An Obama presidency post-mortem

You read that right. This entry is a post-mortem of the Obama presidency.

He will still be in office for at least three more years and could be re-elected, but in an important way, his presidency ended earlier this week when he announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

What has ended is any idea that his presidency will lead to radical change. Many people have hoped—or feared—that Obama’s election would lead to some sort of revolution, although the substance of that revolution differed with each person you asked.

I voted for him. My wife and I cried at 11 p.m. on election night when he was declared the winner. But looking back, I think that all the people who thought that his election would lead to truly drastic changes in this country weren’t looking at his resume close enough. Revolutionaries aren’t given the opportunity to edit the Harvard Law Review. Hell, revolutionaries aren’t allowed within 300 feet of the Harvard campus!

Obama may be sincere about change, but he is also a political careerist, like many others in Washington. He has spent most of his life being schooled in, among other things, the art of compromise, and he knows that alienating too many people would be damaging to the career that he has devoted his life to developing.

In the (allegedly good) old days, politics was a sideline for most of the people involved in it. Look at this list of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Do you see anyone whose occupation is listed as “politician”? Many lawyers, but, as in our time, most lawyers are not politicians. People got into politics because they cared about the way the government was being run, but they did not see politics as the primary way to feed themselves.

Somewhere along the way, the laws became more sophisticated and harder for the average person to understand. The complexity required that public office become a full time job.

Lincoln’s proverbial one-room schoolhouse became no longer adequate to train a President. Neither were the public schools and state universities that do all right by most people. College programs became devoted to public policy and began to turn out a new breed of student princes, such as Obama, as skilled at the political game as a brain surgeon. While most of them are attorneys, few have any experience in an area of law that is not related to politics.

What does this have to do with sending troops to Afghanistan? Obama has made this decision after careful consulting with his military advisers. He is not about to make a decision that will step on the wrong toes. If he alienates too many important people, the career that has become his life will be over. Seriously—if he weren’t a politician, what would he do? Write people’s wills? Work for Edgar Snyder?

It is not a partisan problem. There are just as many political careerists on the Republican side. While it’s good that politicians have been well trained in the nuances of creating laws, something has also been lost. There is a certain hesitancy to be decisive if it means being unpopular.

When President Truman fired the popular General MacArthur at the height of the Korean War, it was political suicide. While Truman has been resurrected as a folk hero, people forget that he left office with some of the lowest approval ratings in history. Similarly, when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legend has it that he told an aide, “We [the Democratic Party] have lost the South for a generation.” And they did. In both cases, Presidents weren’t afraid to stick their necks out to do something that they thought was right, even if they knew it would hurt their careers. It’s hard to see anybody in Washington being that brave today.

Barring the faux-Mayan apocalypse that some people believe in (which wouldn’t happen until after Election Day, anyhow), I will vote for Obama again in 2012, mainly because I think the balance on the Supreme Court is too precarious to allow a right-wing President to appoint conservative judges to that body. But that’s another blog entry.

Meet the new boss. Not quite the same as the old boss, but maybe not different enough to really matter. It may not be change we can believe in, but it may be the only type of change that’s believable.

America has been given a collective lobotomy

I cannot believe the hysteria that has overtaken America.

Less than a year after sending Barack Obama to the White House (and, yes, it was the American people that put him there, not ACORN), the American people are now intent on destroying him.

Obama is now unable to give an 18-minute address to high school kids without causing a major controversy. People are actually keeping their kids home rather than let them be infected by such socialist notions as working hard and staying in school.

This is typical:

"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me," suburban Colorado mother Shanneen Barron told CNN Denver affiliate KMGH. "I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

Having to listen to what? The President talking about achieving short-term and long-term educational goals? People should be glad that the President cares enough to give them such a message.

Have parents thought about what they might be hearing from some of their own teachers? Or their peers? Nobody seems to care about that.

Really—even if Obama were part of some Communist plot, do you think he’d be stupid enough to outline it in a video shown in every high school in the country?

Or maybe these cretins still believe in the well-discredited “subliminal messages” theory. Maybe they think Obama will flash messages on the screen designed to make teenagers worship the devil or eat more popcorn.

Other Presidents have spoken at high schools. These appearances were mentioned briefly in the news and people moved on. Why is this time different?

I had great hope that America was ready to put ignorance behind it and learn how to think. I guess I was wrong.

Song parody time

I thought it was time for a song parody. Google tells me that some wingnut has beaten me to this idea (and I'm not posting the link here), but I like mine better. It's not Weird Al, but I work a lot cheaper.

BLAME IT ON BARACK OBAMA
(to the tune of "Blame It on the Bossa Nova" by Eydie Gorme)

Well, I lost my job
And my wife done gone
And she left me here
With my dog and gun
But I can’t accept
Responsibility
So I’m gonna blame that guy down in D.C.

Blame it on Barack Obama!
‘Cause my state turned blue
Blame it on Barack Obama!
‘Cause Rush told me to
Last November he carried the day
Now someone said he’ll take my guns away
Blame it on Barack Obama, the President

(Now is it the debt?) No, no, Barack Obama
(Or maybe Dubya Bush?) No, no, Barack Obama
(Or your own damn fault?) No, no, Barack Obama
The President!

Now, my friends and I,
We’re gonna have a ball
We’re gonna raise a fuss
At the old town hall
Gonna rave and rant
And get on the news
As we sing the creeping socialism blues

Blame it on Barack Obama!
‘Cause he’s African
Blame it on Barack Obama!
Just because I can
I can’t believe they voted for that clown
Why, he’s the reason why my car broke down
Blame it on Barack Obama, the President

(Is it random chance?) No, no, Barack Obama
(Or your horoscope?) No, no, Barack Obama
(Or Freemasonry?) No, no, Barack Obama
The President!

A true secret ballot

The hotel for this year's Western Pennsylvania Mensa Regional Gathering had an unexpected guest--John McCain.

The Straight Talk Express visited the Green Tree Radisson, and along with McCain, Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin, came three large buses, countless Men in Black, who knows how many advisers and assistants, and an overwhelming amount of luggage.

And all to talk to some farmers in Washington, Pa., about their taxes.

What a waste.

And it's not just McCain. I would have felt the same way if it were Obama. Well, maybe a little less, but I couldn't help but think that the whole method of running a Presidential campaign is extremely wasteful.

Millions are spent on the efforts of a handful of people to be elected to our nation's highest office. Not only is the process a waste of money, but voters wind up not knowing much about the candidates when all is said and done. Much of the information we receive about them is really propaganda, programmed to benefit their causes. There is also the tendency to confuse the candidate's personalities with their stands on the issues--especially this year, with race and (alleged) religion becoming issues as well.

I suggest radical changes in the Presidential campaign.

Try this plan and see what you think.

Publish a list of the candidates and their positions on the issues--but no names or pictures. Just call them Candidate A and Candidate B (and you could probably go down the alphabet farther, as the process would be open to third parties since it would be cheaper). Publish this list in the paper, online, on fliers, what have you. But you wouldn't know who the candidates are. They could go about their business, in their current positions (as they should). You wouldn't have TV commercials in your face saying that so-and-so wants to take your guns away or send your jobs to China. No conventions, no debates, no wanton spending of millions. Just the facts. You vote on the issues, and you don't know the candidates' identities until the election is over.

It's probably a naive idea. The temptation for the media to blow the candidates' covers would be great, and I don't know how the secrecy would be enforced.

But still--it's got to be better than endless campaign ads (mostly paid for by fat cats with hidden agendas) going on and on about how one candidate or another will provoke terrorist attacks, cause gay immigrant drug addicts to run rampant, and, worst of all--raise your taxes!

I Threw My Vote Away

“Don’t throw away your vote” is a mantra often heard around election time, usually from a supporter of a major-party candidate, to dissuade you from voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. The philosophy behind that statement is that it’s wrong to vote for a candidate who has no chance to win.

I agree that voting for a fringe candidate is usually futile. While I don’t agree with everything the major parties propose, I have found that most third parties are on the fringe for good reason. Their ideas range from impractical to insane. Check out the platform for this party—or this party—if you don’t believe me.

Another problem with third parties and write-in candidates is that they can take votes away from viable candidates who, while they may not agree with you on everything, are by far the lesser of two evils. I can’t help but think of what the last eight years might have been like if not for Ralph Nader.

But there was one recent contest where a write-in vote was justifiable.

Pennsylvania’s recent Democratic Presidential primary was hailed as one of the most crucial primaries in the state’s history. The state’s primary is usually meaningless because it’s so late in the season. Not this year.

The contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama means a lot to many. People are excited by the prospect of a woman or black President. Others see the election as a struggle for the future of the Democratic Party—the old guard, represented by Clinton, against the youthful Obama.

To me, it was Coke vs. Pepsi. I couldn’t find much difference between their positions on major issues. I don’t think that being a woman or black is, by itself, a good reason to vote, or to not vote, for anyone. I know that, in November, I will vote for whichever candidate receives the Democratic nomination, because that person is preferable to Bush Light.

While I generally like both candidates, I am not happy with either’s stand on environmental issues. Both appear to be too close to the oil and coal industries, and neither is promoting alternative energy sources strongly.

My attempt at a tiebreaker involved trying to determine which candidate was more electable. I studied political websites with the same scrutiny I once reserved for the Racing Form, but all the articles I read were inconclusive. Mostly say hooray for our side.

Meanwhile, I began to be disappointed at the childish bickering between the two candidates. As the crucial day grew nearer, the race grew to look more like a high school election. When I found out that Clinton, Obama and McCain were going to appear on WWE Raw, I had finally had enough.

My wife had toyed with the idea of writing in Al Gore. I’d written in candidates before (back in my college days, I actually wrote this guy in for Governor of Ohio), usually from disgust with the candidates on the ballot.

This time, it was not disgust but hope for something better. While Gore has said, time and again, that he is not interested in running for President (and I don’t blame him for not wanting the job), there is a bit of a movement to draft him, and talk of nominating him should the convention be deadlocked. Which got me to thinking…if there’s enough support…and enough write-in votes…just maybe…

At least Pennsylvania makes it easy to write in a candidate. Just choose the write-in option and a keyboard appears on the screen. So it was that I typed in A-L-B-E-R-T-space-G-O-R-E-,-space-J-R-.

How did it feel to throw my vote away?

Not bad.

Bitterness: From Without or Within?

Much has been made of the statement made by Presidential candidate Barack Obama about people in small towns who have lost their jobs.

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he said.

Obama has come under a lot of fire for this statement. People have called him elitist and accused him of putting down guns or religion (as if those things are above criticism).

The truth hurts.

For there is no doubt that there is bitterness in small towns across America, especially those towns where industries have gone and left nothing to replace them.

I worked for a brief time as a welfare caseworker in such a town—McKeesport, Pa. McKeesport was one of many thriving steel towns in Western Pennsylvania until the Pennsylvania steel industry shut down in the early 1980s. The town has yet to recover.

The people I encountered in McKeesport were beyond bitter. I could look in their eyes and see that many have given up. But they do not fit Obama’s example. None struck me as being terribly interested in guns (barring any criminal activity that they kept outside the office) or religion, and none cared about immigrants one way or the other. Hell, some of them are immigrants, although not as many as Faux News would have you believe.

You may call them lazy. You may say that they’ve made bad lifestyle choices. I can tell you this much—I didn’t meet one person in that office who wanted to be there.

Obama’s words reminded me more of a different demographic—the people I met while writing for a community newspaper in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The paper covered a town that defines the American suburb. It is not rich, but neither will anybody confuse it with McKeesport. Nobody in this town is wanting for a dime. To steal a riff from Garrison Keillor, all the children are rosy-cheeked and above average. Their parents are prosperous, proud, proper—and bitter.

The residents of this town have been taking solace in the things Obama’s talking about for a long time, and their financial status has nothing to do with it.

Guns? My first episode of culture shock in this town occurred when my paper published a cartoon criticizing the National Rifle Association. Little did we know that the mayor of the town, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, many of our advertisers, and, most embarrassing of all, the owner of the paper, were all NRA members. This town is the NRA! It was all the paper could do to stave off a major ad boycott.

Religion? The spires of fundamentalist churches form a philosophical Maginot Line along the outskirts of town, designed to keep out any progressive influences. During my stay at the paper, conservative influences became more prevalent, until there were actually editorial columns asking for more media censorship.

Anti-immigrant sentiment? Please! These people would call me an outsider because I graduated from a rival high school. I can’t imagine what they say about immigrants.

Perhaps Obama was just trying to pull diverse groups of people into his tent. And, let’s face it—“Give me your tired, your poor, your bitter assholes who won’t listen to reason” just won’t make it as a campaign slogan.

Then again, Obama might want to save his breath. One more thing about the folks in Bitter City—most of them would vote for a trained monkey if he had an R by his name. And they did.