Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’
Ray Suarez, of the NewsHour on PBS, will moderate an interesting panel tonight regarding the conversation of Affirmative Action. Julian Bond, John McWhorter, and a host of others will formally debate the merits of the resolution: Affirmative Action should focus on class and wealth, instead of race and ethnicity.
Over the past several years, race-based opportunity policies have been on the defensive. In 2006, 58% of Michigan voters approved a statewide referendum ending affirmative action in public education. A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court forced public school administrators to use socioeconomic status, not race, to integrate segregated public schools. In 2008, Nebraska voters approved a statewide ballot initiative banning all racial preferences, while voters in Colorado rejected a similar measure; future referendums are being prepared in other states. President Barack Obama injected energy into the race-versus-class debate when he suggested that poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged blacks.
The debate will be held tonight at 8pm EST at the University of Virginia at the Miller Center. For those unable to attend, it will also be broadcast live via the Miller Center website.
While I absorb the merits of the resolution, my ultimate opinion is that it is flawed. It assumes that human nature has evolved past our visible assumptions with the election of Barack Obama and that we now treat each other with more context.
The fact remains that while we all would like to believe we are bigger than this, we still judge people by how they look, how they talk, where they come from, and what images are beamed to us everyday. Case and point, the recent YouTube sensation of Susan Boyle, a frumpy-looking Irish woman who stunned the cynical audiences of Britain’s Got Talent with her angelic voice. We judge people by how they look. The laws of Affirmative Action, in its best day, lawfully tries to even out the playing field.
Obama’s Debt: Will It Define His Presidency?
- By: Justin Giboney
- March 5, 2009
- 8 comments
President Obama’s campaign was art in motion. He maneuvered, he amazed, he conquered. Among other things, he was able to credibly articulate the idea that American politics could transcend petty partisanship. However, in the dark shadows of political reality, our Commander in Chief had to make some lofty leftward promises and court a myriad of far left groups on his rise to the Oval Office. These constituencies have placed a lien on Obama’s presidency. How he will manage to satisfy his debt to the left wing and maintain his vision of a new Washington is beyond me. As a consequence, I cannot help but fear the prospect of his presidency being defined by his uber-liberal creditors.
My fear is not that we will fall short of his goal due to his personal limitations, but that he may be controlled by partisan obligations rather than his own vision. If this is the case, Obama’s presidency will be less than transformational and the country will be worse off for it.
While both parties have their merits and political parties, in general, serve a purpose in democracy, the Obama campaign seemed to acknowledge that dogmatic adherence to either political philosophy would obstruct recovery – “We are more than a collection of Red States and Blue States – we are the United States of America.†The people believed Obama could change Washington not because we thought it to be any small task, but because we believed in his abilities and vision. Any non-conservative politician who can pry a compliment like the one below out of Rush Limbaugh at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) may be suited to tackle the impossible:
“[President Obama} is one of the most gifted politicians…one of the most gifted men that I have witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass.â€Â
Early signs indicated that President Obama would go beyond partisanship and heal this country by taking a practical-centrist-Lincolnesque approach to the Executive Office. This was evidenced by how he assembled his administration and his somewhat revised take on ending the Iraq War. He even shunned the silly Fairness Doctrine. Such concessions to the GOP demonstrated a honest commitment to change and bipartisan solutions.
While Obama owes conservatives very little based on their opposition to his election, he does not enjoy the same freedom from the other side of the aisle. The fact remains that supplanting Hillary Clinton’s base and acquiring the support of the fringe left came with a hefty debt. Political capital is never free. Benefactors are seldom without self-interest nor shy when the spoils manifest.
To complicate matters, the liberal majority in Congress is clearly not willing to risk forfeiting its turn at bat to promote Obama’s ambitious idea of a post-partisan Washington. Liberals have not enjoyed this level of control in decades and are loudly marking their territory. Democrat Senator Barney Frank, who was self-diagnosed with “post-partisan depressionâ€Â, stated that Obama overestimates his ability to work with Republicans. Similarly motivated, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revealed, “If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him…I do not work for Barack Obama.†In other words, if you value your limbs, you better get out of the way while we grind our axes.
Those of us who bought into President Obama’s bipartisan vision, can only hope he does not allow congressional liberals to hijack his presidency like they did the recent stimulus bill. While I agreed stimulus was a necessity, the hasty manner in which it was passed and the billions of dollars in pork barrel spending (which included $200,000 for tattoo removal) made a mockery of our democratic process. If there ever was a time when partisan politics were completely inappropriate that was it. Unfortunately, Obama appeared to condone this embarrassing miscarriage of democracy. In order to fully realize the hallmark of his campaign, he must control those defining moments. Similar situations will determine whether he will be able to re-establish his bipartisan vision and lead Congress and his liberal constituency or if they will lead and define him.
Will the 44th President’s legacy be his own or will liberal collection agencies garnish his unique vision?
I voted for Barack Obama but I am not a Democrat. Before you get your hopes up Michael Steele, let me say that I also do not agree with the Republican party platform. So if I don’t fit into either of those two injudicious boxes, where do I fall you ask? Well, I side with the greatest mind of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, in feeling that “we shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.†Call me a radical. Call me a dreamer. Call me whatever derogatory political name you can think of as long as you also call me a Socialtarian.
I know what you’re thinking now – what the heck is a Socialtarian? The truth is, I made up the term after realizing I equally subscribe to Socialism and many Libertarian ideals. Before you capitalist pigs and liberal lilies accuse me of being oxymoronic, take a second to think outside the box for once. Actually, to make things easier for you, let’s start inside your boxes.
First, Republicans, you guys supposedly stand for small government, fiscal responsibility, high moral standards, and deregulation of the economy. Under the Bush Administration, the federal government ballooned and became a more pervasive presence in the everyday life of Americans. “Freedom and liberty†was extended to Iraq, while I lost the right to have an untapped phone conversation at home. Even more, we squandered a couple trillion dollars in our attempt to “liberate†Iraq and “organize†Afghanistan. As far as moral standards are concerned, I’ve lost track of how many Republican public officials were tied up in corruption, sex, and crime scandals in the past few years (to be fair, I can say the same for Democrats, but this is not a cornerstone of their platform).
Those Republicans I find most intriguing are the purportedly “Conservative†members of the party. Basing your belief system on “Christian†standards, you paradoxically subscribe to inequality, intolerance, and greed. I remember debating with many of you when Joe The Plumber exposed Barack Obama’s tax plan as “socialist.†You guys threw a temper tantrum and completely lost your bearings! The very same Republicans that argued that the foundations of American law should be more reflective of the Bible, were the same people that acknowledged that there should be no spreading of the wealth; there should be no universal healthcare; their tax dollars should not fund the rebuilding of better schools in neighborhoods they don’t live in. Well why don’t we check what the Bible says? Turn to 1 Corinthians 12:24-26. Are you ready?
“… God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, [25] so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. [26] If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.â€Â
Don’t get me started on the countless other verses I could quote that undoubtedly prove the Bible is actually a socialistic doctrine. So how can you “evangelical/morally conservative†Republicans sleep in peace knowing that you actually do not wish to see social equality? I’ve never understood how you could wholeheartedly agree with the Bible, yet refuse to subscribe to the belief that at least some portion of the country’s wealth should be divided to eliminate poverty, grant universal healthcare, and promote a better education system for children in ALL communities. It baffles me how you can quote Jesus in one breath and then tell me you don’t care about the greater welfare of your fellow citizens in the next breath. I’ve even had conversations with many of you that seem to believe poor people are only poor because they chose not to work hard; you are completely ignorant to the socio economic factors that facilitate the perpetual cycle of poverty in the US and abroad. The main factor is your GREED; your unwillingness to share for the greater benefit of the entire group. Only after starting out with an equal chance at success, would it be fair to acknowledge that a person’s ultimate failures or triumphs were completely self induced.
On to the Democrats. You guys don’t seem to have as much of a problem tossing money around. You also claim to be proponents of equal rights. But tossing money around willy nilly, and promoting a class of citizens dependent upon degrading welfare systems is not what I envision as conducive to a greater America. Don’t give hungry people a fish and tell them to eat merrily; teach the people to fish so that they may feed themselves and others! This starts with education. Don’t blow our tax dollars on public housing facilities and benefit programs for lazy, uneducated people that will only pass down more ignorance to their offspring. Create a universal standard for public education and public school facilities starting at Kindergarten. Bailout our failing education system, not the corporations that will continue to erode our ethics, and deplete our financial resources.
In the area of equal rights, Democrats are all talk. Look at the issue of gay marriage for example. Whatever your religious affiliation, there is nothing in the Constitution that denies gay people the fundamental right to marry. Yet, many top Democrats, including our 44th President, stand firmly in ignorance with the Right Wing when it comes to preventing gays from marriage. I am a Christian, I go to Bible Study every Wednesday and church every Sunday. But even I can see that the doctrine which governs the United States is the Constitution, not the Bible. Why should I care whether two men or two women want to marry each other anyway? As a straight male, this does not make dating more competitive for me. It actually makes it easier, as those lesbians I might have hit on can more easily display that they’re off limits. Are most Americans worried that the country will become somehow gayer if we allow homosexuals to marry? Do you think that if we prevent them from marrying that they’ll eventually go away? This is ludicrous!
This brings me to why I consider myself a Socialtarian. I side with the Bible in believing that it is our job to collectively support one another. I also believe in the inalienable rights of man – Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything that prevents these principles from manifesting is unjust and wasteful. In our current state, capitalism unfairly lumps a large chunk of wealth into the hands of a tiny segment of our population. This fosters the poverty, crime, and desperation that generates 90 percent of the world’s problems. In the words of Einstein,
“the economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers, the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor  not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules (Why Socialism by Albert Einstein).â€Â
If we were to distribute the country’s finances in a socialistic manner that specifically focused on the promotion of equal education, then poverty, crime, and other socioeconomic factors would cease to exist.
This where I draw the line. I do not wish to see a federal government that confiscates every dollar earned, nor one that strives to eliminate a difference in income between dish washers and brain surgeons. I merely wish to see the United States become a place where every child is born with a perfectly equal shot at success and the attainment of wealth. Every man is guaranteed life, which correlates to the preservation of existence, a right only secured through universal healthcare. Each man is also ensured liberty in this country. Therefore, I side with the Libertarian party’s call “for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives.†Outside of making sure every citizen starts on equal ground, I do not need the federal or state government to be my third parent. For example, I should not be subject to incarceration for using drugs. If a person wants to damage their own body and it doesn’t affect others then let them be. If crack was legal, would you go out and smoke some today? I highly doubt it, so why the need for such foolish laws? All I demand the government to do is collect funds and apply them directly to the elimination of poverty, education and health disparities so that I may pursue my happiness… then get the hell out of the way. So take note you foxes and wolves, a ferocious beast is on the prowl for you – the Socialtarian.
