My view of Obama has not always been the easiest for me to articulate over the last year of his presidency. I voted for him, so of course I hoped that he would make good on many of his campaign promises and drive this country in a better direction than it had been going for the eight years of Bush presidency prior. Throughout the last year, I've been encouraged by some of the steps Obama has taken to reform government and policy. I've also been sorely disappointed many, many times over, which sullies much of anything that has been accomplished- which comes to my main point. More often than not, I've been frustrated at Obama for NOT DOING ANYTHING- not owning up to his promises, not fighting the establishment, and not helping the American people. The good things that he does do are frequently undone, often by his own hands or words. It's frustrating to see Congress at a standstill on policy decisions, the Democrats looking to Obama for leadership, and him refusing to give any. When it comes to the main points of policy that Obama says are most important to him (health care reform, government regulations on banks and big businesses, etc.), he simply hasn't fought hard for his purported positions. "Bipartisanship" is the single most aggravating term used by Obama during his presidency, and where has it gotten him to date? Zero cooperation in making things happen. No ideas brought to the floor that everyone can agree on. Bupkis.
My exasperation sometimes escapes me in the form of long strings of profanity-laced statements of discontent. This is often times met with responses from my friends and peers. I've received both words of agreement and disagreement to varying degrees- some critical, some not- but the responses that I want to focus on specifically are those that go along the lines of, "I'm shocked that you'd say anything negative about Obama, and with such harsh language, too. " This is generally the end of any communication with the person(s) on the topic, since they would generally be too put-off by the offensiveness of my manner by this time to consider the substance of what I was saying. That's fine, I can understand if someone's uncomfortable talking to anyone with a fierce opinion on anything, but these cases leave me with a lack of understanding as to whether the conversation just had was worth having. It's seems that some people are okay voicing and listening to beliefs, however objectionable others or themselves find them in substance, so long as they're said in a nice way and not too loudly. Fighting for beliefs you believe strongly in becomes bad behavior in all circumstances.
Which comes back to Obama, because I believe that's the position he's taken on almost everything. In a way, it's more than that, because he's caved in and conceded points on many of the key issues he brings up. He won't fight for anything, even what he says is most important. Yes, some legislation has passed during his presidency- usually the non-objectionable material and Republican-favored stuff. On the main issues, nothing! On February 24, when he meets with Congress, it looks like he might be ready to concede even more points to the Republicans on a health care bill that's already so weak it looks to help health insurance companies screw their customers further. Obama isn't making his case and hasn't been the whole time, which raises the question: Is Obama that weak on his convictions, or does he want health care reform to fail? Those are the options as I see them.
Then there's the question of whether Obama is for the people. This question can go a lot of ways (a lot of wrong or irresponsible ways, I might add), but there is a valid argument in whether Obama has the interests of the American public in mind over those of big business corporations. Depending on who you talk to, Obama is intent on protecting Wall Street and the interests of the rich and powerful. He hasn't done a great job of refuting that, especially just recently in his interview to Bloomberg News in which he defended the taxpayer-funded bonuses of CEOs from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs in the name of the "free-market system". If Obama wants to get on the side of the people, going on record saying big businesses getting bailed out by taxpayers is part of the free-market system is not the way to do it. Obama has made some suggestions for regulations of these companies, and some of it has found its way into Congress- before getting struck down, unsurprisingly- but the President is simply not making his case well at all. It's the rough reality of things, but if you want to talk big, you've got to play hard and fight for the things you promise to do. Strong leadership is not possible without this principle. I'm not convinced so far that Obama has such strength, and until I see differently, I'm going to keep calling him out on it.
EDIT: I forgot to mention to anyone who comes across this, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!
No comments:
Post a Comment