Two False Arguments
Every once in a while, I run into someone who thinks Barack Obama would be bad for the country as President. They don’t target his policy prescriptions, or his seeming inability to work across the partisan divide. No, they just attack him for inexperience. The problem with that is that experience is an almost perfect predictor of failure in Presidencies. Richard Nixon was a member of the House Un-American Activities Commission, and prided himself on his investigation of Alger Hiss. Later, he trumped legitimate corruption charges against himself with the Checkers speech. If past is prologue, he should have known better than anyone to conduct a Presidency above reproach. That isn’t exactly what happened. Woodrow Wilson literally wrote the book on the House of Representatives. To this day, it remains one of the best analyses of what makes the House work, and how to interact with it. You guessed it, his Presidency foundered over his failed relationship with Congress. Herbert Hoover went over to the Soviet Union in the wake of World War I and their civil war, and he got food to all the people and helped the country recover from a series of hammer blows to their infrastructure. As President, of course, he did nothing to alleviate the Great Depression, calling on charities to fix everything. Time after time, America has had Presidents who were perfectly suited to the challenges they faced, and each of them failed disastrously. On the other hand, you would have to go a long way before you’d find a man who was less qualified to preside over the Civil War than Abraham Lincoln, and he saved the country.
And then there's McCain. The people who attack McCain inevitably frame Obama-McCain as the past versus the future. Obviously, they think the younger person is the obvious standard-bearer of the future. I am deeply afraid they’re right. But if we want to believe the future will be better, then one has to place all our hopes on McCain as the future. McCain has frequently rebelled against his party’s establishment and their (and his) self-interest simply because he thought it was the right thing to do. McCain has an impressive record of working across party lines. Since an early misstep, McCain has worked tirelessly to reduce the influence of money in elections. Obama has tirelessly adhered to the party line; even on bipartisan issues, he has generally found a way to remain partisan. One can search, fruitlessly, for any instance where Obama’s actions haven’t served his own interests and/or his party’s interests, sometimes at the expense of the country. Obama has been absolutely orthodox in his political positions. And for all his airs about reducing corruption and lobbyist influence, Obama’s campaign is a walking billboard for the power of money in politics. If Obama is the future, all I can say is, go back.
It took many explanations of friends to learn how the political system works here, and I sorta understand it (with some big gaps of knowledge in-between!), but I do like Obama - I do think though (whoever would win) that we'll have to see who he really is, when he is in office. I remember that as soon as Clinton got into office he renigged on his word on some issues.
Too bad, I wanted to root so badly for the first female candidate for the presidency, but there's something about her that does not ring true to me (I'm very often on the right track since I'm a therapist). Just started blogging, visit my us.blog Jeannette StGermain - titles: An Unusual Paint Event, and Mysteries and send me a comment, =THANKS
ps. I am individualistic enough (Dutchmen are famous for that!) that you don't have to like my art! (Comment this)