The current president of the United States is indeed very good, but far from perfect. He is a policy expert--you can count on nearly everything he proposes to be really good for the American people. He is a centrist, somewhat to the left of Dwight Eisenhower, but not by much. (I remember that when asked during the last presidential debates how big government should be, he responded, with obvious sincerity, that is should be the minimum size necessary. Not as big as necessary, mind you. He acknowledges, as any sane person would, that government has legitimate tasks, in stark contrast to Reagan who believed that government is,"not part of the problem, but the problem." Another insight into Obama's world view occurred when he was asked, "What was the one thing a lot of people don't realize about you?" He asserted that he was an ardent supporter of capitalism, a fact that was not widely known due to propaganda from his opponents. He said this without any bluster; he was obviously telling the truth.
His fault is that he is a wise owl and not a pit bull, more of a policy wonk than a politician. As has been pointed out, nobody is afraid of him on Capital Hill, where they had once been deathly afraid of Johnson. Lincoln, like Obama, was almost always right; he, however, knew how to fight. This fault might be an endearing trait in an uncle, but it can get a president into a lot of trouble, and, in this case, it has.
The president is a good, reasonable man with a slightly left-leaning politcal stance. In the beginning, he actually welcomed debate with those who had a right-leaning stance. If they shook hands, he believed both sides would pull each other up to an upright position. Yes we can! He actually believed it--He actually thought he could reason with the other side! No need to twist arms, logic would triumph.
Reason has become a Democratic cat trapped on a Republican hot-tin roof.
Take the example of health care. The United States was, prior to the passage of the Afordable Care Act, the only major industrialized nation without universal heath care. None of the citizens of any of those countries would agree with the Tea Party that universal health care is an evil; none would ever petition their country to rescind their version of it. In every case the cost of care for these countries is less than that of ours; on average, the cost of health care per citizen is about 50% less--and the outcomes are, on the whole, better. Universal coverage has not forced people from full to part-time employment anywhere.The fact that the richest country in the world has over 30,000,000 citizens who lack health coverage is--any snane person must agree-a moral outrage. Now the president, mind you, didn't try to push through a single payer system, that is, one with a huge governmental role--and one likely to have been more efficient--but negotiated a consumer-driven model that was anything but hard on the insurance business. The plan was actually originally developed by a Republican think tank and was implemented by a Repblican governor in Massachusetts--and, as among the nations of Europe, there is no movement in Massachusetts to repeal it. But those who believe ardently in strife, vanity and the pursuit of Obama would make you think that this "government takeover" will ruin the nation!
That irrational me-for-all called the Tea Party has caused an extreme shift toward the right. (There are a few moderate Republicans left, but most are willing to dance to the extremists' whip. Politicians will do almost anything to get reelected. ) Remember the congressman who shouted out "You lie!' while Obama was addressing Congress? This is unprecedented; when Bush was lying through his teeth, no one shouted out such things. It is obvious that those who love the Tea Party hate him and will do everything to destroy him. Their arguments are emotional and irrational, as hate always is. Many would rather bring the country to its knees by causing a default rather than act in the country's interest--that is, by doing what sane politicians do, compromise.
You cannot negotiate with hate. Obama has learned this lesson--the hard way For instance, he has finally vowed not to negotiate over the debt ceiling, which is of course the right thing to do. If he were to budge on this, he would be setting a truly dreadful precedent, allowing the party not in power to get its way over the will of the American people.
Yes, he learned the hard way not to compromise with those who won't compromise with him. He now knows that cooperation with domestic fanatics would force him to backtrack on issues he was elected to implement. But what about foreign fanatics?
I hear Reagan in the background saying, "There he goes again.."
After the reckless and irresponsible policies of George Bush, one can understand that Obama wanted to think twice before taking military action in the Middle East again. Remember the neoconservative assertion that shortly after the war started Iraqis would be waving American flags, welcoming their "liberators?" We all know how that turned out. But I think Obama's hesitance to use force went beyond reluctance to take military action after the Bush-era disasters. I believe he wanted to give the Middle East countries time to work out their problems themselves. Certainly this would be the best solution--if that solution occurred. Not only did he not want to risk more American lives; not only did he not want to initiate costly military action at a time when the American economy--due to other Bush-era disasters--is still in such a weak state; he wanted to treat those in power in the Middle East as adults. Surely, if given time, they would see reason, he thought. Once again, he mistakenly believed that most politicians are decent, reasonable people like himself.
Surely this is why he warned Assad one year ago that if he used chemical weapons extensively he would be "crossing a red line," and would face "enormous consequences" if he did. Surely, he thought, Assad wouldn't be crazy enough to use chemical weapons. Well, Mr.President, he did use those weapons in a war that he was, by all reports, winning. Your delay in responding did not help reasonable people come to the fore; over the past year the opposite has happened: the rebels have been significantly infiltrated by Sunni terrorists. Your decency has, in fact, made matters worse.
I could imagine him thinking: No, Assad wouldn't do something like that. After all, he's a doctor, he's an ophthalmologist. Well, Mr. President, loony Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist, too.
Assad makes Ted Cruz look as quaint as Disney's Mad Hatter. Face facts, Mr. President: They're having a Tea Party in Damascus, too-- and it's far worse than the one here: the poison Cruz and his ilk are serving the American people is bad enough, but it isn't sarin.
Mr. President it's Tea Party here and Tea Party there! Reason might work reasonably well among politicians in Maryland and Connecticut, but not in Mississippi--and certainly not in Syria! Why has it taken you, Mr. President, so long to find that out?
It is time, Mr. President. Syria, Iran and North Korea would love to have you continue to speak softly without carrying a big stick. You tried decency--and it didn't work. You apparently have found that out. We are waiting for reason to strike, and trust we won't have to wait long.
His fault is that he is a wise owl and not a pit bull, more of a policy wonk than a politician. As has been pointed out, nobody is afraid of him on Capital Hill, where they had once been deathly afraid of Johnson. Lincoln, like Obama, was almost always right; he, however, knew how to fight. This fault might be an endearing trait in an uncle, but it can get a president into a lot of trouble, and, in this case, it has.
The president is a good, reasonable man with a slightly left-leaning politcal stance. In the beginning, he actually welcomed debate with those who had a right-leaning stance. If they shook hands, he believed both sides would pull each other up to an upright position. Yes we can! He actually believed it--He actually thought he could reason with the other side! No need to twist arms, logic would triumph.
Reason has become a Democratic cat trapped on a Republican hot-tin roof.
Take the example of health care. The United States was, prior to the passage of the Afordable Care Act, the only major industrialized nation without universal heath care. None of the citizens of any of those countries would agree with the Tea Party that universal health care is an evil; none would ever petition their country to rescind their version of it. In every case the cost of care for these countries is less than that of ours; on average, the cost of health care per citizen is about 50% less--and the outcomes are, on the whole, better. Universal coverage has not forced people from full to part-time employment anywhere.The fact that the richest country in the world has over 30,000,000 citizens who lack health coverage is--any snane person must agree-a moral outrage. Now the president, mind you, didn't try to push through a single payer system, that is, one with a huge governmental role--and one likely to have been more efficient--but negotiated a consumer-driven model that was anything but hard on the insurance business. The plan was actually originally developed by a Republican think tank and was implemented by a Repblican governor in Massachusetts--and, as among the nations of Europe, there is no movement in Massachusetts to repeal it. But those who believe ardently in strife, vanity and the pursuit of Obama would make you think that this "government takeover" will ruin the nation!
That irrational me-for-all called the Tea Party has caused an extreme shift toward the right. (There are a few moderate Republicans left, but most are willing to dance to the extremists' whip. Politicians will do almost anything to get reelected. ) Remember the congressman who shouted out "You lie!' while Obama was addressing Congress? This is unprecedented; when Bush was lying through his teeth, no one shouted out such things. It is obvious that those who love the Tea Party hate him and will do everything to destroy him. Their arguments are emotional and irrational, as hate always is. Many would rather bring the country to its knees by causing a default rather than act in the country's interest--that is, by doing what sane politicians do, compromise.
You cannot negotiate with hate. Obama has learned this lesson--the hard way For instance, he has finally vowed not to negotiate over the debt ceiling, which is of course the right thing to do. If he were to budge on this, he would be setting a truly dreadful precedent, allowing the party not in power to get its way over the will of the American people.
Yes, he learned the hard way not to compromise with those who won't compromise with him. He now knows that cooperation with domestic fanatics would force him to backtrack on issues he was elected to implement. But what about foreign fanatics?
I hear Reagan in the background saying, "There he goes again.."
After the reckless and irresponsible policies of George Bush, one can understand that Obama wanted to think twice before taking military action in the Middle East again. Remember the neoconservative assertion that shortly after the war started Iraqis would be waving American flags, welcoming their "liberators?" We all know how that turned out. But I think Obama's hesitance to use force went beyond reluctance to take military action after the Bush-era disasters. I believe he wanted to give the Middle East countries time to work out their problems themselves. Certainly this would be the best solution--if that solution occurred. Not only did he not want to risk more American lives; not only did he not want to initiate costly military action at a time when the American economy--due to other Bush-era disasters--is still in such a weak state; he wanted to treat those in power in the Middle East as adults. Surely, if given time, they would see reason, he thought. Once again, he mistakenly believed that most politicians are decent, reasonable people like himself.
Surely this is why he warned Assad one year ago that if he used chemical weapons extensively he would be "crossing a red line," and would face "enormous consequences" if he did. Surely, he thought, Assad wouldn't be crazy enough to use chemical weapons. Well, Mr.President, he did use those weapons in a war that he was, by all reports, winning. Your delay in responding did not help reasonable people come to the fore; over the past year the opposite has happened: the rebels have been significantly infiltrated by Sunni terrorists. Your decency has, in fact, made matters worse.
I could imagine him thinking: No, Assad wouldn't do something like that. After all, he's a doctor, he's an ophthalmologist. Well, Mr. President, loony Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist, too.
Assad makes Ted Cruz look as quaint as Disney's Mad Hatter. Face facts, Mr. President: They're having a Tea Party in Damascus, too-- and it's far worse than the one here: the poison Cruz and his ilk are serving the American people is bad enough, but it isn't sarin.
Mr. President it's Tea Party here and Tea Party there! Reason might work reasonably well among politicians in Maryland and Connecticut, but not in Mississippi--and certainly not in Syria! Why has it taken you, Mr. President, so long to find that out?
It is time, Mr. President. Syria, Iran and North Korea would love to have you continue to speak softly without carrying a big stick. You tried decency--and it didn't work. You apparently have found that out. We are waiting for reason to strike, and trust we won't have to wait long.
Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI like this article
But will U.S. action do anything but get us involved? It will not stop the civil war. Send humanitarian aid to the refugees. Don't pour gasoline on the fire. There are no good pro-Jefferson democracy sides in Syria. We should be vocal protesting the violence but should not be perpetrators of it. No one wins in the Mideast. It is the unholy land, bloodshed, bombs, hate, irrational frenzy. Give the victims food, clothes, shelter. Protect this country and the rest of the world from the Mideast disease. And who are we to rule (and exploit the resources) of the world.
ReplyDeleteTom, I like your reasoned arguments but not the conclusion. War is always irrational. There are always unintended consequences.
Dan