SENATOR OBAMA

Oddvark (OC): Hoy-Ahoy! Here comes the Pikerman.

Feckless (FP): What's happening Oddvark? What have we got on the radar tonight?

OC: Say Feckless, what do you think of Barack Obama? He seems like a pretty cool cat to me.

FP: He does indeed. He does indeed. Senator Obama seems like a descent fellow. I even heard Pat Buchanan complement him on one of those Sunday morning political talk shows recently. Pat said that it would be hard not to like Senator Obama on a personal level. While I've never had the pleasure of meeting him, that sure seems to be the case. But he's still a politician. And he's shooting for the moon in the political world: the Prez of the good 'ole U.S. of A.

OC: So you don't trust him, huh?

FP: I don't fully trust any politician. He's no different in that respect. I do appreciate his attempt to keep the campaign civil. It's his "change" message that I'm not so sure about.

OC: You don't like change? or You don't believe he can change the system?

FP: As Senator Clinton said recently, change is part of life. However, there can be revolutionary change and there can be incremental change. For instance, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed reform of the old Soviet Union in a slow methodical way towards a representative democracy and market economy. He estimated that it would take at least 20 years to accomplish the end result; it took 75 years for the Soviet Union to evolve into the bloated, inefficient bureaucracy that existed when the Berlin wall came down. Instead of Gorbachev's plan of incremental change, the Russian people decided that they wanted to follow Boris Yeltsin, who promised a faster pace of change. The Russian's were too impatient. It is understandable why they might be, they had to stand in block long lines just to get toilet tissue. Unfortunately, their impatience started a chain of events that has led to government by Mr. Putin and the Russian Mafia. The Russians now have government by thuggery.

OC: What does all that have to do with Senator Obama?

FP: Well, Senator Obama's rhetoric sounds like he is promising the fast pace change approach rather than the slow deliberate approach. After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney, it is understandable why Americans would want change quickly. However, we have to be careful and deliberate about the change we foster. For instance, Senator Obama has indicated that he believes that corporations have too much influence over government. In particular, his rhetoric has been unsympathetic to the oil companies. Senator Obama believes that the U.S. should hasten the pace of alternative energy development. I completely agree with him in principle. However, my retirement funds (both pension and personal savings), along with millions of other Americans are directly or indirectly tied to the fate of the U.S. oil industry. Who do you think owns all those oil stocks; pension funds, insurance companies (annuities), mutual funds (401K, 403B, etc.)and personal investors. If the pace of change in energy production is too rapid, we run the risk of destabilizing the share values of stocks in the energy sector and related industries. So, while we should definitely begin the conversion from fossil fuels to other forms of energy, we need to do so carefully, deliberately and gradually. This will allow our industries time to make the needed changes to their capital investment mix. Don't get me wrong, we can no longer sit on our heels and continue our dependence on fossil fuels. We must start the process of change soon. I just think if we have a Democrat in the White House and a Democratically controlled Congress the temptation will be great to make revolutionary changes in energy policy. Those kind of changes could destabilize our capital markets and possibly even our economy. What we need is to see gradual, deliberate change over the next ten years, followed by a paradigm shift toward alternative energy dominance within a second decade.

OC: So your beef with Senator Obama is with energy policy?

FP: Not exactly, I agree with him in principle. I am just concerned about the pace of change and the temptation to make radical changes because of the political opportunity posed by control of two branches of government. The Republicans showed the same lack of restraint when they captured the White House in 2000; except they used their newfound power to weaken attempts at energy policy reform. What we need is a consistent policy of conservation and alternative fuel research and implementation that survives political changes in Washington. Alas, this may not be possible in a polarized two-party system.

FP: By the way, energy policy is not the only place where we need sustained policy initiatives. I just used that as one example. As a general rule, I think Americans and American politicians need to start thinking more long-term, more strategically. Americans have got to break their habit of short-term gratification. If not, future generations of Americans are going to pay a heavy price for their forefather's profligacy.