State of the Union Delivers Mixed Signals to America

Despite disagreeing with most of Obama’s ideas about government, I was reminded tonight of why I just like to listen to the guy talk:  He can deliver a good speech.  If oratory were a national sport (pity it’s not) he’d be a yearly contender for a title.  Unfortunately, populist Obama is probably enjoying his bully pulpit a little too much as tonight’s State of the Union speech did little to achieve any sense of connection with the American people while it gloried in rhetorical flair.

That’s not to say he didn’t do some good things.  I think Obama laid out a very clear plan as to where he wants to go in the near future, and certainly attempted some version of damage control after last week’s debilitating Senate loss in Massachusetts.  The issue is not with the words of his speech so much as it is subtext undergirding them, which clearly indicated that he was in no conciliatory mood regarding his opponents, nor was he open to new ideas. 

Evidence Exhibit A:  the body language.  I know I  heard him speak of no-bipartisanship and both parties needing to work together to help America, but I saw him looking at the Republicans most of the time.  Additionally, one commentator noted that on his way out he did not move to shake hands with Republican leadership, nor did they make moves to shake hands with him.  His dig at his opponents for not  applauding some initiatives came off as imperious and insensitive, which does not ingratiate himself to a party that he is hoping to meet with and honestly discuss his legislative agenda.

Evidence Exhibit B:  I heard  him state that it was time to move forward in creating jobs, opening new energy sources, creating tax cuts, etc.  However, I remember that those things were either promised on the campaign trail, or flatly argued against as being faulty (in the case of tax cuts he first called for them, and then later said that Bush’s tax cuts contributed to the recession… wha’…!?!).

Evidence Exhibit C:  I heard Obama say that he wanted to hear new ideas for health care reform from his opponents, but I watched him lecture those same opponents on responsible governance as though they were my AP Government class.  Paternalism on the part of an executive is not exactly looked upon as a republican virtue in our land.  I’m curious to hear how that “meeting” with GOP leaders in Congress goes next month.

Evidence Exhibit D:  I heard Obama call for increased security and more action in securing our borders, but I didn’t hear any mention of Gitmo closure and civil trials for dangerous terrorists and foreign combatants in the heart of our greatest cities.

Evidence Exhibit E:  I heard Obama demand less lobbyist influence and greater transparency of proceedings, but I saw the gathered members of his cabinet and was reminded that some half-dozen of them used to work as lobbyists.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear.  Good speech though it was, the words did not fit the context, and the subtext did not fit  reality.  The ultimate impression is that the President was attempting to blow the hot air of populist rhetoric into the sagging sails of a ship of state that is becalmed amidst the shoals of public disapproval…  I’m not sure 70 minutes of blowing did the trick.

Neither Party Can/Should Celebrate Massachusetts Results

Democrats and other Obama-loving liberals can say what they want about the results of yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter remains:  that election was a referendum on the Obama administration and his Congress, which indicated growing frustration among voters in no uncertain terms.  To lose a Senate seat (with four years still on it) that had been held for 50 years in a deeply blue state to a GOP challenger at a moment in time in which the American people are supposed to be clamoring for more government help in a time of crisis is gut blow of a reality check.

That being said, I wouldn’t be dancing just yet if I were the Republicans.  True, you really set Obama at a disadvantage; and yes, you may have gotten your fiibuster back, but those accomplishments pale in comparison to the greater lessons that hopefully will be learned by both parties in the aftermath of this election.

First, you, Congress, are not the power.  We are the power.  We, the people, say whether you stay or go; and we, the people, are not happy right now.  The last year has shown a Congress that is dangerously out of step with the American populace that it purports to represent.  The cap-and-trade and healthcare fiascos have shown that Congress sees itself as being in Washington to rule and not to represent, and the American people have begun to wake up to the fact that there is a difference between the two.

Second, if a seat that has belonged to one party for 50 years is not safe in this environment, then no seat is safe.  No matter the party you’re from you cannot afford to ignore the fact that almost half of American voters now consider themselves independents and will vote accordingly if they think they can change anything (forgive us, if we’re not as cynical as you Congress, we still think we can make a difference).

Third, the Obama administration must accept the fact that it is not the American Messiah.  Maybe people wanted it to be, but that first enamored glow is past.  Obama cannot expect to tell the American people what’s good for them without expecting some kind of retort, and the retort has been given.  The Obama administation must acknowledge and act as though it is participating in a social contract.

So whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican office holder today, please realize a few things from Massachusetts.  Realize that the American government does not exist for your own pleasure.  Realize that your office can be as easily lost as it was laboriously gained.  Realize that you serve a populace of free people that desire the maintenance, not the cooptation of that freedom.  Realize that you are a public servant, and that servant’s who don’t perform, don’t keep their jobs.

Happy New Year!

It is a long standing tradition of political punditry to make plenty of predictable predictions for the New Year.  And since it is the dawn of the second decade  of the first century in this third millenium, I feel as though I would be remiss were I not to enumerate some predictions of my own.  So wishing you all a very Happy New Year, I make the following predictions:

1)  1994 Deja Vu:  With political capital squandered and little to show for it, the Obama administration will be hard pressed to rally the Democratic party in the midterm elections, which ought to see earlier gains in Congress erased by a mildly resurgent – though no less embittered – GOP.  Look to see some independents becoming wild cards in several races as voters look for alternative voices in leadership.  Should be some upsets.

2)  Guantanomo will still be in business:  The prison is set to close January 22, but that does not mean all inmates will be out of there.  If the health care debate is any indicator, nothing the Obama administration undertakes happens neatly, or in the desired timerame.  I doubt that in these “unprecedented” times, a small thing like 100+ alleged terrorists in Cuba will be at the front of everyone’s agenda.

3)  Persian Power:  Look for Iran to continue to throw its weight around by refusing to deal on nuclear weapons, cracking down on dissidents with no fear of international reprisal, and meddling in Iraq.  The Bush administration signed a deal to have us out of Iraq by 2011 and Obama would like nothing better, so the thoughof making Iran irritable (i.e. holding Tehran accountable to UN resolutions) will hardly be countenanced.

4)  On April 15, Obama administration officials – particularly in the Dept. of Treasury – will publicly file their taxes while the cameras roll and the flashbulbs pop.  Why they would do that, I don’t know, just a hunch.

5)  We will be paying around $4 dollars for gas yet again.  With the danger of inflation becoming more and more apparent, commodities will be considered the safest investment bet.  Speculation on commodities, combined with Iranian antics and increasing anxiety over America’s impending withdrawal from Iraq – say nothing of what kind of trouble Israel may get into – will combine to send oil prices back up.

6)  The budget deficit will continue to climb as the White House and Congress go Jimmy Carter on the national economy by raising taxes on business owners and then spening the revenue before its ever collected on more economic stimulus.

7)  The phrase “economic stimulus” will come to be recognized in the American vernacular as any proposal that sounds good at the time and then fails to deliver.  Look for the Obama administration to start using  different terminology to refer to this white elephant, something like “targeted investments.”

8)  The New Cold War:  As the surge in Afghanistan ramps up, more assistance will be required from Pakistan that will inevitably pull America between the two rivals on the subcontinent, Inda and Pakistan.  Between trade agreements with India and military cooperation with Pakistan, America’s image as a vacilating, Machiavellian sponsor will be on full display making it harder for Obama to redeem earlier promises of a more honest American foreign policy.

9)  Glenn Beck will go another year without getting an in-studio phone call from the White House.

10)  And finally, though I don’t want to press my luck too far, the media might finally realize realize that Bush and Cheney are no longer holding office……  but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

11)  On a more hopeful note – and because 10 is so cliche – no island nations will be overcome by rising sea levels as new advances in climate change science will show that original findings, though inconclusive, require immediate action to prevent catastrophe.

So those are my predictions, and while they may sound negative, or tongue in cheeck, what they should indicate is that 2010 will be a year of change and challenge as we interact with, and adapt to, an ever changing world.

Why I Can’t Stand Glenn Beck

Admittedly, I have been away for quite some time, but writing for fun loses some of its enjoyment when you’re constantly writing for a grade. However, I would like to start writing in this space again because I’d like to have some part in contributing more civil tones to political dialog in this country.  Since that is my wish, I’d like to start by offering a critique of one of America’s most uncivil political voices:  Glenn Beck. 

I know, I know.  I’m a white, conservative, middle class American, who likes his guns and religion, so how could I not love the guy?  Simple.  While I am all the things I’ve listed above, I also enjoy the periodic sensible argument.  It’s quite a refreshing thing to hear if you haven’t had that opportunity, but Glenn Beck has a tin ear for the musical tones of logic.  If logical argumentation were music, Glenn Beck would be the tone deaf lead in a coffee house screamo group. 

First, the logic.  Watch a segment of the guy’s show and count how many rhetorical questions he asks.  A rhetorical question is not a flourish for Beck so much as it is a carpet bombing.   The nature of the rhetorical question is that the answer is implied and not stated or proven.  It is thus not considered a premise capable of supporting a cogent conclusion.  Yet Beck jumps from these rhetorical questions to conclusions of impending communism and leftist plots upon the Constitution and the good people of America.  This is not to say that he doesn’t make arguments or present evidence, he does, and that’s my second reason for dislike.

Second, the evidence.  Most of Beck’s evidence is circumstantial.  Does Obama cater to progressive liberals?  Sure.  Does he have a less than accurate understanding of constitutional principles?  Perhaps.  Has he done little to improve America?  Most Americans seem to think so.  Does that make Beck right?  Absolutely not.  Beck takes these assertions about our President and the people he appoints and then spins together a narrative of impending doom and gloom; of the evil of socialism and the end of America as we know it (though in a segment this week, he claimed to have reason for hope).  Beck essentially takes what is known and then marries that knowledge to his preconceived notions about the nature of American government (more on this in a moment).  What he seems to forget is that evidence can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and the presense of leaders with socialist tendencies do not make a socialist America a foregone conclusion. 

Third, the false assertions.  Beck is a populist, no doubt about it, but that should not be counted against him.  Many great leaders have had similar political roots.  However, what is irritating is the false assumptions of Beck’s populist narrative.  He sees the Constitution as some semi-divinely inspired document with a more or less fixed meaning and tells people to read the Constitution as though it were some political cure-all.  It’s not.  It’s an open-ended document that is not interpreted by itself, but, for better or for worse, by the political philosophies of its handlers.  Additionally, Beck loves to castigate the “media” and the “elites” as bringing America’s crisis upon her (I believe our President likes to do that too).  In Beck’s populist fairy land, the common people are the suffering innocents.  It couldn’t possibly be our fault that such elected leaders get into office (did we really vote for them?); we couldn’t have been the ones to create our culture of greed and excess, oh no, that was the “elites,” a rather nebulous and undefined term, which I believe means anyone opposed to, and making more money than, Beck.

Finally, the self-righteousness.  Beck doesn’t just like telling liberals they’re wrong, he also loves reminding viewers he’s right.  No show (at least not the one’s I’ve seen) can go by without Beck reminding his viewers that he had predicted this event, or that occurrence as though he were some prophet of old.  I would almost be OK with such an attitude if Beck were seeking to justify someone other than himself.  It’s this kind of self-righteous, I-know-the-truth-and-am-graciously-imparting-it-to-you attitude that characterizes the man as more of a cult leader than a political pundit.

This is not all to say that there isn’t some method to Beck’s madness.  He has certainly hit a nerve with many American’s and in some ways provides a cathartic rant that many wish they had the opportunity to vent.  However, the fact that he and those like him (conservative and liberal) cannot step off their respective soap boxes, but would rather turn them in to small, self-serving industries of talk shows and best sellers suggests a deep cynicism of American politics and people that does little to move us past this current rut of acrimonious partisanship.

Red Herrings and Regulation

Barack Obama’s press conference this evening, dealing mainly with his proposed budget and the economy, was a microcosm of his first weeks in office.  It seemed that the questions asked and the manner in which they were answered provided a sad commentary on conditions in the “Change Train.”  Conditions can be summed up in two phrases: Red Herrings and Regulations.

Red Herring, for those unversed in logical fallacies, is essentially a fallacious argument in which an unrelated issue is used to argue for one’s position on another issue.  For example, the flareup over the AIG bonuses over the past week has now been seized upon by the Obama administration as primary reason for increasing regulations on other segments of the financial sector.  Essentially, Obama has pointed to these wasteful bonuses as the need for regulating not just the insurance industry, but also the energy and health industries as well.  Another red herring that cropped up in the press conference was Obama’s consistent shifting of responsibility for certain situations to other groups and individuals.  For a man who has called for an “Era of Responsibility” he sure doesn’t like to accept it.  When one reporter asked him about the projected record debt that would come as a result of his budget (7-10 trillion dollars) Obama argued that he was merely cleaning up the Republicans mess!  What he didn’t do was explain how a $10 trillion debt was worse than a $1.8 trillion deficit. 

Regulation was also on full display.  Not only was Obama advocating for regulation of the insurance industry, as was his Secretary of Treasury earlier in the day, but the very press conference itself was regulated.  Obama calmy selected reporters from a pre-approved list to ask questions, patently leaving out the reporters from such eminent publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other financial rags.  The questions he had to field were thus the simplistic pratings of reporters, rather than the insightful inquiries of journalists.   Obama also regulated time spent on dealing with questions of foreign policy, his glaring weak spot.  Despite a campaign pledge to reshape America’s image abroad, Obama provided trite and simplistic answers to the few foreign correspondents he called upon, speaking in very  general terms on crucial issues like the Mexico drug wars and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. 

At the end of the conference, the picture that emerges is that of a president attempting to micromanage his administration and its image, while advocating for increased government power due to causes that are not wholly related to his policy proposals, but instead pet projects of his political ideology….  Where have I seen this before?  Oh yeah, the Bush administration.

Recession is the New Terrorism

We’re in a recession and no one can deny it.  People are losing jobs, investments, and all aspects of economic security.  It’s not the greatest time, but it’s not the worst either.  Markets are still operating, and our government is not melting away.  In fact, we can look at the wild ride we’ve been on over the last year as being a massive trimming of excess economic fat.  If history is to be instructive, as time goes on we can expect our top heavy markets to stabilize and the economy to rebound.  However, the new administration has jumped at these economic hard times as being an existential threat to the United States.

President Obama’s editorial in the  Washington Post today is a case in point.  The editorial serves as a call to rally support for Obama’s new stimulus initiatives by painting the same bleak economic picture that served the Democrats so well in the election.  I couldn’t help but read the piece at marvel at the continuity between Obama’s administration and the Bush administration.  Both have built a culture of fear in order to drive their pet projects and policies forward.  For the Bush administration this was terrorism and the existential threat of Al Qaeda.  For Obama, this existential threat is economic.

While Bush established a narrative of a global struggle against terror, the defining narrative of Obama’s presidency appears to be that of economic prosperity.  In order to rally support for both these struggles, both presidents played on people’s fears.  The problem?  It only works so long.  The moment people felt safe, Bush’s anti-terror campaign lost steam.  The moment the economy begins to recover….  what might occur?  Will initiatives lose steam, or will the democrats have to maintain a constant environment of economic uncertainty?  It could be both at the rate they’re spending.

Some Have a Way With Words

I suppose I could always write about Obama’s proposed stimulus package and critique the view he holds on the government’s ability to solve economic crises. But why should I do that when others do in such a fine manner? Awesome article listed below, check it out.

Skeptical of Obama\'s Stimulus Plan – Jonah Goldberg

No Learning Curve For Obama

George senior had it.  Bill had it.  To a certain extent, George junior had it.  Each of the last three presidents had a time prior to, or in the early weeks of their presidencies to get used to the job, largely free from any kind of large scale crisis.  In the case of George H.W. Bush, a stint in the Vice President’s office during some critical days in the final years of the Cold War had given him a good taste of what the job entailed.  The next two presidents drew on their experience as governors.  Essentially, these guys had a learning curve in their favor.  President-elect Obama has no such curve.  With the Israeli invasion of Gaza and new reports on unemployment rates in the US, Obama is already being expected to make changes, and drastic ones, beginning day one.

But will that happen?  Chances are, Congress will have to be wooed and persuaded to accept some of Obama’s more radical plans while his foreign policy heads are increasing likely to respond to current crises in much the same manner as the previous the administration.  Obama will be forced to reckon with interests that backed him expecting change, yet not receiving any tangible results in the short term.  The political outcome may not be a dramatic reduction in support for Obama, but it won’t help his political capital in the long term, that’s certain.

Ultimately, Obama will have to demonstrate that the time between November 12 and January 20 was time well spent in planning and preparing to implement his policies and leadership style.  Not much can be said at this point except to acknowledge the nonexistent time Obama will have to iron the wrinkles in his administration.

Good To Be Back

After a month long hiatus from this space, I feel that the world is running too much amok not to say something.  Admittedly, I could have been a little more consistent in reporting on it as not  too few of my readers let me know, but in the realm of priorities research papers for graduate school generally take precedence over blog posts.  Not a good month to take off either, no matter how inadvertently.  So much has occurred where shall I begin?

Internationally?  Certainly the terrorist attacks in Mumbai two weeks ago reminded the world that there are still groups out there capable of large scale operations.  And while Inida is India and America is America, the Mumbai Incident should be crystal clear in its message:  the war is still on.  I’ve read some interesting material of late suggesting that terrorism will always be with us and that we should never have to war with it in the first place, but I must point out the misreading of history such an idea is.  True, terrorism has been around a long time, but internationalterrorism and terrorist corporations with state sponsors is something entirely recent.  At this point, it is no longer local police who deal with the situation, but it becomes a national security threat as well.  So for those who are still believing that our War on Terror is a misnomer, reread your history and take a lesson from Mumbai.

The national scene?  Oh, too much to say for this post alone.  Suffice to say, what with the Blagojevich scandal exploding on the scene and Obama’s initial picks for cabinet posts coming from the Clinton old guard, I feel I can confidently confirm my assertion from last February that Obama’s “audacious hope” for change would quickly go the way of W’s “compassionate conservatism” in the event of the former’s election.  While Obama has made an excellent choice keeping Gates in the Department of Defense, I doubt that’s the change most of his supporters thought was coming.  And certainly the corruption exposed within his party is making the newly minted leaders of the nation out to be what many already conceived them as:  hypocrites in the first degree.  Wake me up when Change gets here, because its taking the slow train.

What about the state?  I love California politics if only because it’s so entertaining.  Just today the LA Times ran an article suggesting that California is not just on the verge of fiscal insolvency, but of political insolvency as well quoting that august statesman and expert in governmental ineptitude, Gray Davis.  Apparently there’s a blog out there (Three Californias) that is advocating that California become an independent country divided into three states.  I wonder how that’s going to solve anything.  If check the blog out, let me know what you think.

I must say, that despite the events of this month I in no way feel behind the times because what I just commented on is no deviation from what has been occurring for some time.  With the hullabaloo of the election over, it really seems as if it’s business as usual, and the same dead horses are being beaten… Britney Spears even has a new album out.

Obama Is My President

I may not have voted for him, and I definitely didn’t want him to win, but Barack Obama is my president.  Why do I say this?  Because this is democracy, and that’s what democracy is about.  Democracy allows for the public debate over what course a country should take and then it allows the people to choose that course.  However, the thing that makes a successful democracy tick is not the pre-election debate, or the free election.  What makes it all work so that we can do this again is the post election peace.  No rancor, no bitterness, and “charity for all” as Lincoln would say. 

I don’t agree with Obama’s policies, but I’m on board with his desire to make America better.  If he wants to make America better I’m okay with that.  I don’t think his ideas are the best way to make America better, but he promised America that he would listen to both sides and I’m willing to hold him to that promise in whatever small way I can.  He is my president now, and I am going to support him. 

Why?  It’s not only my duty as a citizen, it’s my duty as a Christian.  As a citizen, my service is to a country and a Constitution, not to an individual president, or congressman.  The only reason that America has lasted this long is because every generation has recognized that the power of America lies in its founding documents and institutions, not in the men and women who are elected to run those institutions and interpret those documents.  As such, how should my duty to my country change because the president has changed?  It shouldn’t change, and it hasn’t.

More importantly, as a Christian citizen my duty is to support my president.  This doesn’t mean I march lockstep with him.  It means that I intercede for him in prayer before God.  Paul spells out the basic duties of Christians in their relations to the state in his letters to Timothy and Romans.  One basic duty is to pray for leaders everywhere (1 Tim. 2:1-2), and the other is to submit to authorities (Rom. 13:1-7).  Both duties are incumbent upon all Christians to follow, and I feel they are quite often ignored in American churches.  Rather than praying for Obama this Sunday, I fear many pastors will be praying that God spare America from the damage he could do.  Rather than submit to the new presidency, give due honor and work with the administration, I fear first thoughts will be given to opposition.  We need to reexamine what it means to be not just a citizen, but a Christian citizen.

The real election battle has now begun:  how will we work with the new administration?  Will we be ready to pray for our president, his leadership and his wisdom?  Or will it be only embittered criticism and complaining that’s coming out of our conservative base?  It’s time to do what Americans do: work together and move on towards a greater goal than our petty partisan policies.