Lately I have noticed an interesting, and puzzling, phenomenon: almost everyone I know is supporting Barack Obama. Supporting is perhaps putting it mildly, some people are absolutely swooning over him. To give you an idea of how strong this support it, check out the following email I received today:
That's not to say that Obama is a bad guy. From everything I have read about him he seems perfectly upstanding and someone I would probably get along with. He did some admirable work on the death penalty while in the Illinois Senate. I believe he played a key role in getting some ethics and earmarks reform passed during his time in the U.S. Senate. And I think he deserves enormous credit for not making an issue of race in the campaign, choosing not to run as a black man, but simply a man and an American.
But is this the resume of someone fit to assume the Oval Office? This is a guy that 4 years ago was a state senator and an unknown on the national political scene (outside of politics nerds) that rose to prominence after delivering a well-received keynote address at the 04' Democratic convention. He then advanced to the U.S. Senate by defeating Alan Keyes, a guy that moved to the state Hillary Clinton-style at the urging of Republicans so that voters would have an alternative black guy to vote for.
Since the experience factor has already been raised by so many others I won't belabor the point, but it remains significant and a real question mark in my opinion.
But my real complaints lie elsewhere. The first is this notion that Obama will bring Americans together. Pardon me, but how do you figure? If Obama really stands for change then you are going to have to have some disagreements. Bold action is almost divisive by definition and rarely gets everyone on the same page. The American Revolution only had the support of about one-third of the colonists. Abraham Lincoln's efforts to restrict slavery prompted a civil war. Martin Luther King's civil rights work earned him an assassin's bullet. Reagan's Cold War policies earned him enmity across the world.
Now let me be clear, I don't begrudge Obama for presenting himself as the candidate of change, but you can be for change and you can be for unity but it is difficult to be for both.
In fact, the way I see it, if you really want to promote unity you need to push for limited government. The less the government controls, the less there is to disagree about. Why do people get worked up into such a frenzy over elections -- because the stakes are so high. Government controls so many aspects of our lives that control over it is of paramount importance. With a voting record in the U.S. Senate deemed the most liberal by National Journal, Obama hardly strikes me as the man to either unify the country or push for limited government.
Lastly, there is all this talk linking Obama with "hope". His most recent book is entitled The Audacity of Hope. His political action committee is called the Hope Fund. Pardon me, but hope for what? We aren't a bunch of starving orphans, we're the United States of America, which last I checked is the most powerful, richest country in the world. We have a standard of living that is the envy of most of the rest of the world. We don't even know how good we've got it. We're a country so rich that even the poor usually own cell phones, cars, televisions and who suffer not from a lack of food, but from obesity. That's not to say that true need does not exist in this country, but among the 300 million of us they are clearly a distinct minority and not the rule.
One plank in Obama's platform seems to be restoring our standing in the rest of the world. I can only wonder what those in poor countries -- i.e. the majority of the world -- think when they see a land as rich as our own talking about the need for hope and recapturing an alleged lost dream.
When I decided to support Barack Obama, I did so because he inspired me. I was overcome with that same feeling I had in college that anything was possible. No, I am not that far removed from those oh-so-coveted years, but my experience in government has unfortunately taken me far away from that time. I have become, to a fault, numb to the possibility of what can be in our nation.Say what you will, it is obvious that the man has struck a chord. The problem is, I simply don't get it.
Barack Obama has revived me.
Let me first be clear that I don't support Obama because I believe he has all the answers. I know he doesn't. And, I don't support him because I think he is right on every issue. Because I know he is not. There is not one candidate that I agree with on every single issue and I ask you to make the same consideration.
I do support him because he forces us to analyze who we are as individuals, as a nation, and consider what we can do to restore our commitment to each other and revitalize our standing in the world.
...What I do believe is that in this election it is important to understand both the possibilities and limitations of government and know that it is ultimately up to us, as individual Americans, to form a more perfect Union. Barack Obama has forced me to think about my potential as an individual and consider my role in the restoration of our country. He will continue to inspire me and I hope you will give him the chance to inspire you as well.
That's not to say that Obama is a bad guy. From everything I have read about him he seems perfectly upstanding and someone I would probably get along with. He did some admirable work on the death penalty while in the Illinois Senate. I believe he played a key role in getting some ethics and earmarks reform passed during his time in the U.S. Senate. And I think he deserves enormous credit for not making an issue of race in the campaign, choosing not to run as a black man, but simply a man and an American.
But is this the resume of someone fit to assume the Oval Office? This is a guy that 4 years ago was a state senator and an unknown on the national political scene (outside of politics nerds) that rose to prominence after delivering a well-received keynote address at the 04' Democratic convention. He then advanced to the U.S. Senate by defeating Alan Keyes, a guy that moved to the state Hillary Clinton-style at the urging of Republicans so that voters would have an alternative black guy to vote for.
Since the experience factor has already been raised by so many others I won't belabor the point, but it remains significant and a real question mark in my opinion.
But my real complaints lie elsewhere. The first is this notion that Obama will bring Americans together. Pardon me, but how do you figure? If Obama really stands for change then you are going to have to have some disagreements. Bold action is almost divisive by definition and rarely gets everyone on the same page. The American Revolution only had the support of about one-third of the colonists. Abraham Lincoln's efforts to restrict slavery prompted a civil war. Martin Luther King's civil rights work earned him an assassin's bullet. Reagan's Cold War policies earned him enmity across the world.
Now let me be clear, I don't begrudge Obama for presenting himself as the candidate of change, but you can be for change and you can be for unity but it is difficult to be for both.
In fact, the way I see it, if you really want to promote unity you need to push for limited government. The less the government controls, the less there is to disagree about. Why do people get worked up into such a frenzy over elections -- because the stakes are so high. Government controls so many aspects of our lives that control over it is of paramount importance. With a voting record in the U.S. Senate deemed the most liberal by National Journal, Obama hardly strikes me as the man to either unify the country or push for limited government.
Lastly, there is all this talk linking Obama with "hope". His most recent book is entitled The Audacity of Hope. His political action committee is called the Hope Fund. Pardon me, but hope for what? We aren't a bunch of starving orphans, we're the United States of America, which last I checked is the most powerful, richest country in the world. We have a standard of living that is the envy of most of the rest of the world. We don't even know how good we've got it. We're a country so rich that even the poor usually own cell phones, cars, televisions and who suffer not from a lack of food, but from obesity. That's not to say that true need does not exist in this country, but among the 300 million of us they are clearly a distinct minority and not the rule.
One plank in Obama's platform seems to be restoring our standing in the rest of the world. I can only wonder what those in poor countries -- i.e. the majority of the world -- think when they see a land as rich as our own talking about the need for hope and recapturing an alleged lost dream.
1 comment:
I am not so positive that change and unity are mutually exclusive. The Clintons were very divisive figures in the 90's and played the political game to win... and to defeat their enemies... at times at the expense of the country.
Then, the GOP machine, driven by Karl Rove and the Bush/Cheney crew took the same approach. So we had these warring bohemoths who have lost the trust of the people.
Obama and McCain both seem to be willing to push back against the warring parties... willing to speak directly and freely about issues. This is, to my way of thinking, a change from the way things have been done for the past 16 years.
Post a Comment