The Insanity Over Obama: Reality, Please
Mar 23, 2010
2 Comments
The rally cries are at full blast and the pitchforks are aimed, with many Americans are denouncing Barack Obama as a socialist. A reality check is needed, and the ridiculous name calling has got to stop. Plus a careful examination of Obama & Co. finds that he is anything BUT a Marxist.
I really try to stay away from politics on this site. I must say that I share the sentiment of a beloved professor who said, "you gotta love politics, but just hate politicians." That pretty sums up my attitude. I tend to vote Democrat, but save most of my criticism for the Democratic Party, as I find its minions often hypocritical and lacking a spine. Perhaps I read The Economist too much, but I often find myself agreeing with the tone of that magazine while rolling my eyes at what some Democrats say they can do to "fix" the economy. Government cannot create jobs, but it can foster an environment for job creation, either through establishing favorable regulations or tax codes; and presidents and congressional leaders of both parties, therefore, have done so for better or worse. I am really not a big Obama fan. I won't get into the details: I was leaning toward Bill Richardson in early 2008, but like other politicos who I favored, he went the way of Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Wesley Clark--my track record says it all. But after 16 years of overgrown adolescents (yes, Clinton and Bush II) in the White House, I have to say that I am happy with someone as thoughtful and poised as Obama. He has some impressive cabinet members in Clinton, Gates, Duncan, Chu, Shinseki, and LaHood. And he is confronting huge problems that will not be easy to solve. Had I been born the same year as my father, I'm sure I would have been a Republican, as the Democrats had been dominated by Dixiecrats, while many Republicans had been remarkably progressive. But liberal Republicans in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller and John Gilbert Winant (my personal hero for his leadership as our ambassador to the UK during WWII) are extinct, and that party has been taken over by folks who make Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan look like radical leftists.Which is why I am tired of the banter suggesting Obama is a "socialist," without people really understanding what that means. The tea party protesters, the modern day "nattering nabobs of negativism" (gotta love that Spiro Agnew quote!), are great at shouting vitriol but not much else resembling intelligence.
The health care plan recently passed is hardly socialist. Punitive to insurance companies, maybe, but it is not a government takeover of health care. Giving insurance companies up to 30 million more customers is not some nefarious socialist plan--after all, haven't health care stocks have largely gone up in the markets the past couple days?
And Obama's energy plan is also not a leftist policy. Focusing on corn ethanol will not do much more than making Archer Daniels Midland a compelling stock buy. Pursuing "clean coal" technology is a nod towards coal producing states and the companies mining this fuel. Oil fields on US lands are told to boost their production, the construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska has been accelerated, and "safe" nuclear energy is encouraged. Whatever your stance is on fossil fuels, we will hardly be a land of subsistence-farming hippies anytime soon. Some industries have been given favors, such as construction companies involved in "home weatherization," while Detroit's auto industry has been tossed a lifeline. People out there are making money--not everyone, but with any tweaks in regulation, some industries thrive, others falter.
It's been years since I actively studied history (despite my M.A. in it), but to me, one fact is clear: images of our leaders often do not match the reality. Truman is now almost universally admired but was despised and belittled during most of his administration. Eisenhower pursued domestic policies that would have made Obama blush and leave tea baggers fuming--plus the "industrial-military complex" quote was his. Kennedy got us on the fast track to the Vietnam War. Nixon expanded affirmative action plans, pursued mandated health care, and funded the EPA. Carter increased defense spending while staging a strong foreign policy--had it not been for the Iran hostage crisis, he would have defeated Reagan in 1980. Reagan signed liberal abortion laws while governor of California, and hiked taxes and overall spending as President. Bush I increased federal spending in education, technology research, and childcare; his son increased funding of AIDS around the world. Clinton? He was lucky: the Internet saved his Presidency.
I am not writing this to defend or praise Obama. But whatever you think of his policies, examine the facts before indulging in childish name calling. Some say that defying public opinion, as Truman, Reagan, Bush II, and Obama have done, is arrogance. I call it leadership.
Thanks for posting this, Leon. Well said. Leadership is something this country has been lacking for too long and I respect all of the democrats who voted for the bill risking their political careers in November. It’s about time. I am also grateful that there is going to be some signifiant financial reform passed in the coming weeks; however, Dodd had to make it very clear that he would not be seeking re-election before tying his name to the bill. What has become of our country’s political system is simply frustrating.
Thanks, Megan.
I agree–I may not agree with everything Obama is doing, but the hysteria is bordering on the bizarre!
We just cannot continue on the path we are on: only paying for medical care for the sick, poor, and elderly will just bust our deficit anymore. Then we really won’t be able to pay for anything.
People are used to getting something for nothing, thanks to politicians who are used to covering their hinds for the next election.
Let’s just hope things calm down . . .