09/02/2010 11:48:50 PM EST
Please explain to me what is up with Obama
posted by acramer
Ok, so I read a little earlier tonight on Huff Post that Obama and his crew are considering more taxcuts, while also refusing to take Alan Simpson to task. Ok, so can someone please explain to me what is Obama's motivation? What is his end game.....
I am very serious about this. I simply cannot figure this out at all. I keep waiting for him to finally come around and start doing the right thing. But every which way you turn; you run smack dab into disappointment.
From Iraq and Afghanistan, to the economy, Senate Dems, and the Social Security, the guy is just plain "missing in action".
There has been a lot of discussion revolving around identifying where Obama stands on the political continuum. The word "moderate" is bandied around most often in describing him. Dictionary.com defines a political moderate as "a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion." This of course implies that in order for this definition to hold, that the "moderate person" must in fact hold ideas which fall within a broad consensus that is the most dominate "norm" of the community. I would argue however that even if this consensual norm is where the community stands, it does not necessarily mean that this norm developed based on rational thought, analysis, and reach of consensus.
How about an extremist, what is that? Dictionary.com defines an extremist as someone who is "a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices".
Ok, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion, let’s simply assume Obama is the one who is rational, reasoned and analytical in his thinking. My question, is assuming that he is acting from some point of reasonability, what is his motivation?
I have gone over and over this in my head and am at the point where I just am totally confused. So, it seems to me that you can few Obama's machinations in a number of ways:
A first way of interpreting his action is to see him as being someone who believes he is viewing the world around him with complete emotional detachment, and that everything he is doing is being driven solely by solid intellect and analysis. In this light, he consciously sough out people such as Geitner, and decided to follow "bi-partisanship"
, seeing this as a natural extension to bring change as he saw it. That is, he sees himself as acting in a way which is completely rational and reasoned. He is not "triangulating" in any way out of a desire to seek "cover his butt" advantage, but simply as a natural extension of his philosophy. In this light, he sees these actions as the means through which he can achieve a set of goals. To some it might appear that he is simply limiting himself, but from his standpoint, he does not in any way see it this way. His actions are thus a natural extension of his basic intellectual framework through which he makes reference and makes decisions.
A second way of interpreting his action is to see him as someone who actually aspired to higher and more lofty goals, but now faced with the "reality" of the effect of "the weight of the Presidency on his shoulders", has come to see that he must modify his approach to governance in a way that will allow him to achieve a set of goals, which, from his viewpoint, may or may not be similar or the same as the goals he had set himself in seeking the highest office of the land. That is, he has decided that he must make compromise, practical, intellectual, and personal to achieve some objective, whatever that may be. In this light, it may still be possible to explain and understand the choices he has made regarding policy, and the decisions he has so far made and which have resulted in his being surrounded with the people who so now do so, in this light. At this point, he is still being intellectually consistent.
A third way to view his action is simply to believe that in fact, he really never meant to go as far as some, for example, myself, thought he would. In this scenario, it means I have been played for a fool. Obama simply chose to use a cynical ploy to get my help and support, never intending to bring the kind of change I believed he was promising.
Finally, the last way to view his actions may lay in admission that John McCain, irony of ironies, was right. Obama did not have the tools and experience to be President, and that his actions represent his basic inability to interpret situations, and make decisive and meaningful decisions in areas policy, political, and moral.
It is a given that for the sake of discussion, he is a moderate. That is, he is making decisions that a reasoned and rational, AS HE VIEWS THEM. So, if he is a moderate, and if his thinking in some ways represents some norm of thinking, then which of the above four scenarios most closely represents where he is on the grand scale of things? I am serious about this; I really want someone to explain this to me. I just don't understand what this man’s motivation is.
We have all used language that describes Obama as possibly some kind of "supreme chess player", who will make the killer move at some appropriate time, at which point all will fall into place. Ok, when is that going to occur; WHAT IS HIS END GAME? (Capitals for emphasis, not yelling). I don't get it.
As far as myself, I guess I would call myself an extremist. I believe in single payer; we have more than enough real world examples that show this is the best approach to providing health care. I believe the wealthy should be paying taxes at pre Regan rates; Krugman, Stiglitz, Reich have all already shown why this makes sense. I believe in investment in "the commons"; I am a real Keynesian, invest when needed then cut back the spigot as things pick up. I believe in a women's right to chose, based solely on the fact it is her body; it has nothing to do with privacy. Frankly, I don't care what someone else thinks what someone can or cannot do with their body. I don't believe the state has the right to wreak vengeance for criminal conduct through the use of capital punishment; whether someone is innocent or not, is irrelevant to the question of the morality of state sanctioned massacre of "criminals". I believe in staying out of wars of conquest, and economic goal. I believe in a full blown, and sole existent public school system, in which public monies does not go to private institutions. I believe in the right of any one to marry if they so chose; the true history is that marriage was initially created as a contract; it has nothing to do with trying to win the favor of some "sky spook". And finally, I believe we have an absolute responsibility to look after our brothers and sisters regardless of circumstance, means, or desired end. If this is extreme, then so be it, I am happy to accept this title.
So how about it folks? What the hell is up with the President?
Thanks to all.
Respectfully.
