The refreshing consistency of President Obama

I was most impressed in reading James T. Kloppenberg's article, True To His Word, in the most recent issue of Newsweek (November 29, 2010). Personally, I have been impressed with the way the president has been taking his job seriously and implementing decisive and needed legislative action ever since he took office. What I had not thought to do was to revisit either of his books, Dreams From My Father, or The Audacity of Hope, to assess his performance, but Mr. Kloppenberg did. Kloppenberg points out that Barack Obama explained in detail in both books what he intended to do if elected president, and he has, in fact, stayed "true to his word."

I read The Audacity of Hope and listened to most of Dreams From My Father as a book on tape. I was extremely impressed with both of the books and they only strengthened my already positive impression of Obama. I did not think to reread either of them prior to the Mid-Term elections or afterward. Frankly, however, I wouldn't have felt the need. I am not at all among the voters who have been disappointed with his performance as president thus far. Quite the contrary. I think he and his administration have done an outstanding job considering the abysmal mess that he and his administration were handed by the previous administration. But it was elevating and confirming indeed to read from Mr. Kloppenberg that the exaggerated din from both sides of the aisle, comprised of extreme Democrats and Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party), are forgetting how consistent, productive, and successful this president and his administration have actually been in saving this country from near economic disaster.

James T. Kloppenberg's article confirms what I already thought: that though they certainly aren't perfect and they have made their share of errors, we have one of the finest presidents and administrations in history currently in the White House. We need to tone down our collective anger and impatience as a nation and appreciate that they are doing much more good than harm.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/obama-is-doing-just-what-he-said-he-would-do.html

Capitalism at its worst: Great individual wealth can breed great selfishness

After reading the cover story of last week's edition of Newsweek, November 8, 2010, ("Power of 50") and hearing the feedback from the angry voters who successfully gave control of the House back to the Republicans, I am struck by a strong tentative conclusion: That it is mostly the extremely wealthy who are giving the general public the distorted impression that the federal government is trying to spend too much of their money (in the form of taxes for domestic and foreign government expenditures). The reality is that the wealthy are too protective of, and selfish with, their wealth. It is selfishness in the guise of a protective warning: a greatly exaggerated (verging on paranoid) warning to the public that the federal government of the United States, under the Obama administration and its passage of legislation, has become an oppressive, mammoth, Socialist, and autocratic federal government. Ironically, those who listen and believe the wealthy proponents of this scenario keep themselves ignorant and poorer while the wealthy grow all the more wealthy. In short, demonizing the federal government for the normal and necessary regulation of national capital is a decoy by the wealthy for a compulsive desire to remain individually, selfishly, and egregiously affluent.

Even though it is true that millions of people are still out of work and have lost their homes, and even though the national debt is still dangerously out-of-control, I don't feel that the severity of the anger generated by extreme conservatives is appropriate or directed at the correct source. The Obama administration was correct in acting as swiftly as they did in the passage of the Stimulus Package (which saved the country from bankruptcy), and they were correct in passing a preliminary health care bill because the health of health care is directly tied to the health of the economy. These were necessary emergency measures, probably necessary in their expense, and likely actually inadequately funded rather than too expensive. One of the reasons that unemployment is still too high and the health care reform disappointing (no Public Option) is that the Obama administration compromised too much and did not press for more spending for both initiatives. In other words, maybe you get what you pay for; not enough money means not good enough results. However, it is then highly unreasonable to give the impression that too much money was spent when in fact it was exactly the opposite. To little was spent in the short term for adequate enough gain in the long term.

According to the article in Newsweek, "Power of 50," the largest influence on voter anger and negativity is Rush Limbaugh. Of the wealthy people listed in the article, Limbaugh is the wealthiest. I suspect that if one is prone to anger and negativity, and if one is wealthy, and one is as self-righteous in their personal and political agenda as Limbaugh sounds (from his quotes in the article), this is the kind of person who would be the most likely to warn against the evils of a source other than himself (namely the federal government). In my view, one of the primary traits of immaturity is a quick and consistent tendency to demonize others (in this case, large institutions like national governments). In other words, to find everyone else but oneself in error.

Three cheers (finally!) to the 111th Congress!!

Major applause to Ezra Klein for his most recent article in Newsweek (click on the link below). All I want to say is that I'm in complete agreement and I wish that more voters (particularly Democrats) had realized this before the Mid-Term elections. I did. If we can now just encourage the new Congress to do more of the same.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/06/klein-the-do-lots-111th-congress.html

The lesson of the Mid-Term elections: Let's put anger aside and work better together

For a Democrat like me, the results of the Mid-Term elections were greatly disappointing. However, instead of responding with anger and disgust (as so many members of the Tea Party and Republican Party were wont to do regarding the elections), I think it would be the best response to try to turn what might feel like a silly and useless step backward into a positive democratic step forward. It is always important to hear from anyone who feels that they aren't being heard, and to that extent the Tea Party's organization has been healthy. That's the process of a good democracy. But it would be a severe mistake to make as the only new agenda just more negativity and uncooperation.

For example, I have heard on the news from Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, that their primary goal now is one of repealing constructive legislation such as health care. However, the election results showed more anger over the amount of money spent for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Package), not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. Though some, also like me, felt that the Stimulus Package and health care legislation was actually insufficient not excessive, maybe one of the lessons of these last Mid-term elections is that peoples' voices need to be heard and paid attention to, and sooner. But one of the lessons too is that people also need to learn how to let their voices be heard most effectively.

Anger seems to have motivated and fueled many discontented people to the polls on Novemebr 2, 2010. But that temporary anger needs to subside now so that the results that those same voters want to see take place in Washington can have a chance to productively work. More negativity and anger should not continue to be the prime motivator, particularly from our leaders. Our leaders (old, and now new) need to pay attention to the anger, but they need to govern with sobriety.

Let's heed Jonathan Alter in these Mid-Term elections

I mentioned this to a friend of mine on Facebook recently, but I read an article in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter ("Why the Mid-Terms Matter: The GOP's agenda has to be stopped." Newsweek, November, 1, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/23/alter-midterms-matter.html) in which he raises the very valid point that it is not the Obama administration that we need to be concerned about in these Mid-Term elections. It should be the concern of handing control back, and so dangerously soon, to the very political party that got us into this economic mess in the first place. It is simply unrealistic to hope that the economy would recover substantially in only a year-and-a-half. It is ironic indeed that the Republicans and the Tea Party are attempting to paint the Obama administration as the primary cause of the severe unemployment and the soaring national deficit. In plain truth, this is not in perspective at all. While it is always true that one can conceivably always find a way to spend less money, the eight years under President Bush (who was elected by many of the same people who are now laying the blame at President Obama) spent a phenomenal amount of money on the Iraq war, a ruinous prescription drug program, and tax cuts which got us into the financial mess we're in; that could be considered "big government" too...but that overly-general and exaggerated perspective depends on who is spending the money and for what.

In short, the electorate should be looking at and criticizing themselves in these Mid-terms, not President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. We elected them to try to help repair the crumbling economy, not to take office and do as little as possible. It is very unwise of us as an electorate to judge the proactivity of the Obama administration as "big government" when they are not only taking the plight of the current condition of the country seriously, but also successfully steered the country away from the brink of bankruptcy. Doing that in only a year-and-a-half is no small accomplishment at all!

At the very least, Jonathan Alter's point is that we must not sit these Mid-Term elections out by not voting. Neither anger nor apathy are credible reasons for deciding how to vote. In point of fact, when given the opportunity, one should always vote.

It's time to end discrimination of ANY kind!

Usually, I don't pay a lot of attention to excess political e-mail, but this morning I received one that contained a video that was particularly aggravating. I have included the link to the video here. Suffice it to say that I will be happy when, like racial bigotry, prejudice against sexual orientation will be a thing of the past. What a waste of time in the least, and unkind and amoral at worst, to spend one's time in discomfort and judgment by trying to prevent people from simply being themselves.

Just let prejudice go already!

http://www.couragecampaign.org/NBCTAKEACTION

(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)

The correct title for President Obama's health care legislation, please...

It is annoying, but a bit typical, that the Obama administration's successfully passed health care legislation is not being referred to by its correct title but by a derogatory epithet. The incorrect title (epithet) is "Obamacare." The correct titles are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. The epithet is easier to say and read, but it is only designed to chide the legislation and to catch the attention of the reader negatively. It does not respect the meaning of the words of the correct titles nor does it do justice to the significance of the legislation.

Everyone knows that the health care system is broken and we have known it for a long time. Fewer people still realize that the health care system is directly tied into the health of the economy. As a matter of fact, it is one of the primary foundations of a healthy economy (if your citizens are not healthy, there's not much point with anything else) and it should be the first priority in restoring an economy, which is why the Obama administration made it a greater priority immediately than job creation.

Incidentally, even though unemployment is still so high, since the economy is the number one issue in the coming election, it is somewhat surprising that the American electorate would not have been more enthusiastic about the successful passage of the health care legislation. But this is tied to the misperception that most any idea generated by the federal government insinuates "big government." This is, in fact, one of the main purposes for the coining of the term "Obamacare." It is a short, unflattering, and disrespectful way of suggesting that Barack Obama and his administration are taking control away from the citizens of the United States, via the federal government, with the passage of large legislative initiatives. It is true that the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party) is one of the two largest, wealthiest, and most dominant political parties in the United States. And it is probably true that it is not healthy for there to be only two major political parties in a wealthy country; it probably feels only one short of an implication of a monarchy. But a major difference is who we as a people elect/hire to put into that government. In my opinion we have one of the smartest, most compassionate, least dysfunctional, and proactive administrations in history. It is also the first African-American president who is completely dispelling the ancient and preposterous notion that the African-American is in any way inferior to any other race (it would be nice indeed if the notion of racial inferiority was now a dinosaur). The contrary happens to be true: this particular African-American, Barack Obama, is among the most brilliant of the United States citizens in every way, and he has chosen a like administration.

So instead of deriding what the current administration is doing, I would like to offer that we take more time in our evaluation of their efforts for the country. Let's realize at the very least that they are making a serious effort to do what we hired them to do, and not allow our insecurity and fear of the slow recovery of the economy to cause us to exaggeratedly misjudge their intentions. I am one American who simply has no fear whatsoever that the Obama administration is attempting to turn this country into a Socialist dictatorship. It is the opposite. Our country nearly went bankrupt because of Capitalism run amuck. The Obama administration is trying to show that a little compassion and concern for our fellow citizen with assistance from the federal government -- rather than mostly pursuing individual wealth and reducing governmental regulation of that wealth -- can go a long way toward righting the ship of our economy.

In that spirit, and in the spirit of helping to properly educate each other, let's doff the term "Obamacare" and just use the correct phrases of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act.