Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

I agree completely on all counts. This is going to be an historic election for both Democrats and Republicans.

I have been saying for privately for some time that Obama is more conservative than people give him credit for. So, I echo the reference to Reagan as an appropriate one.

As an aside, I'm entirely disappointed with McCain's choice of Palin for VP. Conservativism has become about social issues, not good/limited government.

I'm surprised, and disappointed. Obama is no JFK, and he is certainly no Reagan. His stated policies may destroy the country if allowed to come to fruition. His protectionist ideas seem so out of step with the economic and idea sharing you advocate (you know, win win solutions, not a zero sum game, disconnectedness defines danger) that I am truly surprised. The man is all about manipulating emotion, causing the Dems to writhe and howl in ecstasy. McCain, on the other hand, actually gets it, and is a capable leader. L-E-A-D-E-R. A leader who is not making false promises. I listened to Obams speech live (a little after 5 am on the Arabian peninsula, so yeah, I'm a service member overseas) and rather than being inspired I was reminded of the end of Rome. Obama stirred the emotions with a circus, and used the circus to promised bread. I am a regular reader, and this reader is disappointed in your selection and apparent endorsement of a man whose policies look so bad to me that I may have to resign rather than continue to serve (after 20 years) if he is elected.

I am hardcore GOP all the way.

But if Obama wins, I hope before his term is over you are the first Secretary of Everything Else.

I agree with you 100%.

Game On!

I guess I don't get JK's angst, that he's to the point of ditching his military career over whether Obama wins.

I wouldn't ditch my career whatsoever if McCain wins, because it would be far from some disaster. It would simply be the American public making its choice. Plus, I didn't choose my career for only one party or the other. I chose and continue to choose it because I wanted to serve my country in its national security field, and believe that endeavor to be important and worthwhile.

Maybe I need to be more of a sore loser on politics, but I just cannot manage it.

I don't think one side or one leader is the "ruin" or the "salvation." I would expect myself and my country to prosper under either, but I--like any voter--am asked to choose.

And when I choose, I do so enthusiastically--when I can.

Tom, I just found out that you have your own blog. I have been a huge fan ever since you published your book (which I still proudly own, when I am not lending it out to friends.)

I agree with you. Obama promises to be our best president since Eisenhower (who I consider our last great president.)

However, McCain is a pretty good candidate too. He is a free trader, who has lead on clean technology, carbon, reducing the number of years IP is subject to patents, and increasing competition and innovation throughout our economy. He is also a leader of banning torture, forcing our military to learn 3-D COIN ops, increasing the interoperability of our military with other countries, and campaign finance reform.

I think both Obama and McCain would bring dramatic change, and am delighted that America will have one of them as president.

I would also like to congratulate China (which has given you an amazing family ;-) ) on its amazing Olympics. There are few more positive developments in the world than the peaceful and stabilizing rise of China. China is generally, with some important caveats, a positive force for stability, economic development, security and peace in the world today.

China doesn't get enough credit around the world for how its economy, in close collaboration with economies around the world, is facilitating faster global technological innovation. This, or total factor productivity, is what drives higher living standards over time.

On youth, good looks and charisma, you might have a comparison with JFK. But, as I see it, that's about it.

Once you look at the issues:

• He'd be JFK minus the Kennedy tax cuts.
  
• He'd be JFK minus the tough talk against enemies (communists then).
  
• He'd be JFK minus the "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
  
• He'd be JFK minus the “pay any price, bear any burden” to spread liberty around the world.
  
• He'd be JFK minus “…one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

That being said, I'm not depressed or disappointed that we don't see eye to eye on this. Dr. Barnett, I admire you (and those at the Pentagon) who approach their mission as one that is removed from party politics. Not only would it mean a short career once the country elected a different party, but it'd reveal that someone was serving their agenda rather than their country. More State Department than Pentagon. ;)

Based on the issues, I'm not voting for Obama. No way. But if he wins, I'm still hanging his presidential portrait in my office. Next to "the map". ;)

From my perspective, the only thing good about a President Obama would be a senior advisor's position for Thomas P.M. Barnett.

It's amazing to me when American conservatives rail against Obama's policies and yet they seem to refuse to listen to the man, as they are never specific in their contentions. What about Obama's encouragement for global trade seems protectionist, jk? What is unreasonable about stopping tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and transferring those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the States? Why would tax cuts for 95% of workers, a balanced budget and pared-down bureaucracy ruin America? Where is the astonishment and anger one would expect to see over the rise of the bloated American federal debt and the decline of inflation-adjusted wages over the past 8 years? In the event of an international crisis, would Obama hastily declare that "we are all Georgians," or do his past remarks suggest a mitigating wisdom that would confront crises through means that are more substantial (why hasn't the US Treasury Dept investigated Russian assets!) than rhetorical? Maybe Obama is the leader you're looking for, jk.

But Tom you do not have to choose until November 4...Aren't you guilty of "ready, FIRE, aim"! Look what happened with the Governor of Alaska Today...how many more surprises are we in for in the next two months?

Barnett, I was referring to your book "The Pentagon's New Map" above.

CN: You aren't encouraging global trade when you are trying to manipulate
which jobs go where. Job migration is integral to global trade. Renegotiating NAFTA (which since inception has increased the size of the three constituent economies 40-50% with the US leading) isn't promoting global trade.
Did you read the speech? The laundry list of programs mitigates against ever "balancing the budget."
Incomes? Please: http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-census-bureau-report-on-incomes-in.html
If you think it serves international affairs to throw allies who are newly arrived democracies over the side, well we just have to disagree.
Russian assets? Not exactly junk bonds, but not exactly secure either.

Most importantly, though, Obama is a pie in the sky liberal in a good looking suit. If he just would come out and say it proudly, we'd see just how far he gets in US politics.

There are plenty of specific examples of the fact that Obama believes in very significant government interference in the free markets. I'm a big fan of Tom's work and don't think this is the place for me to write a long post on Obama's economics, but you can read the economy section in Obama's PDF (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf). I think the most even-handed analogy for Obama's proposed economic policies would be the French, pre-Sarkozy. I think that would be a disaster for the US economy, so it makes me sad to see Tom's endorsement, but I read his books and follow this blog for the insights into the evolving rule-sets, not economics.

Scott Robinson,

How does anachronistic aggression against Europe's main energy supplier for the sake of a foolish president in Georgia advance the global trade order that both you and I agree is integral? If the Americans and the EU lunge forward against Russia in the form of decreased military co-operation, revised trade agreements, and god-forbid, sanctions (something the EU recently ruled out), I think they'd be forgetting the needs of the European people. Simply put, Europeans would much rather avoid an energy crunch right now, the economic situation clearly fragile as British Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling made clear in his recent speech on inflation and the coming (British, at least) recession. And we would compound these problems for the sake of a former USSR satellite run by a buffoon? Our energy supply is not yet diversified enough (the Bulgarian pipeline deal in January 2008 crystallized that fact) for such a trade off.

That blog that you referenced was interesting, and if the author is correct (he doesn't provide links to govt sources, but provides charts), then those at Business Week, IHT, and Forbes have been misinforming me since at least 2005, when I started to notice the issue of declining "real" wages in America popping up everywhere. I was under the impression that they hadn't risen since the 70's, which roughly coincides with the urban exodus to the American suburb, the decline of America as an oil exporter, and the trade deficit. And isn't the big omission in "real" wage data the glaring discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots? Government data shows an "average" erosion of real wages (according to engram-backtalk and many sources). It is my understanding that the top 10% of wage earners in the US have seen their income skyrocket...which could mean that the so-called wage erosion of the bottom 90% is even larger than reported, correct?

Matt and Scott,

Free trade absolutism is stupid. Government is the referee. Enron.