I enjoyed the 33 comment dialogue Katherine started on Facebook yesterday with her comment about Ron Paul and the people who somehow manage to support him. The dialogue started with most of us agreeing that Paul was a dangerous nutjob and that Libertarianism is at best an incomplete way of approaching governance; it ended with a kind of referendum on Obama vis a vis some of his recent bill signings--some would say cave-ins--over SOPA and NDAA.
The comment I've been stewing over the most belongs to Ashley, my beloved daughter-in-law. She said that Obama's signings of SOPA and NDAA were "deal breakers." She would probably end up voting for Obama anyway, but only because the alternatives are unthinkable.
It is the"deal breaker" phrase that has given me pause. I never heard anything about a deal. If we vote for him he has to decide every issue as we would decide. Is that the deal?
When I voted for Obama, I voted for a smart, articulate, inexperienced pragmatist who seemed to believe the right things. I have to say that Obama has turned out exactly as I expected. The only "deal" I heard him make was that he was going to try and change the culture in Washington. He has valiantly made that bipartisan attempt and gotten bashed from both sides for it. It is a noble fight and I hope he keeps fighting it. As far as I can see, there is no one else out there of any political persuasion who has the courage to wage this battle.
When I considered my vote, I never deluded myself that all those Hope and Change promises would come to pass. Clear out Gitmo? Come on! Get all provisions of Health Care passed? Please! (Do Paul supporters really believe he will abolish four Departments, eliminate the income tax and the IRS, over turn health care, and cut 20% of the government work force in the first week as he has promised?)
I get frustrated when Obama seems to be willing to meet Republicans more than half way and to no avail. I would like to see more examples of toughness like his out of session appointment made just today. But in all those instances where he "caved," what would be the current state of the country if he held firm and waited for the Republicans to compromise?
In Obama I got what I bargained for. There are things he does that I don't like--almost anything he has to say about Education, for example--but "deal breakers?"
I don't think so.
3 comments:
I completely agree with your assessment of Obama - that is my interpretation of his time in office so far too. And while I certainly don't want Ron Paul to be elected, I think he represents a polar shift, a reaction, to the current state of Republican politics. I would hope that the fact that Paul can do well despite his more outrageous ideas should be an indication for the current Republican establishment to change their way of business. It pains me that this country only ever votes against people anymore instead of for someone they believe in. In any case, whatever happens in the Presidential election, the incumbency in Congress needs to change, and the only way that'll ever happen is if people start caring about primaries.
I wonder if "deal breaker" might mean the very specific items that a person holds close to her heart that are non-negotiable in any thinkable way. I think we all sort of recognize that the people we elect aren't going to align with and enact 100% of the things we believe, and we're willing to let slide lesser priorities on our list. But for each of us there are those few things someone does that we feel affront the very fabric of our being and we're unable to justify doing that to ourselves through them.
For me, one of those "deal breakers" is homophobia. I will never let someone slide by me if they actively seek to undermine, subvert, demonize, or deny the GLBT community. As a gay man, this issue is very close to my heart and affects me greatly. So while each elected official has an array of duties and responsibilities to contend with, and while I realize that my plight in life is not high on some people's version of the common good 'to do' list, any electable or elected person who shows antagonism to GLBT folks is absolutely unsupportable in my book, regardless of if I agree with any stance they have on anything else.
Hopefully each person's list of "deal breakers" is short, though. Compromise (letting some things slide) is what American politics is all about.
I think I meant to say 'non-negotiable in *every* thinkable way'.
Post a Comment