellectual property rights, something that is a major stumbling block to providing affordable healthcare, especially for AIDS, in the developing world. I've seen a lot about how Obama intends to clamp down on lobbyists' monetary influence, but according to an LA Times article I found, he rejects money from lobbyists on Capitol Hill, but not lawyers whose partners lobby there, nor does his ban extend to lobbyists in other state capitals who lobby not just regionally but nationwide, nor directly from corporations. I certainly think that for America, Obama does mean change for the better. I just wanted to point out that for the rest of the world, there's good evidence little will change. The strong Bush-style rhetoric will definitely stop flowing from the White House come January and the days of American unilateralism are numbered, but everybody seems to have their hopes fantastically built up. In the speechs, a new world is here, and on the surface that may seem so. Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 19:15 on 14 November 2008 However, a lot of the anti-Americanism springs from such things as harmful economic measures, and I doubt appointments like Emanuel's, combined with Obama's own particular pro-Israeli stance, are going to change opinion amongst Arabs, particularly fundamentalists who are the sort to launch terror attacks or join the fight in Afghanistan etc. (Interestingly, according to one article I found, may have been written by Nader, Obama never once visited a mosque or reached out to the Muslim community during his campaign - could this come back to haunt him?) At the end of the day though, I'd rather have Obama than McCain, or even Clinton, and we can't go from nothing to 'utopia' in one presidency. It's the first of many more steps (hopefully, I'll come back to that in four years time!) and who knows, maybe successful changes at home could end up affecting future foreign policy?