Barack Obama, the Gasoline Tax Holiday, and Monkey Business

Barack Obama’s recent stance on the so-called gas tax holiday is interesting because in an odd way it’s a measure of how distant he is from achieving what are ostensibly the core goals of his campaign—transforming politics as usual by being honest with voters and making tough instead of politically expedient choices, and making government more accessible and transparent.

Obama is absolutely corrct to call the gas tax holiday supported by Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain and which would remove gas taxes during the upcoming summer months, a “gimmick” and a “shell game.” Most agree that the average American would get something like a “free” half tank of gas. If Clinton and McCain were really interested about doing something about gasoline prices they should work to fundamentally change the price structure and availability of gasoline or, better yet, come up with specifics for alternative energy sources and increased public transportation. Although drivers won’t benefit much by the tax holiday, the government will lose quite a bit of revenue—about 9 billion according to some estimates (Bob Herbert, NY Times, 5-3-2008).

While Obama’s position is refreshing and consistent with what he claims his candidacy is about, his positions on much more important issues such as health care, the economy, and protecting Americans’ privacy, are much more typical of politics as usual.

He claims his health care plan offers universal care and yet he wouldn't require adults, just their children, to carry health care insurance. Most everyone familiar with the notion of providing universal health care recognizes that that a mandate is necessary—to cover all Americans and to ensure that the risk pool is large enough to bring down costs by minimizing the effects of the chronically ill. On the economy and the FISA bill, the latter of which would permit retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telephone and internet companies providing user information to the government, Obama has, respectively, been vague and opaque or not even voted on an issue sure to be controversial.

While there is danger, of course, in Obama speaking the truth—that a robust program of increased taxes and program cuts are necessary to save Social Security and right an economy in recession or to go on record as being against the FISA bill will subverts American’s rights under the guise of protecting them—Obama has established for himself expectations that Hillary Clinton and McCain have not. It isn’t, of course, that Clinton and McCain are not just as vague or even duplicitous on most of these issues, but that their campaigns aren’t fundamentally framed as being about change or the transformation of politics as usual.

Not meeting these expectations, despite such early promise and such skillful oratory, is certainly at least partially responsible for some of the sheen coming off Obama’s campaign recently. In this context, Jeremiah Wright and “Bittergate” are to Obama what Donna Rice and “Monkey Business” were to Gary Hart. In other words, they are not so important in and of themselves but signs of a more profound unease about Hart’s truthfulness, in general, or with Obama, not so much about his truthfulness per se but rather about whether he really does represent something new or whether he is just old wine in a new bottle.

The dissonance between Obama’s soaring and inspirational oratory about change, transparency, reconciliation and the like, and the reality of his campaign, in which he has been just as vague and innocuous on controversial issues as the other candidates, is certainly a problem. His primary problem, however, remains the attributes that always trip up Democratic candidates—the perception that Obama is too liberal, that his patriotism is suspect, that he may be weak on terrorism, the war in Iraq (fill in the blank).

In addition to these weaknesses, which Republicans are already exploiting in congressional races in the several southern states, Obama is, by nearly any standard, woefully inexperienced. Early on in the campaign, when the Iraq war was pretty much front and center, he was able to turn this liability into an asset, winning much applause when he said that George Bush and Clinton have a lot of experience and look where that has got us. True enough, but when push comes to shove, folks who are concerned about security, the war in Iraq, and the other potential horrors that Republicans will have peppered them with throughout the general election, may well think twice before voting for Obama.

Obama’s stance on the gas tax, then, heartening as it is, is small potatoes in comparison to his actions concerning health care, the economy, privacy, and even the war in Iraq (something he has voted to continue to fund since he has been in the US Senate). And it is unlikely that this will change in the final rounds of the race for the Democratic nomination. This is probably the smart, politically savvy thing to do. He remains the odds-on favorite to win the nomination and there are dangers in offering specifics on controversial issues or speaking about the kinds of hard choices that must be made to keep Social Security solvent, or to keep the economy upright.

If Obama continues to be a politician like any other in the general election, though, this, along with the elephants’ portrayal of him as a godless, leftwing, pinko, with less experience than some city councilmen, will spell serious trouble for the Democrats. Obama’s baggage is becoming way too heavy for the Democratic baggage handlers to carry and there is certain to be a lot more before November.

So what happens if the Democrats elect another candidate ripe for a drubbing? Perhaps we can put that free half tank of gas and few extra dollars from the tax rebate to good use and console ourselves for a night in a Motel 6 on the edge of town, with HBO blasting away, and a couple rounds of vibrating massage from the Magic Fingers.