This promises to be a short subject, but not because the topic isn't worthy, or because the subject doesn't deserve close scrutiny or broad commentary. Instead, the brevity is due entirely to the ridiculousness of the situation.
Recently, Republican yahoos created a controversy where none really existed for one reason: they perceive the standing President to be on shaky footing so far as approval ratings are concerned, so any and all methods for maintaining the political heat are desirable.
The White House announced their intention to have the President deliver a message to the nation's schoolchildren. The message stood to be similar to the addresses made by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan before him - affirmation of the nation's need for scholarship, persistence, and integrity as they pertain to achievemnt in school.
Where's the controversy, you might ask? Quite simply, one didn't exist. But Right wingers needed a way to keep attacks coming. After all, they had been able to call the recent stimulus package a failure (even though the jury is still out, since not enough time has passed), and the debate on government usurpation of health care was still raging. The worry was that the majorities in the House and the Senate made passage of some type of government takeover of health care a foregone conclusion. If only they could keep Obama on the defensive.
The part that infuriates is what comes next. Left leaners immediately cried foul, declaring that the right wing fabricated controversy is predicated on racism. While it's true that the righties trumped up some ridiculous objection that the true purpose of Obama's education address was to 'indoctrinate' the nation's schoolchildren, the more ridiculous affect was that people bought it. Given the precarious state of the President's platform, turning the school address into a brainwashing exercise would have been politically stupid.
The fact is that I am not even remotely a fan of Obama's view of goevernment, but I didn't think for a minute that he had any such nefarious plan. He is not a stupid man, nor do I think he is unethical or malicious. In fact, I suspect that he is a good man. I think his politics are grounded in idealism and naivete`, as are the ideologies of all Democrats. People, even Democrats, are prone to ruthlessness, selfishness, and greed. Government programs are run by people bestowed with govenrmental power and authority. Therefore, government programs, regardless of the party line, will ultimately succumb to illnesses that are the inevitable result of the character flaws mentioned above: every government agency - ever - will ultimately become bloated, inefficent, and destructive to the good of the people. The only answer is to limit the number of government agencies and programs, and to regularly dissolve and reinvent the ones that are absolutely a neccessity.
So back to the school address debate. To add to the annoyances, those people who cried 'racism' at the backlash to the planned pep talk to school children were duped into keeping the negativity on the front page of people's lives. The effect didn't change any events, and they served to engender the next fabricated campaign against whatever it is the President wants to do next.
In short, our country still has a problem with racism of all kinds. However, the fact that we elected a minority to the highest office in the land suggests that racism is becoming less of a determining factor in the course of events. Republicans such as myself are going to object and reject future plans proposed by Obama and his staff. That objection will come because he and his advisors genuinely believe that collections of people with good intentions - government agencies - should be making decisions for us because the average citizen can't make those decisions for himself. Meanwhile, I want fewer and fewer government agencies. I want the government to handle the military, some safety nets for those who are in bad straits, law enforcemnt, international relations, justice, and not very many other things.
I am glad that we have a member of a minortity group in the Oval Office. I just wish he stood on the right side of the political aisle, preferably more toward the middle.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment