Why (not) Barack?

So, the question I keep getting asked is: "How can an old, white, southern business guy vote for Barack Obama for President?" Well, I don't expect everyone to think like me, but I would expect that everyone who does would come to the same conclusion, and that is "How could you vote for anyone else?".

To begin with, we only had two choices. Would I have preferred Reagan in his prime, certainly, but you only get to pick from between those nominated. As a private equity investor, I spend my time (and investors' money) picking leaders to run the companies we invest in. What traits do I look for? Someone who collects all the facts at their disposal, analyzes them in a deliberate way that leads to a logical conclusion, develops a strategy around these conclusions, reflects the strategy in a plan, hires and motivates the best people to implement the plan, and continuously monitors performance and makes the necessary adjustments to stay on or regain course.

Does this sound like McCain or Obama? McCain ran as the Republican nominee, so he bore the responsibility of defending or denying the policies of the incumbent. He did neither, nor did he give any indication that he was even considering developing a strategy to deal with the nation's most pressing issues. Part of this was due to the fact that we have no clearly articulated foreign or domestic policy. Part was due to the fact that McCain just doesn't think from a strategic perspective. He simply reacts tactically. Sometimes his tactics are good (let's give him the credit he claims for the "surge"), more often they are poorly thought through like, for example, his $300 million mortgage buyout plan.

This nation is not going to prosper in the 21st century if it does not develop an economic strategy that allows us to retain/regain our competitive advantage. For a fuller explanation of what this would entail, see Michael Porter's cover story in Business Week (November 10, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b4107038217112.htm). Obama's campaign began to address these issues. He didn't answer them, but at least he acknowledged them. McCain's campaign focused mostly on character issues.

Similarly, this nation is not going to win the very real War on Terror without the cooperation of the rest of the world, most of which characterizes the U.S. as arrogant and a bully. Again, McCain's approach is mostly tactical ("Win in Iraq and then look for the next terrorist stronghold and win there."). I think most would concede that Obama has a broader world view than this which is probably where the next phase of the War on Terror is going to be fought.

On a more practical basis, my conclusion is that one of the reasons our nation has no coherent foreign or domestic policies is because the current President never articulated any and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi filled the void with their partisan approaches. Insert McCain into this equation and nothing changes. Ironically, if you don't like the policies of Reid/Pelosi, Obama is probably your one hope of controlling them, as was just evidenced on the Lieberman reappointment.

Finally, I think it is ironic that the major objection my peers have to Obama, and in many instances their principal reason for voting against him, is the likelihood that he will raise taxes. These are people who are part of the investor class that just lost $9 trillion(!) in the stock market because, in part, of the poor regulation of our credit markets and our unguided response to its decline. How does this loss compare to the proposed 5% increase in capital gains, which with losses of this magnitude is purely theoretical. The CEO of Goldman Sachs just agreed to a 99% reduction in his total compensation from last year, and the auto company chiefs have offered to work for $1 per year. How does a 2 1/2% increase in the ordinary income tax rate compare to this?

So, in summary, which candidate offered the better hope of a thought through and well executed strategy for dealing with our 21st century opportunities? I concluded Obama. Is there a risk? Sure, just like there was a risk to the Giants of going with a rookie quarterback like Eli Manning a few years ago. But at least there is a chance of success. The alternative is going with a veteran, who you are certain will never solve the team's problems. To me, easy choice. Larry