A friend of mine sought legal action to end her marriage. As I recall, she had been married for a year or two, after a whirlwind courtship. The way my friend explained it to me, the judge eventually annulled her marriage, rather than granting a divorce. The judge's reasoning was that since the groom had badly misrepresented himself to my friend, she had never actually married HIM -- she had married some non-existent fictional character created by him, and therefore had never been married at all.
In a way, this illustrates my problem with the 2012 American Presidential Election, except that the non-existent, fictional character was created by President Obama and his campaign, and substituted for the real-life Mitt Romney. The voters who voted for President Obama were not choosing between the real Barack Obama and the real Mitt Romney -- they were choosing between Barack Obama and a character that Obama and his campaign had created. I believe that IF the voters had been presented with the choice of the REAL Barack Obama versus the REAL Mitt Romney, Romney would have easily won the election.
In support of my position, I offer up any of the three Presidential debates. During each debate, President Obama spent considerable time stating not HIS beliefs and plans, but the beliefs and plans of Mitt Romney. When Mitt Romney would attempt to intervene, and state his REAL beliefs and plans, President Obama would ignore him, and re-state what he had already said, arguing that only HE was capable of accurately stating the beliefs and plans of ... Mitt Romney. Incidentally, this tactic alone was enough to ensure that I would not vote for Barack Obama -- or anyone else who used this tactic. But, according to exit polls, many voters accepted Barack Obama's description of Mitt Romney, rather than Mitt Romney's.
Anyone who has followed my logic this far, and not quit reading in disgust, may respond that it was the real Mitt Romney's job to overcome Barack Obama's misrepresentation of him. This can be close to impossible, especially when most of the news media is participating in the deception.
Most of my family and friends supported and voted for President Obama, in both the 2012 and 2008 elections. I repeatedly observed a phenomenon that I have never seen before in politics. In both campaigns, when anyone expressed criticism of Barack Obama, or support for his opponent, the Obama supporters often responded with words to the effect of "I don't want to hear that!" or "I will not talk about that!" They did not defend their candidate or his positions -- they simply refused to engage in discussion, or listen to opposing views. This is a new and puzzling phenomenon, and it does not bode well for the future of political discourse in America. This was something that I observed personally -- perhaps it is not widespread.
My personal opinion of Barack Obama has always been based solely on Barack Obama. When he makes a speech, I listen -- to the entire speech -- and when he takes action, I pay attention. As the 2012 election approached, I noticed that when the people I was in contact with expressed criticism of Mitt Romney, it was almost never based on anything REAL -- not on his real past, or his real positions, or his real plans for America -- but instead on the lies spread by President Obama and his campaign.
I am not saying the recent election was illegal. Even if elections could be annulled, President Obama and his campaign would continue to run against their fictional creation, and they would likely win again. THAT's one of the biggest tragedies: now that the tactic has been successful, it will probably be used over and over in American politics.
Less than twelve years ago, George W. Bush became our forty-third President after an election that was too close to accurately count, and was, in the end, settled by the Supreme Courts of both Florida and the United States. Prior to the election, George W. Bush had proven himself capable of working successfully in a bipartisan manner with his opponents as he served as Governor of Texas. For his entire term as President, his opponents fought him tooth and nail, and then criticized him for his failure to win THEIR support. People maintained his election was "illegal". To this day, there are bumper stickers in my community referring to George W. Bush that proclaim "Not MY President!" And to this day, President Obama and his supporters blame George W. Bush for their current problems.
One of the most exasperating things about politics is double standards. For over twelve years, Democrats have fought, demonized, and ridiculed George W. Bush, and continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected President, Democrats indignantly insisted that the nation must suddenly "unite" and "respect the Office of the President". Furthermore, they insisted, and continue to insist, that anyone NOT uniting behind President Obama is motivated primarily by racism. In fact, for the last four years I have TRIED to unite behind President Obama, but in every single speech, at every opportunity, he attacks and mocks me and my beliefs (well, not me PERSONALLY -- he has shown no evidence of caring about me personally, or my opinions). For four years, he has been unable to rise out of campaign mode, and shift into a mode of leadership.
It's a tricky and dangerous thing to accuse a politician of "divisiveness". Often, the charge is leveled by those who have spent years opposing the politician, and attempting to persuade others to join in their opposition. In the case of President Obama, he himself has led the opposition, by continuing to battle against the very people he is supposed to represent and lead.
In a perfect world -- the world of my dreams -- after an election, the opposing sides come together, agree that the voters have made their choice, and get down to the business of doing what is best for all. President Obama and his supporters -- NOT Mitt Romney, and NOT those who opposed President Obama -- have made this difficult. It remains to be seen whether they have made it impossible.
Truth is complicated.
P.S. I was looking forward to writing about something OTHER than politics. Maybe next time.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney for President
Each of us has strengths and weaknesses -- areas in which we are skilled, strong, or knowledgeable, and areas in which we are not so skilled, strong, or knowledgeable. If you want a job done well, the key is not to find the best person, but to find the best person for the job. Even more, the best person for that PARTICULAR job under those PARTICULAR circumstances at that particular time.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
I suspect that historians will look kindly upon the Obama Presidency, if for no other reason than that he was the first black President. Objectively, I believe his Presidency should be viewed as one of the worst in the history of the United States -- not because he is intrinsically a bad person, or a bad President, but because he was uniquely ill-suited for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
People will differ on their views of the biggest challenges facing the American President at any precise time, but President Obama has failed on most of them. Again, not because he is necessarily a bad person, or a bad President, but simply because he was ill-equipped to face those particular challenges.
America, at this time, needed a President who could deal with rising debt and out-of-control spending. President Obama responded by increasing spending and dramatically increasing the debt.
Most of all, at this time America needed a President who could bring together the deeply polarized and divided populace. This is contrary to President Obama's personal style. The number one weapon in his arsenal is to divide, vilify, and blame. He seems to lack the ability to make a speech without using it as an opportunity to attack those who disagree with him. Rather than attempting to build consensus and to understand those who oppose him, he attacks them and misrepresents their positions. He is considered by many -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- to have been the most divisive, polarizing President in American history. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but it was precisely the opposite of what was needed NOW.
Four years ago, as a candidate, Barack Obama seemed to understand what was needed, promising a new era of bipartisanship and transparency, and even vowing that all legislation would be published on the internet three days before it was passed. Instead, we have Obamacare, passed so quickly that not a single person even a chance to read through the entire bill before voting on it. Obamacare, President Obama's flagship "accomplishment", passed at a time when the country was desperate for more jobs, is perhaps the largest piece of job-killing legislation ever passed in America. This is not to say Obamacare is without merit -- it may slightly improve the health insurance system -- but it was the wrong legislation for this particular moment in history. Perhaps ten years ago, or ten years from now, it would have been the right thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do NOW.
If President Obama is re-elected, I will view it as the triumph of misrepresentation over honesty, of divisiveness over unity, of brute force over consensus, and of anger over hope. Some might claim that is precisely what is needed at this time -- crush the opposition, using whatever means necessary -- but I believe they are wrong.
In many Presidential elections, the voters find themselves displeased with all of the candidates, and ultimately choosing the lesser of evils. It has been many election cycles since I voted FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the poorer candidates. Finally, in Mitt Romney, I believe I have found a candidate I can vote FOR. Mitt Romney may not be the best person ever to run for President, and he may not objectively be a better person than Barack Obama, but he is the best person for this particular job under these particular circumstances at this particular time.
America needs a uniter rather than a divider, a job-builder rather than a job-killer, and someone who will cut spending and debt rather than expand it. Mitt Romney is skilled, strong, and knowledgeable in exactly those areas that America needs at this moment in time.
No one can predict the future. Perhaps the challenges facing America at this time will be too much even for Mitt Romney. I know they have been too much for Barack Obama.
Postscript: This will be my last blog entry posted prior to the 2012 Presidential election. I have not yet found the words to write about the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012. IF President Obama is re-elected, I believe he will either be impeached or forced to resign over his role in the response to the Benghazi attacks. If President Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden would become President. I cannot predict the future, and I cannot say whether Joe Biden would be equal to the challenges facing the American President.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Big Tent
There is a surprising truth in American politics today -- a truth that few talk about, and that those on both the left and the right wish to deny. The truth is that, over the last few decades, the Republican Party has quietly become the "big tent" party, the party of diversity of viewpoints -- especially when it comes to "social issues".
This truth is denied by both sides. Those on the far right of the Republican Party want the world to believe that the rest of the party agrees with them, and find comfort in telling themselves that they speak for the majority of Republicans. Those on the left want the world to believe that the Republican Party is made up of extremists, while the Democrat Party is more moderate and reasonable.
I am referring mostly to divisive controversial issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gun control, though the diversity extends to things like war and environmental issues. The extremists would have you believe that all Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and gun control, favor war as opposed to peace, and give no regard to protecting the environment. Though it is hard to gather honest, accurate statistics about the personal beliefs of millions of Americans, there are large numbers of Republicans on both sides of all of these issues -- while it is much harder to find large groups of Democrats on both sides of these issues.
I hasten to acknowledge that it is currently difficult for a vehemently pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, pro gun control candidate to win the Republican nomination for President. This simply reflects the fact that the extremists exercise inordinate control over both major parties, and probably over all political parties. One of the weaknesses of the American system of government is that a well-organized and/or well-funded minority can easily wield disproportionate power.
To those who would disagree with me, I offer this true example: A few months ago, I attended my "neighborhood caucus". Theoretically, all power within the political party proceeds upward from the caucus level. Among the tasks of the caucus was to elect delegates to the county convention, and also name members of the local "central committee". In both cases, we were unable to fill the available slots. That is, we were supposed to hold an election to narrow down our slate of delegates to eleven, but only nine would agree to serve. We were supposed to elect six people to serve on the "central committee", but only five would agree to serve. This means that any extremists who wished to have THEIR views heard could proceed unopposed to the county convention and central committee -- and technically represent the hundreds or thousands of eligible voters in my "neighborhood". That is truly how the system works. At the most basic, local level, power comes not from "the majority" but from those who desire power. At the present time, most of the members of my local "Republican Central Committee" are probably anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-gun control. This offers NO indication of the beliefs of local Republicans on these issues, despite the fact that extremists on both sides would like to believe that it does.
To a certain extent, this same process may extend to the Democrat Party, which is probably also dominated by those who agree to serve. However, there are specific, organized Republican groups on both sides of these issues. That is, there are specific organizations of Republicans who are pro-choice, and Republicans who are pro-same-sex marriage (though offhand I am unaware of any large Republican "pro-gun control" group). I do not believe there are large, organized "Democrats against abortion" or "Democrats against same-sex-marriage" groups. The Democrat Party has simply become less diverse than the Republican Party, and less tolerant of diversity.
As I stated at the outset, this truth is denied by both sides. I consider this deeply dishonest, and deeply troubling.
Truth is complicated.