Will President Obama Fulfill His Promises In A Second Term?
You can not believe he will if you consider two things: (1) what history teaches us about second term presidents and (2) if you consider the character of Barack Obama as it comes across in Ed Klein's new book, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, which is based on more than 200 interviews, many of which are from people who have helped Obama's career at various stages of his life.
What Does History Teach Us About Second Term Presidents?
History teaches us that second term presidents accomplish very little that is new in a second term. This country has had 44 presidents, 15 have served two terms (Lincoln and McKinley are taken out of the reckoning because they were murdered soon after winning a second term). Out of those fifteen presidents, guess how many had a SUCCESSFUL second term?
only 1!
That's right: one! The one, successful second term president was Theodore Roosevelt (26th president, 1901-1909). The reason for his success was that he never ran out of fresh ideas. The guy kept thinking of new things to help the country: environmental conservation; food and drug regulation; making sure corporations don't become too powerful to threaten the safety of the country, etc. Every time you fill up your drinking glass with clean, tap water, you are tasting the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt!
The only other president to come close to a second term success was Ronald Reagan, with the winning of the Cold War, but his second term was tainted with Iran Contra so, on balance, he get's left out. Some people might think Franklin D. Roosevelt (32nd president, 1933-1945) should be considered, but he also gets left out because his second term was a total catastrophe. FDR accomplished all his positive reforms in his first term. He spent his second term alienating everyone in Congress over his battle to pack the Supreme Court. FDR made a comeback in his third term, because of World War II, but nowadays presidents are not allowed to serve for more than two terms.
Why Are The Odds Stacked So Heavily Against A Successful Second Term President?
Once a president loses his eligibility to run for another election, his power to persuade and cajole diminishes greatly. If an incumbent is not going to be around in the next election, there is nothing he can promise or threaten for other incumbents beyond that election. Thus, he has reached lame-duck status. Recognizing this, presidents go for broke in their first term, cashing in all their chips to accomplish their most desired projects while they can.
If They Accomplish Everything In The First Term, Why Even Bother Campaigning For A Second Term?
Presidents campaign for a second term because they want to protect their reforms by making sure the passage of time solidifies and entrenches those reforms. If the roots can sink-in deeply enough, it may be impossible for future presidents to undo those reforms.
The passage of time for a sitting president means four more years of making the court appointments that president wants; issuing executive orders to add further dimensions to the reforms of the first term; opening new federal agencies with staffers whose careers become invested in the reforms of the first term; packing the justice department with like-minded officials. A repeal of Obamacare stands its best chance if the voters send Obama home this November, before he has another four years to sink its roots into the nervous system of the country. Voters skittish about Mitt Romney are naive to think they can wait until 2016 to get the right president in Washington to undo Obamacare. By then, it may be too late, and the fight too hard to win.
What About President Obama? Is There Something Different Or Special About His Nature That Should Lead Us To Believe There Is A Glimmer Of Hope That He Will Use A Second Term To Fulfill The 'Hope and Change' Of His First Term?
The answer to the above question is a resounding no. Despite the president's oft repeated excuse that Republican obstruction has prevented him from accomplishing his goals, we must be aware that he had huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress during his first two years. From 2009 to 2011, not a single Republican was strong enough to stop Obama from getting anything he wanted. He chose his own priorities, major healthcare reform with a stronger government role in it was first and foremost on Obama's plate. Should this project have received most of his attention when the economy was in free-fall and the country was embroiled in several foreign wars?
All the president did for the economy was to get the Federal Reserve to pump more money into the economy and take-on billions more in debt (altogether, $800 billion was spent in the first stimulus bill) to give to the states to spend as they saw fit. This money was supposed to be used to save and create jobs. Instead, it went to pay off the states' own debts. Three years later, unemployment is stuck above 8 per cent, and those many billions have been flushed down the drain. The president himself laughed at his own failure by saying shovel-ready jobs were "not as shovel-ready as we thought." This shows us his care and attitude about fulfilling the hope and change he promised us all! With this in mind, do we see anything in his character that should lead us to believe Obama will defy the odds, in more than two hundred years of history, and become a successful second term president? No.
None of this is to mention the gravity of the testimony that comes through in more than two hundred interviews conducted by journalist Ed Klein (for the book The Amateur). The overwhelming impression that floods the reader is that at every stage of his career: university lecturer, community organizer, Illinois state legislator, U.S. Senator, and finally, president of the United States, Barack Obama turns his back on the very people who help him. Everyone from small-time Chicago fundraisers to Oprah Winfrey and the Kennedy's have been burned and scorned by this narcissistic man with delusions of messiah-hood! Does this lead us to believe Obama cares about us - the middle class, the wage-creators, the wage-earners, or anyone else? No.
Dear reader, if you can think of any reason we should vote for President Obama in 2012, please explain it in the comment link below.
Jason A.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
What Kind Of America Do You Want In 2013?
Depending on the outcome of the election this November, one of two starkly different visions of America will be inaugurated in January 2013. The choice in this election will not be a lesser of evils choice. Regardless of whatever parallels may exist between Republicans and Democrats, these similarities do not apply to Romney and Obama. The differences between these two candidates are the starkest between any two candidates in the entire history of the American republic. With the national deficit toppling $16 trillion, unemployment stuck at 8%, medicare deprived of $16 billion in funding for people who desperately need it, Americans being attacked and humiliated in embassies running the gamit in Islamic countries ranging the world, the stakes have never been higher. Your vote has never counted more!
The question to ask yourself is, "What kind of America do I want in 2013?" The thought you must think is, "I must take the time to go to the polling station because my vote will help determine the direction my country will take for my future, my child's future, and my grand-child's future."
You may be thinking, "No problem, Jason. I got it. I already know who I'm voting for. I don't need to read this blog post. It is not for me. It is for people who haven't made up their minds." Dear reader, please take this appeal seriously, because your help is needed to convince the very people who haven't made up their minds. Talk with them about what is outlined in this post, or forward this post to them. This will be especially important if your friends live in a battleground state like Florida or Ohio. Here are the choices between the candidates competing for the future of America in 2013. It is designed like a checklist. It can be printed and checked off. An undecided voter can use it to make pro and con columns to help them make their choice.
What Kind of America Do I Want In 2013?
1. An America that protects its property and citizens around the world and holds foreign governments accountable for this.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to anticipate and properly respond to the attacks, rioting, and murder of innocent Americans at the various embassies from Tunisia to Yemen this past week, beginning on September 11th (no coincidence). The president's failure is matched against Governor Romney's pledge to do the opposite.
2. An America that places priority on job creation, rather than on increased dependency on government aid (funded by wage earner's hard-earned paychecks) to provide the basis of American prosperity.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to reduce the unemployment rate below 8%. His strategies for job growth have focused on putting burdensome regulations and increased healthcare obligations on small businesses, thus removing from them the incentive to hire more workers. The president has increased dependency on government aid by issuing more food stamps to more people than any previous president. The money for this comes directly from the taxes taken from everyone who works for their living.
3. An America that focuses on tackling the $16 trillion deficit by first reducing runaway borrowing and spending.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +0.5 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to do anything with the nation's debt except to grow it by leaps and bounds. He has added more to the debt in 4 years than President Bush added to it in 8 years! Governor Romney added seriousness to his pledge to slash borrowing and spending by picking Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan has a record of crafting spending-cut legislative bills in Congress. Sadly, these proposals have always arrived dead in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Romney gets only 0.5 point instead of 1 point because he has not been very specific about where the spending cuts will come from.
4. An America that makes smart choices about energy policy. North Dakota no longer has an unemployment problem, because they have opened more of their land to oil drilling. It is a simple formula. (1) new drilling permits create demand for construction (rigs, etc.) (2) new construction creates jobs for construction-workers (3) construction-workers flock to the state with their families (4) new families create demand for (5) housing (6) electricity (7) schools (8) shopping malls (9) restaurants. Do I need to continue?
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's refusal to allow the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which would expand energy commerce between the U.S. and Canada, thus creating untold millions of ripple-effect jobs. To add insult to injury, the president has denied off-shore drilling permits to American companies, but has funneled foreign aid to Brazil for off-shore drilling in their waters. Governor Romney has pledged to approve Keystone upon arrival in the White House.
5. An America that does not make excuses for terrorists who murder its citizens at home and abroad
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's and Secretary of State Clinton's obsessive, droning condemnation of a Florida-based video for being responsible for the terrorism and bullying toward Americans in mideast embassies over the last week. The president misses the fact that Tunisians have been chanting "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!" Governor Romney wasted no breath on a stupid video. Instead, he rightly declared that terrorism toward Americans will NOT be tolerated or excused in any shape, form, or fashion.
6. An America that is not ashamed to express its pride in its own country as much as people of other countries express pride in their own countries.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's constant apologizing to world leaders for American behavior. He has frequently expressed his view that "9/11 caused us to act contrary to our ideals." This observer asks, "When has it NOT been an American ideal to fight the enemies of American freedom and safety?" Governor Romney gets a point for the same reason he got one in #5.
7. An America that has respect for (1) the rule of law, (2) state's rights, and (3) purity of the electoral process
President Obama: -3 points
Governor Romney: no point given or lost
This is based on President Obama's assault on the rule of law by ignoring the work requirements for federal welfare laws that go back to 1996. In so doing he is ruling by executive order. His executive order declares that the legal work requirements for people to receive welfare will not be enforced. Thus, free government aid is given in exchange for presidential rule by decree! Furthermore, the president has violated both state's rights and purity of the electoral process by suing the state of North Carolina for the evil sin of requiring voters to show a picture identification when they come to vote!!!!!!!!!! In today's world, you can't do anything without showing a picture I.D.! Thus, the president has trampled state's rights and has undermined the purity of the electoral process by making it possible for someone to vote multiple times in the same election! Governor Romney does not get or lose a point because he needs to be in power for us to assess him on this.
8. An America that does not discriminate against women and minorities
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: no point given or lost
This is based on the fact that President Obama has resurrected the practice of issuing government construction projects to labor unions (a practice discontinued under President Bush because labor unions have shown a tendency to discriminate against women and minorities by paying them less than other workers). Many African-American small-business owners have complained about this.Governor Romney does not get or lose a point because he needs to be in power for us to assess him on this.
Not made up your mind yet? Just add up the points for each candidate; this should do the trick. If it does not, there is not much else anyone can say to help you...
Jason A.
Depending on the outcome of the election this November, one of two starkly different visions of America will be inaugurated in January 2013. The choice in this election will not be a lesser of evils choice. Regardless of whatever parallels may exist between Republicans and Democrats, these similarities do not apply to Romney and Obama. The differences between these two candidates are the starkest between any two candidates in the entire history of the American republic. With the national deficit toppling $16 trillion, unemployment stuck at 8%, medicare deprived of $16 billion in funding for people who desperately need it, Americans being attacked and humiliated in embassies running the gamit in Islamic countries ranging the world, the stakes have never been higher. Your vote has never counted more!
The question to ask yourself is, "What kind of America do I want in 2013?" The thought you must think is, "I must take the time to go to the polling station because my vote will help determine the direction my country will take for my future, my child's future, and my grand-child's future."
You may be thinking, "No problem, Jason. I got it. I already know who I'm voting for. I don't need to read this blog post. It is not for me. It is for people who haven't made up their minds." Dear reader, please take this appeal seriously, because your help is needed to convince the very people who haven't made up their minds. Talk with them about what is outlined in this post, or forward this post to them. This will be especially important if your friends live in a battleground state like Florida or Ohio. Here are the choices between the candidates competing for the future of America in 2013. It is designed like a checklist. It can be printed and checked off. An undecided voter can use it to make pro and con columns to help them make their choice.
What Kind of America Do I Want In 2013?
1. An America that protects its property and citizens around the world and holds foreign governments accountable for this.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to anticipate and properly respond to the attacks, rioting, and murder of innocent Americans at the various embassies from Tunisia to Yemen this past week, beginning on September 11th (no coincidence). The president's failure is matched against Governor Romney's pledge to do the opposite.
2. An America that places priority on job creation, rather than on increased dependency on government aid (funded by wage earner's hard-earned paychecks) to provide the basis of American prosperity.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to reduce the unemployment rate below 8%. His strategies for job growth have focused on putting burdensome regulations and increased healthcare obligations on small businesses, thus removing from them the incentive to hire more workers. The president has increased dependency on government aid by issuing more food stamps to more people than any previous president. The money for this comes directly from the taxes taken from everyone who works for their living.
3. An America that focuses on tackling the $16 trillion deficit by first reducing runaway borrowing and spending.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +0.5 point
This is based on President Obama's failure to do anything with the nation's debt except to grow it by leaps and bounds. He has added more to the debt in 4 years than President Bush added to it in 8 years! Governor Romney added seriousness to his pledge to slash borrowing and spending by picking Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan has a record of crafting spending-cut legislative bills in Congress. Sadly, these proposals have always arrived dead in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Romney gets only 0.5 point instead of 1 point because he has not been very specific about where the spending cuts will come from.
4. An America that makes smart choices about energy policy. North Dakota no longer has an unemployment problem, because they have opened more of their land to oil drilling. It is a simple formula. (1) new drilling permits create demand for construction (rigs, etc.) (2) new construction creates jobs for construction-workers (3) construction-workers flock to the state with their families (4) new families create demand for (5) housing (6) electricity (7) schools (8) shopping malls (9) restaurants. Do I need to continue?
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's refusal to allow the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which would expand energy commerce between the U.S. and Canada, thus creating untold millions of ripple-effect jobs. To add insult to injury, the president has denied off-shore drilling permits to American companies, but has funneled foreign aid to Brazil for off-shore drilling in their waters. Governor Romney has pledged to approve Keystone upon arrival in the White House.
5. An America that does not make excuses for terrorists who murder its citizens at home and abroad
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's and Secretary of State Clinton's obsessive, droning condemnation of a Florida-based video for being responsible for the terrorism and bullying toward Americans in mideast embassies over the last week. The president misses the fact that Tunisians have been chanting "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!" Governor Romney wasted no breath on a stupid video. Instead, he rightly declared that terrorism toward Americans will NOT be tolerated or excused in any shape, form, or fashion.
6. An America that is not ashamed to express its pride in its own country as much as people of other countries express pride in their own countries.
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: +1 point
This is based on President Obama's constant apologizing to world leaders for American behavior. He has frequently expressed his view that "9/11 caused us to act contrary to our ideals." This observer asks, "When has it NOT been an American ideal to fight the enemies of American freedom and safety?" Governor Romney gets a point for the same reason he got one in #5.
7. An America that has respect for (1) the rule of law, (2) state's rights, and (3) purity of the electoral process
President Obama: -3 points
Governor Romney: no point given or lost
This is based on President Obama's assault on the rule of law by ignoring the work requirements for federal welfare laws that go back to 1996. In so doing he is ruling by executive order. His executive order declares that the legal work requirements for people to receive welfare will not be enforced. Thus, free government aid is given in exchange for presidential rule by decree! Furthermore, the president has violated both state's rights and purity of the electoral process by suing the state of North Carolina for the evil sin of requiring voters to show a picture identification when they come to vote!!!!!!!!!! In today's world, you can't do anything without showing a picture I.D.! Thus, the president has trampled state's rights and has undermined the purity of the electoral process by making it possible for someone to vote multiple times in the same election! Governor Romney does not get or lose a point because he needs to be in power for us to assess him on this.
8. An America that does not discriminate against women and minorities
President Obama: -1 point
Governor Romney: no point given or lost
This is based on the fact that President Obama has resurrected the practice of issuing government construction projects to labor unions (a practice discontinued under President Bush because labor unions have shown a tendency to discriminate against women and minorities by paying them less than other workers). Many African-American small-business owners have complained about this.Governor Romney does not get or lose a point because he needs to be in power for us to assess him on this.
Not made up your mind yet? Just add up the points for each candidate; this should do the trick. If it does not, there is not much else anyone can say to help you...
Jason A.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
What Obama and Romney Need To Do To Win In 2012
The following is my attempt to lay out a winning campaign strategy for each of the presidential candidates this November. These are themes I will return to in the weeks to come, as the campaigns unfold. These themes are based less on the personal wishes of this observer, and more on election strategies that have won in the past.
Appeal To Hope, Avoid Fear
Hearts and minds are swayed by hopes and fears. Hope is more powerful than fear. But in the absent of hope, fear will have to do. President Obama's campaign message is increasingly molding around fear; fear of the rich "1-percent" who are "not paying their fair share in taxes"; fear of the 1-percent's ultimate representative, Mitt Romney, and how he will harm the country if elected. Early in 2011, the president's campaign aids were asked what their strategy will be in 2012 - they answered - "kill Romney!" They are making good on this promise, but it is not bringing in the desired results.
Since 2008, the majority of Americans have lost faith in President Obama's leadership. The trend that has emerged from Gallup and Rasmussen polls for June and July shows the "dead-heat" to be over. Romney has established a 5-point lead among likely voters and is now neck-and-neck with Obama among registered voters.
Considering the president's faltering esteem with the electorate, his appeal to fear of a Romney presidency is depressing the electorate. Many people are saying to themselves, "I don't like the guy we have, and the other guy looks bad. I don't think I'll vote this November." Some say voter turnout will be lower this time, but one trend is noteworthy: Democrat voters are far less enthusiastic in 2012 than they were in 2008. A recent Gallup poll shows:
Democrats (and Democrat-leaning Independents) 39% (more enthusiastic) - 44% (less enthusiastic) Republicans (and Republican-leaning Independents) 52% (more enthusiastic) - 34% (less enthusiastic).
This means Republican voter-enthusiasm has a 13 point lead over Democratic voter-enthusiasm. People are looking for the candidate who offers them hope, and the president's message of fear is turning them off. Mitt Romney has yet to make the most of this advantage, but the advantage is ripe for the taking. What he must do (and soon) is craft his message as one that offers hope for a better future.
Avoid Class Warfare (Americans Do Not Like It)
The president's demonizing of the wealthy is an old card known as "class warfare." Obsessively, the president's speeches have stressed that life for the majority of Americans will not improve unless greater resources are being contributed from the wealthy classes. The most recent IRS records show that individuals in the top 5 to 10 percent tax-brackets are paying well more than 50% of their earnings, in taxes. (This has nothing to do with the capital gains tax). Income taxes in America are "progressive." This means, the more you make, the higher the percentage you pay. If the rich are not paying their fair share, what is the fair share? 70 percent? 90 percent? If so, where is the incentive for individuals to risk, invest, and grow the economy by creating jobs?
Class warfare has been a tool used by prominent American politicians as far back as Andrew Jackson in the 1820's. It never works unless it is wielded by a leader with a substantial record of accomplishment and who, already enjoys high esteem with the voters. Class warfare sounds shrill, desperate, and whiny coming from a leader with a lackluster record of accomplishment, and whose esteem is plummeting in the polls. If President Obama wants to win, he must ditch this card immediately.
The politics of class warfare has always been stale in America. The argument that the rich always get richer by making the poor poorer, never much resonated with the tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country for a chance to own cheap land, get a job, feed a growing family, and hopefully have a little change left over. Even in the blackest despair of the Great Depression, support for socialist and communist parties was weak. (Socialist and communist parties are known for trumpeting "soak the rich" slogans.)
Consistent polling across several years has shown Americans to be 40% conservative, 20% moderate, and only 20% liberal. Taken together, conservative and moderate ideology drives the kinds of government policies most Americans want. Liberalism tends to favor major political and social change in the direction of socialism (which entails increased government control over all key institutions of society.)
But with all this in mind, how did the [liberal] president, Barack Obama, get elected in the first place? The simplest answer is: sometimes circumstance temporarily shoves the usual trends off the chessboard. President Obama won the election of 2008 for one reason above all others: a global economic crisis erupted after nearly a decade of foreign policy crisis. Accrued catastrophe of such magnitude compels the electorate to want to throw out incumbents. In the midterm election of 2006, and in the presidential election of 2008, incumbents throughout the system got the ax.
After that, failure on the part of the new incumbents to improve matters, brought the ax to many of them, in 2010. This dynamic is likely to be a force this November, but the conservative and moderate forces that ordinarily drive the electorate are also beginning to drift back onto the chessboard. This manifested itself in the first 'tea party' protests during tax time in April 2009. Much of the rancor was over the explosion of the national debt in the wake of President Obama's 'stimulus' spending, which dumped billions into the economy in order to resuscitate it.
In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama shrewdly made the most of the 'anti-incumbent' advantage by presenting himself as a moderate. He downplayed his past [liberal] sentiments, and played-up his desire to reverse the major crises and restore prosperity: hope and change. For example, his desire for major health care reform took a backseat to his heroic posture to save the financial and automotive industries from collapse. However, soon after inauguration, it became clear that his more liberal agenda was the main focus of his attention.
The fight over Obamacare has consumed American political culture for the last three years. (The only other issue to come in second has been the fight over the debt ceiling). With all the major challenges facing the future of American prosperity, it is reasonable to ask if so many eggs should have been placed in one basket.
In sum, 'anti-incumbency' elected President Obama in 2008, not a liberal electorate. The polls are showing that his rhetoric of class warfare is grating against the sentiments of a culture that never had much use for it. These same polls show that 40% of Americans now view President Obama as "very liberal." This will bode ill for him in November.
Lower Taxes
Some people grimace at the thought of taxes being lowered for the benefit of the wealthy, but a promise to lower taxes for Americans across-the-board has never been an election-killer. Lowering taxes has never hurt the economy. Allowing people to keep a larger share of their earnings is a very healthy incentive for risk, investment, and job creation.
Every dollar spent by consumers is a contribution to someone else's livelihood. But consumers need extra cash in order to spend it. Investors need extra cash to invest it. Each dollar soaked up in taxes is a dollar taken out of the economy. It is a dollar taken away from producers. It is a dollar taken away from consumers. It is a dollar taken away from a wage-earner due to a necessary pay-cut. It is another dollar taken away on the road to a lay-off. Taxes are necessary, but economies grow when taxes are being lowered, not when they are being raised.
Ease Regulations and Financial Obligations On Businesses: This Will Give Employers An Incentive To Invest and Create Jobs
Excessive environmental regulation kills economic growth and endangers the environment. The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 was a catastrophe that can be prevented in the future if oil industries are allowed to drill off-shore. Since 2009, off-shore drilling permits have become almost impossible to obtain. Consequentially, drillers are forced into deep-sea drilling, which is far more difficult and far more hazardous to the environment when accidents occur, hence the catastrophe in the Gulf.
Excessive financial obligations on businesses, for instance, requiring more small businesses to pay for their employees' health care (if well-intentioned) kills investment and job growth. More Americans are employed by small businesses than are employed by large, corporations. If employers have to pay more for health care, they will need to hire fewer employees. Obamacare will set in motion increased requirements for small businesses to pay a larger share of their employees' health care.
Avoid Divisive Social Issues
In an age when more than 50 per cent of Americans are classified as living at or below the poverty line, getting a job and putting food on the table are foremost in their minds as election day approaches. Divisive social issues such as gay marriage and free contraception [which has replaced abortion, an issue the Democrats have largely abandoned as a campaign-able issue] will not be issues 1 through 5 when they head to the polls.
Immigration reform, though a strong issue with many Americans, will not be a dominating one in this election. It will go to the back-burner and re-surface at a later time. Immigration tends to be a bigger issue in midterm elections. It is never a dominating one in presidential elections.
Even foreign policy issues (a dominating force in certain past elections, for instance, 2004, 1968, 1952, 1940), though not on the back-burner, will not be front-and-center this November. Most Americans think the Iraq War is a thing of the past, and they have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan. Sadly, in another year or so, they may forget where Afghanistan is located on a map. Nevertheless, U.S. relations with Israel, Iran, China, and to some extent, Russia, will be important (if secondary) options for political advantage this November, considering the global stakes surrounding choices to be made by these states.
An America-First Foreign Policy
Despite the growth and influence of international institutions (like the United Nations) voters in most countries are still nationalistic. They want their own country to have a competitive advantage in the world economy, and this consideration influences the terms on which a country joins an international institution. Americans need not be ashamed to put the fortunes of their own country first and foremost when they decide how to vote.
This is not at all to say that Americans want to invade other countries out of bloodthirsty power-lust. On the contrary, Americans are weary of the cost paid by Americans when military intervention takes place, as it has consistently, for the last decade. "America-first" does not translate into "more war."
If anything, wars are costly gambles for American presidents. Harry Truman couldn't run for re-election in 1952 because the Korean War had sucked away his popularity. For the same reason, Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run again in 1968, over Vietnam. The same thing would have happened to George W. Bush (over Iraq) if he had come up for re-election in 2005 instead of in 2004. As it was (in 2004) a majority of the public still perceived his leadership in fighting terrorism to be essential enough to carry him through re-election.
Don't Worry About The Base; Go After Independent Voters
President Obama's divisive rhetoric is red meat for his party's base voters. Statements he has made about congressional Republicans, for example, "Their plan is for dirtier air and dirtier water" rings warmly in the hearts of hardcore Democrats, but sounds absurd in the ears of an independent voter. Any objective mind has to think, "Gee, Republicans want themselves and their own children to breathe dirty air. They also want to drink dirty water, and have their own children do the same. Hmm... This sound like non-sense."
Voters who understand and appreciate the distinctions and nuances between conservatism and liberalism already know who they are voting for - the battle for their hearts and minds is over. The independent voters are the ones who are up-for-grabs.
Independent voters are less interested in ideology and philosophy, and more interested in results. They are up-for-grabs because they think more about what they see, rather than what they believe. If they see that the status quo is working, they will vote to maintain it. If they see that the status quo has failed, they will vote to overturn it. It is no accident that untold millions of campaign dollars are flooding into states like Ohio and Florida, the "battleground" states, which are up-for-grabs. In 2012, the independent voters will decide the outcome of the election. The winning candidate will craft his message for their appeal.
What President Obama Needs To Overcome In Order To Win
For all the reasons explained above, President Obama must find a way to appeal to Americans' sense of hope for a better future; ditch the fear and the class envy he is stirring up; reverse his efforts to raise taxes on high-income earners; lower taxes for everyone; ease regulations and financial obligations on businesses; avoid divisive social issues; embrace an "America-first" foreign policy; let the party-base take care of itself; go after independent voters.
President Obama is in a horrible bind. Most Americans are finding his conduct and his record of accomplishments wanting (for further exploration of this theme, see my post from July 19, entitled Is
A Non-Partisan Critique of President Obama Possible?).
He must find a way to appeal to the people's hope, as he did in 2008. Unfortunately, if he does this, he will find himself in the extremely awkward position of having to explain why he couldn't get the job done in his first term, and how it will be different in his second term. He knows this, and so, he has fallen into the default temptation to play on the people's fears. As he sees it, his only shot left is to scare everyone about his opponent. If he makes the election about Mitt Romney and the 1-percent, maybe, just maybe, Obama will squeak through November. For President Obama to win, the election must be about anyone and anything other than Barack Obama.
What Governor Romney Needs To Overcome In Order To Win
Aside from all the policy strategies outlined above, Governor Romney needs to craft his message as one of resonating hope. The opportunity is ripe for him to do so. Yet, many voters do not feel a strong attachment to Mitt Romney. He comes across as trying too hard to appear cool and hip, but he isn't fooling anyone. He is not cool, not hip, and must communicate to Americans that such characteristics are irrelevant to strong leadership. He is a reserved businessman, and must appear comfortable in his own skin. In the process, his authenticity will form a bond of trust with the people. This may need to take place even before he can appeal to their sense of hope.
Romney must stop appearing embarrassed by his own success. He always looks worried and caught off-guard when questions are asked about his tax returns, overseas investments, and Swiss bank accounts. Such attacks on him are ridiculous. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is claiming that Romney hasn't paid any taxes in years, and that this information is coming to him through trusted, un-named sources.
Reid and others are demanding that Mitt Romney make public the entire history of his tax records, even though such an all-encompassing demand has never before been made of a presidential candidate. If Governor Romney's conduct in his personal, financial investments has followed the spirit of the law, he has nothing to be ashamed of.
It is nobody's business if a person has a net worth of a 100 million or more, so long as that wealth was made legally. John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, had a net worth comparable to Mitt Romney's. It was not even made an issue in that election! Are we supposed to believe that Senator Kerry and his Heinz heiress, Teresa, do not have overseas investments? Mitt Romney needs to make it clear that personal attacks on his wealth and success are a superficial distraction in an election when millions of Americans can not earn enough money to put food on the table.
In sum
President Obama has a harder case to make before the electorate, but the attacks on Romney may work if that candidate does not show a strong response to them. In this election, the big issues are as follows: (1) jobs (2) Obamacare and (3) the national debt. Governor Romney will have an easier time positioning himself on those issues because he hasn't been responsible for the way things have turned out on them. President Obama will succeed only if he can make the election about anything other than those issues. The "fear" card is not working for him, so he will need to do some serious outside-of-the-box thinking to try and appeal to hope for a better future.
Jason A.
The following is my attempt to lay out a winning campaign strategy for each of the presidential candidates this November. These are themes I will return to in the weeks to come, as the campaigns unfold. These themes are based less on the personal wishes of this observer, and more on election strategies that have won in the past.
Appeal To Hope, Avoid Fear
Hearts and minds are swayed by hopes and fears. Hope is more powerful than fear. But in the absent of hope, fear will have to do. President Obama's campaign message is increasingly molding around fear; fear of the rich "1-percent" who are "not paying their fair share in taxes"; fear of the 1-percent's ultimate representative, Mitt Romney, and how he will harm the country if elected. Early in 2011, the president's campaign aids were asked what their strategy will be in 2012 - they answered - "kill Romney!" They are making good on this promise, but it is not bringing in the desired results.
Since 2008, the majority of Americans have lost faith in President Obama's leadership. The trend that has emerged from Gallup and Rasmussen polls for June and July shows the "dead-heat" to be over. Romney has established a 5-point lead among likely voters and is now neck-and-neck with Obama among registered voters.
Considering the president's faltering esteem with the electorate, his appeal to fear of a Romney presidency is depressing the electorate. Many people are saying to themselves, "I don't like the guy we have, and the other guy looks bad. I don't think I'll vote this November." Some say voter turnout will be lower this time, but one trend is noteworthy: Democrat voters are far less enthusiastic in 2012 than they were in 2008. A recent Gallup poll shows:
Democrats (and Democrat-leaning Independents) 39% (more enthusiastic) - 44% (less enthusiastic) Republicans (and Republican-leaning Independents) 52% (more enthusiastic) - 34% (less enthusiastic).
This means Republican voter-enthusiasm has a 13 point lead over Democratic voter-enthusiasm. People are looking for the candidate who offers them hope, and the president's message of fear is turning them off. Mitt Romney has yet to make the most of this advantage, but the advantage is ripe for the taking. What he must do (and soon) is craft his message as one that offers hope for a better future.
Avoid Class Warfare (Americans Do Not Like It)
The president's demonizing of the wealthy is an old card known as "class warfare." Obsessively, the president's speeches have stressed that life for the majority of Americans will not improve unless greater resources are being contributed from the wealthy classes. The most recent IRS records show that individuals in the top 5 to 10 percent tax-brackets are paying well more than 50% of their earnings, in taxes. (This has nothing to do with the capital gains tax). Income taxes in America are "progressive." This means, the more you make, the higher the percentage you pay. If the rich are not paying their fair share, what is the fair share? 70 percent? 90 percent? If so, where is the incentive for individuals to risk, invest, and grow the economy by creating jobs?
Class warfare has been a tool used by prominent American politicians as far back as Andrew Jackson in the 1820's. It never works unless it is wielded by a leader with a substantial record of accomplishment and who, already enjoys high esteem with the voters. Class warfare sounds shrill, desperate, and whiny coming from a leader with a lackluster record of accomplishment, and whose esteem is plummeting in the polls. If President Obama wants to win, he must ditch this card immediately.
The politics of class warfare has always been stale in America. The argument that the rich always get richer by making the poor poorer, never much resonated with the tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country for a chance to own cheap land, get a job, feed a growing family, and hopefully have a little change left over. Even in the blackest despair of the Great Depression, support for socialist and communist parties was weak. (Socialist and communist parties are known for trumpeting "soak the rich" slogans.)
Consistent polling across several years has shown Americans to be 40% conservative, 20% moderate, and only 20% liberal. Taken together, conservative and moderate ideology drives the kinds of government policies most Americans want. Liberalism tends to favor major political and social change in the direction of socialism (which entails increased government control over all key institutions of society.)
But with all this in mind, how did the [liberal] president, Barack Obama, get elected in the first place? The simplest answer is: sometimes circumstance temporarily shoves the usual trends off the chessboard. President Obama won the election of 2008 for one reason above all others: a global economic crisis erupted after nearly a decade of foreign policy crisis. Accrued catastrophe of such magnitude compels the electorate to want to throw out incumbents. In the midterm election of 2006, and in the presidential election of 2008, incumbents throughout the system got the ax.
After that, failure on the part of the new incumbents to improve matters, brought the ax to many of them, in 2010. This dynamic is likely to be a force this November, but the conservative and moderate forces that ordinarily drive the electorate are also beginning to drift back onto the chessboard. This manifested itself in the first 'tea party' protests during tax time in April 2009. Much of the rancor was over the explosion of the national debt in the wake of President Obama's 'stimulus' spending, which dumped billions into the economy in order to resuscitate it.
In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama shrewdly made the most of the 'anti-incumbent' advantage by presenting himself as a moderate. He downplayed his past [liberal] sentiments, and played-up his desire to reverse the major crises and restore prosperity: hope and change. For example, his desire for major health care reform took a backseat to his heroic posture to save the financial and automotive industries from collapse. However, soon after inauguration, it became clear that his more liberal agenda was the main focus of his attention.
The fight over Obamacare has consumed American political culture for the last three years. (The only other issue to come in second has been the fight over the debt ceiling). With all the major challenges facing the future of American prosperity, it is reasonable to ask if so many eggs should have been placed in one basket.
In sum, 'anti-incumbency' elected President Obama in 2008, not a liberal electorate. The polls are showing that his rhetoric of class warfare is grating against the sentiments of a culture that never had much use for it. These same polls show that 40% of Americans now view President Obama as "very liberal." This will bode ill for him in November.
Lower Taxes
Some people grimace at the thought of taxes being lowered for the benefit of the wealthy, but a promise to lower taxes for Americans across-the-board has never been an election-killer. Lowering taxes has never hurt the economy. Allowing people to keep a larger share of their earnings is a very healthy incentive for risk, investment, and job creation.
Every dollar spent by consumers is a contribution to someone else's livelihood. But consumers need extra cash in order to spend it. Investors need extra cash to invest it. Each dollar soaked up in taxes is a dollar taken out of the economy. It is a dollar taken away from producers. It is a dollar taken away from consumers. It is a dollar taken away from a wage-earner due to a necessary pay-cut. It is another dollar taken away on the road to a lay-off. Taxes are necessary, but economies grow when taxes are being lowered, not when they are being raised.
Ease Regulations and Financial Obligations On Businesses: This Will Give Employers An Incentive To Invest and Create Jobs
Excessive environmental regulation kills economic growth and endangers the environment. The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 was a catastrophe that can be prevented in the future if oil industries are allowed to drill off-shore. Since 2009, off-shore drilling permits have become almost impossible to obtain. Consequentially, drillers are forced into deep-sea drilling, which is far more difficult and far more hazardous to the environment when accidents occur, hence the catastrophe in the Gulf.
Excessive financial obligations on businesses, for instance, requiring more small businesses to pay for their employees' health care (if well-intentioned) kills investment and job growth. More Americans are employed by small businesses than are employed by large, corporations. If employers have to pay more for health care, they will need to hire fewer employees. Obamacare will set in motion increased requirements for small businesses to pay a larger share of their employees' health care.
Avoid Divisive Social Issues
In an age when more than 50 per cent of Americans are classified as living at or below the poverty line, getting a job and putting food on the table are foremost in their minds as election day approaches. Divisive social issues such as gay marriage and free contraception [which has replaced abortion, an issue the Democrats have largely abandoned as a campaign-able issue] will not be issues 1 through 5 when they head to the polls.
Immigration reform, though a strong issue with many Americans, will not be a dominating one in this election. It will go to the back-burner and re-surface at a later time. Immigration tends to be a bigger issue in midterm elections. It is never a dominating one in presidential elections.
Even foreign policy issues (a dominating force in certain past elections, for instance, 2004, 1968, 1952, 1940), though not on the back-burner, will not be front-and-center this November. Most Americans think the Iraq War is a thing of the past, and they have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan. Sadly, in another year or so, they may forget where Afghanistan is located on a map. Nevertheless, U.S. relations with Israel, Iran, China, and to some extent, Russia, will be important (if secondary) options for political advantage this November, considering the global stakes surrounding choices to be made by these states.
An America-First Foreign Policy
Despite the growth and influence of international institutions (like the United Nations) voters in most countries are still nationalistic. They want their own country to have a competitive advantage in the world economy, and this consideration influences the terms on which a country joins an international institution. Americans need not be ashamed to put the fortunes of their own country first and foremost when they decide how to vote.
This is not at all to say that Americans want to invade other countries out of bloodthirsty power-lust. On the contrary, Americans are weary of the cost paid by Americans when military intervention takes place, as it has consistently, for the last decade. "America-first" does not translate into "more war."
If anything, wars are costly gambles for American presidents. Harry Truman couldn't run for re-election in 1952 because the Korean War had sucked away his popularity. For the same reason, Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run again in 1968, over Vietnam. The same thing would have happened to George W. Bush (over Iraq) if he had come up for re-election in 2005 instead of in 2004. As it was (in 2004) a majority of the public still perceived his leadership in fighting terrorism to be essential enough to carry him through re-election.
Don't Worry About The Base; Go After Independent Voters
President Obama's divisive rhetoric is red meat for his party's base voters. Statements he has made about congressional Republicans, for example, "Their plan is for dirtier air and dirtier water" rings warmly in the hearts of hardcore Democrats, but sounds absurd in the ears of an independent voter. Any objective mind has to think, "Gee, Republicans want themselves and their own children to breathe dirty air. They also want to drink dirty water, and have their own children do the same. Hmm... This sound like non-sense."
Voters who understand and appreciate the distinctions and nuances between conservatism and liberalism already know who they are voting for - the battle for their hearts and minds is over. The independent voters are the ones who are up-for-grabs.
Independent voters are less interested in ideology and philosophy, and more interested in results. They are up-for-grabs because they think more about what they see, rather than what they believe. If they see that the status quo is working, they will vote to maintain it. If they see that the status quo has failed, they will vote to overturn it. It is no accident that untold millions of campaign dollars are flooding into states like Ohio and Florida, the "battleground" states, which are up-for-grabs. In 2012, the independent voters will decide the outcome of the election. The winning candidate will craft his message for their appeal.
What President Obama Needs To Overcome In Order To Win
For all the reasons explained above, President Obama must find a way to appeal to Americans' sense of hope for a better future; ditch the fear and the class envy he is stirring up; reverse his efforts to raise taxes on high-income earners; lower taxes for everyone; ease regulations and financial obligations on businesses; avoid divisive social issues; embrace an "America-first" foreign policy; let the party-base take care of itself; go after independent voters.
President Obama is in a horrible bind. Most Americans are finding his conduct and his record of accomplishments wanting (for further exploration of this theme, see my post from July 19, entitled Is
A Non-Partisan Critique of President Obama Possible?).
He must find a way to appeal to the people's hope, as he did in 2008. Unfortunately, if he does this, he will find himself in the extremely awkward position of having to explain why he couldn't get the job done in his first term, and how it will be different in his second term. He knows this, and so, he has fallen into the default temptation to play on the people's fears. As he sees it, his only shot left is to scare everyone about his opponent. If he makes the election about Mitt Romney and the 1-percent, maybe, just maybe, Obama will squeak through November. For President Obama to win, the election must be about anyone and anything other than Barack Obama.
What Governor Romney Needs To Overcome In Order To Win
Aside from all the policy strategies outlined above, Governor Romney needs to craft his message as one of resonating hope. The opportunity is ripe for him to do so. Yet, many voters do not feel a strong attachment to Mitt Romney. He comes across as trying too hard to appear cool and hip, but he isn't fooling anyone. He is not cool, not hip, and must communicate to Americans that such characteristics are irrelevant to strong leadership. He is a reserved businessman, and must appear comfortable in his own skin. In the process, his authenticity will form a bond of trust with the people. This may need to take place even before he can appeal to their sense of hope.
Romney must stop appearing embarrassed by his own success. He always looks worried and caught off-guard when questions are asked about his tax returns, overseas investments, and Swiss bank accounts. Such attacks on him are ridiculous. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is claiming that Romney hasn't paid any taxes in years, and that this information is coming to him through trusted, un-named sources.
Reid and others are demanding that Mitt Romney make public the entire history of his tax records, even though such an all-encompassing demand has never before been made of a presidential candidate. If Governor Romney's conduct in his personal, financial investments has followed the spirit of the law, he has nothing to be ashamed of.
It is nobody's business if a person has a net worth of a 100 million or more, so long as that wealth was made legally. John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, had a net worth comparable to Mitt Romney's. It was not even made an issue in that election! Are we supposed to believe that Senator Kerry and his Heinz heiress, Teresa, do not have overseas investments? Mitt Romney needs to make it clear that personal attacks on his wealth and success are a superficial distraction in an election when millions of Americans can not earn enough money to put food on the table.
In sum
President Obama has a harder case to make before the electorate, but the attacks on Romney may work if that candidate does not show a strong response to them. In this election, the big issues are as follows: (1) jobs (2) Obamacare and (3) the national debt. Governor Romney will have an easier time positioning himself on those issues because he hasn't been responsible for the way things have turned out on them. President Obama will succeed only if he can make the election about anything other than those issues. The "fear" card is not working for him, so he will need to do some serious outside-of-the-box thinking to try and appeal to hope for a better future.
Jason A.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Chick-fil-A Marriage Controversy: A Matter of Civil Rights or Free Speech?
In the 21st century, the definition of marriage has become political to a degree it never was before. The current controversy surrounding the fast food chain, Chick-fil-A, about its values, has prompted accusations of intolerance and discrimination of the gay community. Gay rights activists have been calling for protests and boycott movements aimed at the company. These activists feel their civil rights are being violated by Chick-fil-A. Moreover, they are worried that the company's stance on traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) propagates intolerance and discrimination of the gay community, in the hearts and minds of our society.
The Chick-fil-A marriage controversy merits our attention because accusations of discrimination, intolerance, and hate, are deadly serious. The shadow of the Holocaust lurks in the minds of people who feel their rights and safety are in jeopardy because they belong to a category (be it religious, ethnic, racial, or in this case, sexual orientation) of people viewed as outside the traditionally accepted in society. We must first match the accusations against the evidence. Then, we can decide for ourselves whether or not Chick-fil-A's promotion of traditional marriage and family violates the rights and safety of the gay community.
Dan Cathy, C.E.O of Chick-fil-A, was interviewed by the Biblical Recorder on July 2, and gave the following responses to questioning about his company's values:
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit”;
“We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that”;
“We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles”.
The above statement was the fire that lit the controversy and the accusations of hate, intolerance, and discrimination. Therefore, we are forced to ask ourselves if the heartfelt belief that the traditional and biblical definition of marriage and the family unit is a message of hate, intolerance, and/or discrimination. Some people think it is.
The Jim Henson Company has announced it will dissolve its partnership with Chick-fil-A by ceasing to have the fast food chain carry its toys with kids' meals. Its facebook page carries the following statement:
"The Jim Henson Co. has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over 50 years and we have notified Chick-fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.”
Television actor, Ed Helms (The Office) tweeted, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame." He added, "Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan."
Prominent politicians have joined in the criticism of Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino opposes Chick-fil-A's plan to open a store in his city. “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel echoed the same sentiment, "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values” he explained "they’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.”
An objective observer must ask if Chick-fil-A has discriminated against sexual orientation in their hiring practices and in their customer service. If they have not done so, than the charges of hate, discrimination, and intolerance, fall flat. If at the end of the day, all we are left with is a First Amendment-protected statement of a company's values, than we must consider the possibility that the threats, protests, and boycotts of Chick-fil-A are an attempt to silence free speech.
Free speech is a hallmark of the freedom of the American people. To silence free speech is a hallmark of Fascism. If the leaders of Chick-fil-A, a large cultural icon, are bullied into silencing their free speech, how can the health of American freedom and democracy be improved? In this country, we have the right to say what we believe. The minute we give up that right, we cease to be Americans.
Jason A.
In the 21st century, the definition of marriage has become political to a degree it never was before. The current controversy surrounding the fast food chain, Chick-fil-A, about its values, has prompted accusations of intolerance and discrimination of the gay community. Gay rights activists have been calling for protests and boycott movements aimed at the company. These activists feel their civil rights are being violated by Chick-fil-A. Moreover, they are worried that the company's stance on traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) propagates intolerance and discrimination of the gay community, in the hearts and minds of our society.
The Chick-fil-A marriage controversy merits our attention because accusations of discrimination, intolerance, and hate, are deadly serious. The shadow of the Holocaust lurks in the minds of people who feel their rights and safety are in jeopardy because they belong to a category (be it religious, ethnic, racial, or in this case, sexual orientation) of people viewed as outside the traditionally accepted in society. We must first match the accusations against the evidence. Then, we can decide for ourselves whether or not Chick-fil-A's promotion of traditional marriage and family violates the rights and safety of the gay community.
Dan Cathy, C.E.O of Chick-fil-A, was interviewed by the Biblical Recorder on July 2, and gave the following responses to questioning about his company's values:
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit”;
“We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that”;
“We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles”.
The above statement was the fire that lit the controversy and the accusations of hate, intolerance, and discrimination. Therefore, we are forced to ask ourselves if the heartfelt belief that the traditional and biblical definition of marriage and the family unit is a message of hate, intolerance, and/or discrimination. Some people think it is.
The Jim Henson Company has announced it will dissolve its partnership with Chick-fil-A by ceasing to have the fast food chain carry its toys with kids' meals. Its facebook page carries the following statement:
"The Jim Henson Co. has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over 50 years and we have notified Chick-fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.”
Television actor, Ed Helms (The Office) tweeted, “Chick-fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame." He added, "Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan."
Prominent politicians have joined in the criticism of Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino opposes Chick-fil-A's plan to open a store in his city. “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel echoed the same sentiment, "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values” he explained "they’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.”
An objective observer must ask if Chick-fil-A has discriminated against sexual orientation in their hiring practices and in their customer service. If they have not done so, than the charges of hate, discrimination, and intolerance, fall flat. If at the end of the day, all we are left with is a First Amendment-protected statement of a company's values, than we must consider the possibility that the threats, protests, and boycotts of Chick-fil-A are an attempt to silence free speech.
Free speech is a hallmark of the freedom of the American people. To silence free speech is a hallmark of Fascism. If the leaders of Chick-fil-A, a large cultural icon, are bullied into silencing their free speech, how can the health of American freedom and democracy be improved? In this country, we have the right to say what we believe. The minute we give up that right, we cease to be Americans.
Jason A.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)
[This post is inspired by the vibrant commentary made to the last post, entitled The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy.]
Gun control is hotly political. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun purchase for a lifetime.
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Jason A.
[This post is inspired by the vibrant commentary made to the last post, entitled The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy.]
Gun control is hotly political. After all, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the individual the right to bear arms. Virginia's George Mason, a key author of the Bill of Rights declared, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." For more than two hundred years, gun rights activists have shared the same sentiment. At the same time, a movement to control and in some cases ban the legal sale of firearms has gathered strength. All states practice some form of gun control, especially in background checks done during waiting periods for purchase. In many states, any conviction of domestic violence is enough to prohibit a gun purchase for a lifetime.
What follows is a reasonable analysis, not one reinforced by statistics. In this framework, "reasonable" does not mean "right" and "statistical" does not mean "wrong". It is just important to draw a distinction between two types of analysis and this one is of a reasonable kind. In the interest of being reasonable, the views of both sides on gun control will be treated with equal respect in this analysis.
Statistics are of limited value in support of gun control because they mostly measure the correlation between gun ownership and gun-related violence. The problem on either side of the equation is that the presence of a gun is already a key variable. Therefore, automatic correlation is shown no matter the outcome of the study. Statistics measuring murder rates among several categories of death method are problematic because they are only comparing among instruments of death. The reason for the murder, suicide, or accidental death, goes unaddressed.
Proponents of gun control point to higher numbers of murder by firearms and assume that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders and accidental deaths. They have several reasonable arguments in their favor. For example, if there is intent to kill, a gun shot from a distance is easier to accomplish and safer for the killer, than murder by other methods. By contrast, a knife attack requires closer proximity, lesser advantage of surprise, greater room for resistance, greater chance of failure, and greater danger to the killer's safety.
Furthermore, considering modern technological improvements made to firepower, accuracy, distance, innocent by-standers are many more times likely to be killed or injured by stray bullets, bullets passing through their target, and the ricochet effect, than by other instruments of death by criminal intent. It is hard to imagine a scenario, without the presence of guns or explosives, in which James Holmes could have entered a movie theater, butchered twelve people and wounded fifty-eight, inside of six to eight minutes before being rushed and overcome by some of the people in the theater.
Intent, however, provides the stronger reasonable argument for the opponents of gun control. For whatever, they teach us, statistics can not reveal to us what murder rates would look like if guns were legally eliminated from society. Guns can not be uninvented. The genie has been out of the bottle for well more than a thousand years. If guns can not be unmade, they can only be legalized or criminalized. The technology of modern weapons does not disappear with a change of laws. Criminalizing gun possession may very well take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law and limit possession to those who break the law.
The criminal mind does not want to do the right and legal thing and, so it follows, that the criminal will obtain the weapons without legal sanction. The law-abiding public will be disarmed. The criminal public will remain armed and organized crime will make a killing (financially, but the pun works anyway) from the sales of illegal weapons with spiraling prices. James Holmes may have lacked a criminal history, but it is clear that James Holmes had a criminal mind. He purchased his weapons legally because he did not have to purchase them illegally. James Holmes well understood that committing murder is illegal, but would he not have obtained the weapons if buying them had been made illegal?
Jason A.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy
Everything is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety, security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many Americans had grown up unaccustomed to.
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Jason A.
Everything is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety, security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many Americans had grown up unaccustomed to.
Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control.
A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.
Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).
Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.
In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.
The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.
Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.
In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.
Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.
Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.
Jason A.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Is A Non-Partisan Critique Of President Obama Possible?
Answer: Yes, Overwhelmingly So.
It does not take a partisan to notice glaring deficiencies in President Barack Obama's leadership. Comparisons and contrasts between Obama and Bush are all too common these days. Such exercises are quite limited in their effectiveness because they take the measure of leaders from opposing parties. Democrats try to deflect criticism of their hero by saying things like, "Bush did it too" or "Obama has had to clean up Bush's mess." From the defensive, Republicans are compelled to respond with something like, "At least Bush didn't...(fill in the blank)" or "Ronald Reagan would have...(fill in the blank)." The net result is that undecided observers are sitting back watching two teams throw their own heroes in each others' faces.
Partisan posturing is business as usual; it has nothing to do with the president's declining strength with the electorate. There are deeper reasons why President Obama's re-election chances are in jeopardy. The leading national polls have the president and his challenger at a dead-heat, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney gaining ground among groups the Democrats have always considered safely in their pocket, especially single women. For an incumbent president to be neck-and-neck with his challenger by July of an election year is a portent of defeat for the sitting president. After all, President Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan this time in 1980, and he still lost in November.
Why is President Obama's re-election in trouble? The simplest answer is that no president in living memory has been re-elected with unemployment above eight percent. When this is combined with growing tensions in the Middle East (with Iran threatening to spike oil prices by closing the Strait of Hormuz) and an ever-aggressive China, which has recently stolen military secrets by hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems (to name a few examples in which the public perception of the president's leadership is coming to be seen as lacking) a landslide November defeat for President Obama is not implausible at this point in the campaign season. This is not to mention the hotly controversial health care reform -which stands as the president's most famous achievement - an achievement which will likely be repealed if the Republicans recapture the presidency and a majority in the U.S. Senate this November, regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding it.
Many voters may not understand abstract political concepts like "conservatism" or "liberalism", but they know the difference between success and failure when they see it. Presidents usually accomplish more in their first (not their second) term. It is one thing to try and measure how President Obama's leadership stacks up against his Republican predecessors. Yet, as I mentioned above, to do so can easily be tarnished with charges of partisan bias. But what happens when President Obama's leadership is measured up against his Democratic presidential predecessors, chiefly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK)? Since FDR's unwavering belief in the use of government to better the social welfare of the people bares closer relation to Obama's ideology, let us begin with his accomplishments.
During the Great Depression, FDR (years in office 1933 - 1945) restored confidence in the nation's banking system by ensuring depositors' money through the creation of F.D.I.C (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Thanks to this reform, we can all feel safe that the money we put in the bank does not get wiped out when the bank spends it. FDR created several million "shovel-ready" jobs through the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and several other agencies. He created four million jobs between the fall and spring of 1934 - 1935 alone! Think of all the family members those jobs saved from starvation in that term!
After being confronted with the failure of his "stimulus" programs, President Obama laughingly joked, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we thought." Over the years, FDR's critics claim that he failed to bring unemployment below single-digits until the onset of the Second World War. Nevertheless, he brought it down from 25 per cent to the neighborhood of 12 per cent, and the millions employed by the relief agencies were counted in that figure. If we exclude them, biographers Jean Edward Smith and Conrad Black tell us, real unemployment may have been as low as 6 per cent! There was a reason FDR was re-elected to the presidency three more times (each time receiving a vote by the future Republican president, Ronald Reagan).
FDR's foreign policy achievements include victory of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the Second World War and the sponsoring of the Bretton Woods agreement, which tied the world's major currencies to the U.S. dollar. This made America the world's largest creditor nation for nearly thirty years following the death of FDR. For those who want to point out that FDR had twelve years to accomplish these things, it must be pointed out that in JFK's presidency (1961 -1963: totaling around two years and eleven months), taxes were cut; the economy turned around from a recession; and nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba was averted.
After nearly four years, President Obama presides over a stagnant economy; a public in turmoil over the uncertainties unleashed by his health care reform; and few foreign policy achievements aside from the killing of top Al-Qaeda leaders (resulting from intelligence-gathering methods the president has staunchly opposed). Furthermore, many Americans do not see how the president's policy of toppling Libya's Muammar Qadaffi has benefited American interests.
In sum, a non-partisan observer with an eye for historical analogies to the present, has to look hard to find a solid record of major, positive achievement in President Obama's first term. This observer would be very interested in being proven wrong - an honest observer would have it no other way.
Jason A.
Answer: Yes, Overwhelmingly So.
It does not take a partisan to notice glaring deficiencies in President Barack Obama's leadership. Comparisons and contrasts between Obama and Bush are all too common these days. Such exercises are quite limited in their effectiveness because they take the measure of leaders from opposing parties. Democrats try to deflect criticism of their hero by saying things like, "Bush did it too" or "Obama has had to clean up Bush's mess." From the defensive, Republicans are compelled to respond with something like, "At least Bush didn't...(fill in the blank)" or "Ronald Reagan would have...(fill in the blank)." The net result is that undecided observers are sitting back watching two teams throw their own heroes in each others' faces.
Partisan posturing is business as usual; it has nothing to do with the president's declining strength with the electorate. There are deeper reasons why President Obama's re-election chances are in jeopardy. The leading national polls have the president and his challenger at a dead-heat, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney gaining ground among groups the Democrats have always considered safely in their pocket, especially single women. For an incumbent president to be neck-and-neck with his challenger by July of an election year is a portent of defeat for the sitting president. After all, President Jimmy Carter was ahead of Ronald Reagan this time in 1980, and he still lost in November.
Why is President Obama's re-election in trouble? The simplest answer is that no president in living memory has been re-elected with unemployment above eight percent. When this is combined with growing tensions in the Middle East (with Iran threatening to spike oil prices by closing the Strait of Hormuz) and an ever-aggressive China, which has recently stolen military secrets by hacking into the Pentagon's computer systems (to name a few examples in which the public perception of the president's leadership is coming to be seen as lacking) a landslide November defeat for President Obama is not implausible at this point in the campaign season. This is not to mention the hotly controversial health care reform -which stands as the president's most famous achievement - an achievement which will likely be repealed if the Republicans recapture the presidency and a majority in the U.S. Senate this November, regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding it.
Many voters may not understand abstract political concepts like "conservatism" or "liberalism", but they know the difference between success and failure when they see it. Presidents usually accomplish more in their first (not their second) term. It is one thing to try and measure how President Obama's leadership stacks up against his Republican predecessors. Yet, as I mentioned above, to do so can easily be tarnished with charges of partisan bias. But what happens when President Obama's leadership is measured up against his Democratic presidential predecessors, chiefly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK)? Since FDR's unwavering belief in the use of government to better the social welfare of the people bares closer relation to Obama's ideology, let us begin with his accomplishments.
During the Great Depression, FDR (years in office 1933 - 1945) restored confidence in the nation's banking system by ensuring depositors' money through the creation of F.D.I.C (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Thanks to this reform, we can all feel safe that the money we put in the bank does not get wiped out when the bank spends it. FDR created several million "shovel-ready" jobs through the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and several other agencies. He created four million jobs between the fall and spring of 1934 - 1935 alone! Think of all the family members those jobs saved from starvation in that term!
After being confronted with the failure of his "stimulus" programs, President Obama laughingly joked, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we thought." Over the years, FDR's critics claim that he failed to bring unemployment below single-digits until the onset of the Second World War. Nevertheless, he brought it down from 25 per cent to the neighborhood of 12 per cent, and the millions employed by the relief agencies were counted in that figure. If we exclude them, biographers Jean Edward Smith and Conrad Black tell us, real unemployment may have been as low as 6 per cent! There was a reason FDR was re-elected to the presidency three more times (each time receiving a vote by the future Republican president, Ronald Reagan).
FDR's foreign policy achievements include victory of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the Second World War and the sponsoring of the Bretton Woods agreement, which tied the world's major currencies to the U.S. dollar. This made America the world's largest creditor nation for nearly thirty years following the death of FDR. For those who want to point out that FDR had twelve years to accomplish these things, it must be pointed out that in JFK's presidency (1961 -1963: totaling around two years and eleven months), taxes were cut; the economy turned around from a recession; and nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba was averted.
After nearly four years, President Obama presides over a stagnant economy; a public in turmoil over the uncertainties unleashed by his health care reform; and few foreign policy achievements aside from the killing of top Al-Qaeda leaders (resulting from intelligence-gathering methods the president has staunchly opposed). Furthermore, many Americans do not see how the president's policy of toppling Libya's Muammar Qadaffi has benefited American interests.
In sum, a non-partisan observer with an eye for historical analogies to the present, has to look hard to find a solid record of major, positive achievement in President Obama's first term. This observer would be very interested in being proven wrong - an honest observer would have it no other way.
Jason A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)