Mayor: You
see them, Mr Rango? All my friends and neighbors. It's a hard life
here. Very hard. Do you know how they make it through each and
everyday? They believe. They believe it's going to be better. The
believe that the water will come. They believe against all odds and
evidence that tomorrow will be better than today. (Rango, 2011)
President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address was inspiring. I watched the likes/dislikes of the live Youtube stream go from about 60%/40% before the Speech to 68%/32% afterward. For a nation wallowing in recession and a political atmosphere comparable to the Grand Canyon, I'd call that pretty inspiring. According to Tweet volume, the President's most laudable delivery was on the subject of education (though this topical surge may be, at least partially, the result of the age of the average Tweeter).
President Obama listed the improvements his administration has made on the country's domestic and foreign policies, and laid out an intelligent plan to attack ongoing problems. He addressed the splitting headache that constitutes D.C. politics, from insider trading to departmental inefficiency, and encouraged his fellow representatives to unite together, following the example of the American soldiers who risked their lives for the sake of each other and the sake of a common mission.
God, I hope he'll stick around for another four years. I don't pretend to know much about politics, the economy or international relations, and I'm not so foolish as to think that President Obama is the ideal president. But I do know that Obama still possesses the ability to inspire. That counts for more than you might think.
It's up to the US Congress to find points of political-center agreement where bills can be created to advance the great arm of bureaucracy (that dirty word) in effective and affordable ways. As a separate arm of government, the executive branch can't make the House cooperate. Neither can the President introduce legislation - he can only suggest bills or policies he believes Congress should create.
Of course, the President has other responsibilities, such as the nomination of federal judges, the direction of the executive branch of government (some five million federal employees) by way of executive orders - including the military - and last, decisions regarding foreign relations and affairs. He needs to be able to create a team of people to surround him, who he can lead well. And he needs to be able to inspire.
President Obama can be criticized in many areas, but he's inconceivably better than the two current alternatives. Chronicled wonderfully in countless Daily Show episodes, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney backstab, change values in a heartbeat, play awful politics and cater to an extremist wing of a party that has, in my view, lost its way. If the Democratic party can seize the currently vacant political center, they could direct the country's affairs until the GOP reinvents itself.
What if Romney (aptly called "a perfectly lubricated weathervane") were to become the forty-fifth President? If Obama is left-center, then Romney is right-center, which by itself is a fairly insignificant change. However, Obama has successfully inspired many Americans in spite of inheriting a ragged economy. Could Romney take over in this respect and finish what Obama started? Whether or not his administrative talents are slightly superior to Obama's is really a non-issue when his party is primarily concerned with downsizing Federal influence in every way. Obama has four year's experience; Romney will need to learn a new office and take time to figure out how to apply his knowledge of state governance to the level of nation-building.
Obama inspires; the main criticism against Romney is that he is lack-luster in this respect. Frankly, when the chips are down, there needs to be a singular voice in Washington calling people to pull themselves up by their boot-straps, believe in themselves, their country, and their government. The Republican party calls people to believe in the so-called job-creators, to whom they owe all; and to distrust all government involvement as "interference." While I believe deep down that he knows better, Romney can't go too far afield from that line of thought without alienating his own party. There are too many lobbyists.
I've also noticed that every time a new President is elected, it takes about a year for the new administration to tear down enough policy established by their predecessors before they can positively affect job growth. During that year, growth in all sectors is slow, and progress is minimal. By the time Romney's administration gets some momentum, there's only a year until congressional elections, and I'd bet money the House is going to flip back to a Democratic majority, in light of the ridiculous ideological posturing of the current representatives. Statistics show that the vast majority of Americans understand the fundamental necessity of compromise between the two parties to get things done.
(And if Gingrich became President, God help us.)
And where is the ideology of a party whose representatives declare publicly that their number one goal is to wrest political power for themselves? I'm sorry. Big government, small government, efficient government, whatever. I can't subscribe to a political organization that embraces such outspoken megalomaniacal behavior. (At least the Democrats fight that vice to the degree that not a single party member could ever get away with saying something like that publicly.)
In any case, I suppose I shouldn't really worry too much about American politics, seeing as I don't intend to stick around more than a few more years. When I lived in Canada, as far as I was concerned, the US could rot in hell. However, having lived here, even in the Midwest - a place so diametrically opposed to my philosophies and thinking patterns - I have truly learned to love the country, the values it stands for, and its place in the world and in history. And I hope and pray that this is not the beginning of the end, but rather, as our President so poignantly put it, I've witnessed the beginning of an America built to last.
President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address was inspiring. I watched the likes/dislikes of the live Youtube stream go from about 60%/40% before the Speech to 68%/32% afterward. For a nation wallowing in recession and a political atmosphere comparable to the Grand Canyon, I'd call that pretty inspiring. According to Tweet volume, the President's most laudable delivery was on the subject of education (though this topical surge may be, at least partially, the result of the age of the average Tweeter).
President Obama listed the improvements his administration has made on the country's domestic and foreign policies, and laid out an intelligent plan to attack ongoing problems. He addressed the splitting headache that constitutes D.C. politics, from insider trading to departmental inefficiency, and encouraged his fellow representatives to unite together, following the example of the American soldiers who risked their lives for the sake of each other and the sake of a common mission.
God, I hope he'll stick around for another four years. I don't pretend to know much about politics, the economy or international relations, and I'm not so foolish as to think that President Obama is the ideal president. But I do know that Obama still possesses the ability to inspire. That counts for more than you might think.
It's up to the US Congress to find points of political-center agreement where bills can be created to advance the great arm of bureaucracy (that dirty word) in effective and affordable ways. As a separate arm of government, the executive branch can't make the House cooperate. Neither can the President introduce legislation - he can only suggest bills or policies he believes Congress should create.
Of course, the President has other responsibilities, such as the nomination of federal judges, the direction of the executive branch of government (some five million federal employees) by way of executive orders - including the military - and last, decisions regarding foreign relations and affairs. He needs to be able to create a team of people to surround him, who he can lead well. And he needs to be able to inspire.
President Obama can be criticized in many areas, but he's inconceivably better than the two current alternatives. Chronicled wonderfully in countless Daily Show episodes, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney backstab, change values in a heartbeat, play awful politics and cater to an extremist wing of a party that has, in my view, lost its way. If the Democratic party can seize the currently vacant political center, they could direct the country's affairs until the GOP reinvents itself.
What if Romney (aptly called "a perfectly lubricated weathervane") were to become the forty-fifth President? If Obama is left-center, then Romney is right-center, which by itself is a fairly insignificant change. However, Obama has successfully inspired many Americans in spite of inheriting a ragged economy. Could Romney take over in this respect and finish what Obama started? Whether or not his administrative talents are slightly superior to Obama's is really a non-issue when his party is primarily concerned with downsizing Federal influence in every way. Obama has four year's experience; Romney will need to learn a new office and take time to figure out how to apply his knowledge of state governance to the level of nation-building.
Obama inspires; the main criticism against Romney is that he is lack-luster in this respect. Frankly, when the chips are down, there needs to be a singular voice in Washington calling people to pull themselves up by their boot-straps, believe in themselves, their country, and their government. The Republican party calls people to believe in the so-called job-creators, to whom they owe all; and to distrust all government involvement as "interference." While I believe deep down that he knows better, Romney can't go too far afield from that line of thought without alienating his own party. There are too many lobbyists.
I've also noticed that every time a new President is elected, it takes about a year for the new administration to tear down enough policy established by their predecessors before they can positively affect job growth. During that year, growth in all sectors is slow, and progress is minimal. By the time Romney's administration gets some momentum, there's only a year until congressional elections, and I'd bet money the House is going to flip back to a Democratic majority, in light of the ridiculous ideological posturing of the current representatives. Statistics show that the vast majority of Americans understand the fundamental necessity of compromise between the two parties to get things done.
(And if Gingrich became President, God help us.)
And where is the ideology of a party whose representatives declare publicly that their number one goal is to wrest political power for themselves? I'm sorry. Big government, small government, efficient government, whatever. I can't subscribe to a political organization that embraces such outspoken megalomaniacal behavior. (At least the Democrats fight that vice to the degree that not a single party member could ever get away with saying something like that publicly.)
In any case, I suppose I shouldn't really worry too much about American politics, seeing as I don't intend to stick around more than a few more years. When I lived in Canada, as far as I was concerned, the US could rot in hell. However, having lived here, even in the Midwest - a place so diametrically opposed to my philosophies and thinking patterns - I have truly learned to love the country, the values it stands for, and its place in the world and in history. And I hope and pray that this is not the beginning of the end, but rather, as our President so poignantly put it, I've witnessed the beginning of an America built to last.
No comments:
Post a Comment