Obamanomics

Anyone notice the recent slump in Senator Obama’s Gallup poll rating? I didn’t. But after reading Jeff Jacoby’s article in the Boson Globe, titled “Seeing through Obamanomics”, I learned that Obama’s ranking fell from 54 percent in August to 48 percent in a month’s time, just barley giving him the lead over John McCain. Jacoby attributes the fall to the public’s reaction to Obamanomics; Senator Obama’s plan for addressing economic issues.

Obama describes his plan as “neighborliness” saying that those who can afford it should by willing to pay more taxes to support those who are not earning enough money. Jacoby says, “Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint” and I agree.

Who is Senator Obama to force wealthy American’s; people who have worked hard to earn money and maintain a high standard of living, to support those who are making minimum wage? Let me just say that I do agree that well off American’s should do their part by giving back to society and donate money to charitable causes and others in need of financial support. But to force them? Let’s get real.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to go along with Obama’s economic plan if he played more of an active roll in contributing to charities. According to Jacoby, Obama himself, a man pulling in an average of almost $250,000, only managed to donate $2,154 from 2000 to 2004. Naturally he bumped up this percentage to 5.5 percent when he entered the US Senate and started talking about running for president. What gives Obama the right to ask wealthy American’s to be more neighborly if he was not willing to actively help out the little guy until he was under public scrutiny? Something is not making sense to me.

Taking money from upper class American’s and handing it to the lower class is not, in my opinion, the correct way to address our countries economic problems, of course there are other ways to look at this issue. However, I believe Jacoby is right when he says, “you [don’t] have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing.”

This legitimate form of political communication presents ways for readers to grasp meaning with the presentation of statistics. While all readers of Jacoby’s article may not agree with what he has to say or his interpretation of Obama’s taxation policy, the piece does prompt readers of all political parties to investigate the issue discussed.

Jacoby’s critique of Obama’s economic plan presents overlap of three different forms of political communication. He wrote an article for the Boston Globe which appeared in print and on the internet and the article also made reference to a Fox News interview Senator Obama had with Bill O’Reilly, allowing the topic to reach a broad group of individuals.

This article also demonstrates some of the new incivility found in politics today. The attention that Jacoby draws to “Obamanomics” enhances an already mean spirited discourse between politicians who thrive on ego driven politics, media figures, and the public. The fact that news is now used as entertainment adds more to the new incivility. News now goes in a twenty four hour cycle which means stories constantly have to be addressed with a new spin in order to get the public interested and talking about the issues. “Obamanomics” was first talked about when Obama was interviewed by O’Reilly and then Jacoby steps in and discusses it in his article, causing more of an uproar about the topic.

The fact that this article is on the internet also adds to the new incivility in politics. Internet technology allows people to react quickly. Readers are able to pass the piece around quickly by emailing it to friends, creating a blog about it, and giving feedback to the columnist. The more technology progresses, the less accurate the information can be because people can react quickly without checking their sources… or even having sources for that matter.

Jacoby’s opinion editorial just goes to show that every single thing a politician says is under scrutiny. Whenever a political figure comments on an issue or answers a question, someone is listening and ready to argue. While the argumentative nature of Jacoby’s piece does offer up forms of incivility he has a right to express his opinions and allow the public to see an issue from a different viewpoint.