Losing my Religion [on Obama] UPDATED
Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM PDT
Note: Read the diary. If you check my diary history, it is pretty obvious that I am Obama supporter. But I have a genuine disagreement with him on his NAFTA rhetoric. Ohio, and its economic downturn, is a little more personal to me than it is to most of you without Ohio roots. Read the diary. Ignore it if it angers you. Point out fallacies if you find them. Debate the merits of my argument. But there's no need to hurl any invective. My feelings and disappointments are genuine.
I think my love affair with Barack Obama is over. Now, I don't want anyone to think that the CTV story was what busted my confidence in him. In truth, my image of Barack as the 'Real Deal' was shattered right after the Virginia primary. My strong support for his candidacy has been coasting on delusions that I have force fed myself for two weeks. Barack Obama isn't anyone new, or anyone more noble than past nominees of our party. He's your average Democratic politician with once-in-a-generation oratorical skills.
What am I losing my religion?
Trade policy. That's my litmus test. How a Democrat talks about trade tells if they're truly the truth-teller they claim to be. Trade policy is to Democrats what abortion and gay marriage are to Republicans - an issue at odds with politicians' convictions, but one that is used for dishonest demagoguery nonetheless.
First off, let me say that I'm very much in favor trade liberalization and am closer to the free traders than the protectionists. We can get into a discussion of my beliefs at a later date, but my beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. My disappointment with Barack would hold even if I truly believed in repealing NAFTA.
The dirty little secret of the Democratic party is that many of our leaders are in favor most trade agreements, even though they might public say otherwise. There are some Democrats, like Byron Dorgan, who are truly for more restrictive trade policy. But they are in the minority. In vote after vote, after vote, after vote, leading Democrats vote for almost EVERY trade agreement put in front them. Even Mr. Populist(John Edwards), voted for his share of trade deals. When its time to put their mouth where their rhetoric is, Democrats fail almost every time.
I thought Obama was different. I thought he could tell people that some jobs weren't coming back. I thought he could tell people that it wasn't only NAFTA that took away their jobs. I thought he could tell people that he couldn't, shouldn't and wouldn't be against trade deals. I thought he could tell people that the real problem with Ohio was its government's decades long failure to invest in the infrastructure necessary to help keep its economy growing and competitive.
The downturn in Ohio is personal to me. I was born in Pennsylvania, but spent my formative years in Ohio (including college). It absolutely crushes me to see what is happening to the state's economy. After graduating from college with a degree in engineering, I left Ohio for greener pastures in California. The truth is, I didn't really have a choice when it came to staying in Ohio. There were no opportunities for people in my field. Many of my fellow classmates left for California, Massachusetts, Washington state and New York. We didn't leave Ohio because of NAFTA. We left Ohio because Agilent, Medtronic, Lockheed-Martin, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Cisco and other high tech companies aren't located in Ohio. We left because the state does a piss poor job in investing in the infrastructure necessary to bring the jobs of today (and tomorrow) to Ohio. Don't believe me?
.
READ THE TOLDEO BLADE'S 'BUSINESS AS USUAL' SERIES ON OHIO'S ECONOMY
(Part I), (Part II), (Part III)
This is what is killing my home state............
The Birthplace of Aviation, the cradle of the cash register and Play-Doh, Ohio ranked sixth in the nation in per-capita patent generation in 1954. It fell to 11th in 1988. By 2001, Ohio slipped to 20th, passed by such nontraditional tech hubs as Wisconsin, Utah, and Idaho.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
When 100 people walk down a street in Ohio, 23 have college degrees. In Toledo, it’s 17. The concentration is higher in 37 other states, including Minnesota, where 30 percent of the population have at least a bachelor’s degree. The average family income in Minnesota is $63,998 — $10,000 more than in Ohio.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
The state's universities spend $115 per year on research for each person living in the state, which is 20 percent below the national average.
Between 1994 and 2004, Ohio ranked 40th in patent growth, right next to Arkansas.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
Ohio actually got more research money in the past. In 2003, federal agencies gave the state $2.39 billion for research (2.6 percent of the federal government's total research expenditures), less than half of the $5.56 billion (7.9 percent of the total) it gave Ohio in 1998, according to the National Science Foundation, Mr. Taft's source. Figures for 2004 and 2005 have yet to be released.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
Last year, Morgenthaler Partners recruited the top two students from the Harvard University school of business. The first took a position in Massachusetts. The second rejected one in Ohio.
"In your Boston office, I accept on the spot," Mr. Morgenthaler recalled the second student saying. "In your Cleveland office, never."
Mr. Morgenthaler ended the story, paused, and drew a breath.
"That's just heartbreaking to me," he said, "but that's the reality."
Is this NAFTA's fault?
In fact, Ohio keeps more of its college graduates than the average state, a recent study of 1.11 million alumni records found. But the state bleeds the scholars who should be the heart of a high-tech economy: people holding doctorates in biology, chemistry, and engineering.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
Goodyear struggles to recruit enough engineers to fill its research staff of 1,000, said Joseph Gingo, the company's executive vice president for quality systems and chief technical officer.
Is this NAFTA's fault?
Ohio universities have improved dramatically in patent revenue since, but they face stiff competition. Michigan State University alone generated $36 million from licensed patents in 2004. That's $10 million more than all of Ohio's nonprofit research institutions combined. And only 24 percent of the patents Ohio's universities license go to in-state companies.
Yes. NAFTA has resulted in some job losses in Ohio. But there massive structural problems with Ohio that prevent it from creating newer and better jobs. For those of you who think only trade deals results in job losses, remember that technology renders jobs obsolete as well. Factory robots, online commerce and many other innovations have results in job losses. The key to getting states like Ohio back on track is creating new jobs. We can't do that if we keep pretending that trade deals like NAFTA are the primary reason for Ohio's economic sluggishness.
Look, I know almost everyone on Dailkos is an Obama supporter. I am too (seriously, check my diary history). I'm not as enthusiastic anymore. But I hope that you all can at least appreciate and respect some honest criticism that Obama has to answer for. I expect Hillary to dissemble on issues like trade. My support for Obama is rooted in the belief that he is better than her. We can't lift people up in this country if we aren't willing to level with them. Obama's campaign should mobilize people not only around the convenient truths, but the inconvenient ones. What is the point of all this energy if we aren't moving people in the right direction?
Maybe telling people what the real problem is can be an election-killer. Still, that shouldn't stop US from acknowledging some hard truths. If you care about truly lifting people up, you will pledge your support not only to your candidate, but also to the issues and the facts. The simple fact is there is a lot more that ails Ohio than NAFTA. And Obama knows it. He should use the spotlight of his presidential campaign to highlight the real issues and mobilize people to recognize the real change than needs to be made, not fall back to same old demagoguery.
I recognize that this is a little crass, and probably bad manners, but I ask you to rec this diary. But I'm afraid that this important criticism will never see the light of day unless it is made during the primaries. I, like most Democrats, will hold my fire during the general election season. Defeating John McCain is more important than a little disingenuousness on one issue. This is may be my last chance to direct any criticism Obama's way.
p.s: Don't fool yourself into believing the 'denial' put out by Obama's campaign. It wasn't a blanket denial. Obama's campaign merely said that there was an inaccuracy in the CTV report. Also, $20 says that the Canadian ambassador's office also denies the report. Leaking back channel discussions to the press is the surest way to become an impotent (and irrelevant) ambassador. That's how these things work. If the Canadian ambassador doesn't issue a strong denial, he'll be out of a job by sunset.
UPDATE: Since the CTV story is tripping people up, disregard the last paragraph. It isn't close to being a part of my beef. Also, I NEVER SAID I'M SWITCHING MY SUPPORT!
