Breaking the law does not equal wrong, following the law does not equal right. Also, you’re, again, arguing Obama’s merit because he has not done as much wrong in a month as Bush did in two terms. I’m arguing that he has not yet shown any reason to deserve my faith. I am not saying he is a bad president. I am saying he could be a bad president. One can rationalize all one wants, but the man has done virtually nothing in the name of the change he so frequently flaunts. Even his platform, if fully realized, does not offer much legitimate, meaningful change.
It depends on your definition of “meaningful change”. There’s no doubt that the stimulus bill, because of the secret add-ons, is going to create real policy changes over the long-term. This is what I believed Obama meant when he promised change - policy change. For instance, seriously trying to discover a renewable energy source is a big change from Bush, who didn’t really think we could find a renewable energy source and promoted wars to conquer Mideast oil to solve our energy problems.
But, I agree that Obama used “change” as a strategic political move to get votes. Its a classic power move that has been used by rulers over the centuries - promise drastic change, but secretly acknowledge in your actions that change takes a long, long time. It appeals to people’s desire for a magic solution.
At the same time, he is going to change the policies of this nation, even if it takes a long time.
To be honest, people get what they bargain for. In a country where a man has to appeal to the everyday voter in x states to get elected and the word socialist -let alone anarchist- is considered a slur, whichever change will be necessarily bounded by the limits of the voters and the political system. There are leftist groups that supported Obama and may get some, but will be disappointed in the end.
Being an agent of change does not necessarily mean being an agent of revolution. He is one politician out of many, he cannot change everything in a day (or even 8 years) and to think that he would be able to is naive at best. He can try to change some things, but he has to either work within the corrupt system that’s there and try to change it from within, or not be elected. Rig pretty much hits the problem on the button: voters.
My point is that, with a few miniscule exceptions, even his platform, if fully realized would change very little. At least from my outlook.
My point is then that what you want is not just change but revolution. Expecting an elected official to lead a revolution is ridiculous in the extreme.
No, I want someone who is more than a few points on the political axes graph away from his competitor. Maybe an actual socialist or libertarian type. Not only is Obama neither, he’s not even showing himself that different from Bush; he’s continuing the war in Iraq for some time, stepping up the war in Aphganistan, adopting the same brutal policy in Gaza, keeping the same secrets on torture and other military issues, et ceteras. He may have shown himself slightly more forward thinking, in shutting down Guantanamo, but given everything else he’s doing, it’s more an illusory gesture than a real action. Having one less glorified concentration camp and cursory, back-burner psuedo-environmentalism isn’t my idea of a noteworthy change. That’s what he’s offered besides more of the same, thus far.
Again: an elected official is not going to do that. The reason people get elected (usually) is because they mostly conform to what people want. if they don’t, they don’t get elected. Hence, revolution is what you’d like.
Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are both elected officials, and both fall well outside of that little bubble I described. Lincoln Chafee’s libertarian views were pretty far from that little box, if I recall. Perhaps they weren’t elected President, but wanting elected officials to be more different than Obama is showing himself to be, especially if the entire basis of their election was change, is not altogether unreasonable.
As president? Yes. Yes it is. If he was going to be a force for such radical change as you desire he either wouldn’t be elected, or society would already be that way. A few elected officials mean nothing except that in someplaces, people want to revolt but don’t know how (or probably only want to a little) so instead they elect these guys.
I really don’t see the point you’re arguing. That I’m dissatisfied with American politics? I think we all kinda knew that. You read my posts. I wrote them. It shouldn’t take more than that to discern such a fact.
That I should be pleased because my president puts a nicer spin on the same repeated, casual atrocities? I may block punches with my face, but I’m not stupid enough to fall for that.
That he makes promises that are quickly being shown false to change, but at least he says he will? If you say you’ve quit smoking, but still do it secretly, you still totally get cancer. If the president says he’s going to change, but doesn’t, he’s still essentially killing more innocent people than Charles Manson on a monthly basis. As Obama has already done.
I can’t believe I’m actually defending President Obama, but I have to disagree with one of Arac’s belief’s here.
President Obama didn’t just close Guantanamo Bay. There’s a freeze on a great deal of cases that were going to go forward in the military tribunal system; he made an executive order cementing the fact that torture is not allowed by the military. He also adopted a policy in that executive order which applied the Army Procedures to intelligence agenices - this was done in an effort to define torture and constricts intelligence agenices to a much more limited degree than what they could do before.
President Obama made it very clear that the campaign promise that he had made about leaving Iraq within sixteen months is going to happen and there’s no reason to dispute that at the moment. It’s earlier than the time designated by the SOFA Agreement agreed to by the Iraqi Parliament, but I’m sure the Democrats don’t mind.
“Adopting the same brutal policy in Gaza”? The war between Israel and Gaza ended before President Obama was inaugurated (probably in order to not poison Israel’s relationship with the new administration). I don’t understand what policy Preisdent Obama has implemented in the region in regards to that issue which can be defined as brutal.
I can. He’s not much different from the guy you were defending before.
A typing error. I refer to missile strikes within Pakistan, rather than Palestine.
I’m arguing that you being disappointed with the President, given your viewpoint, isn’t needed to be stated and that you keep on making unreasonable demands about what the President (not the man, the office) should be delivering. Stop being dissatisifed with American politics, they’re just a reflection on America. And overall, they’re better than the alternatives. Hurray.
Feel free to continue complaining, but stop trying to pretend it’s in some way the president’s fault he got elected. And I’m sure Obama will change some things, so I don’t think his platform will be all a lie. It’s just not what you want, or probably what I want though I’m withholding judgment.
Well, I mean, it is pretty much entirely the President’s fault he got elected. Like, he kinda chose to run. And campaign. But that’s not really the point.
My basic argument was that I think it’s unsafe and generally not ideal for people to support Obama so blindly and sycophantically as they are now. There’s no reason to think he’s going to be any different yet. People are just so excited there is a D next to his name instead of an R, they think he shits gold. It makes me angry and sad how easily most people are misled.
Think how angry you’d be if you were a Republican.
President Obama is making a speech tonight concerning the economy. It’s being written by (or with consultation) with the person who helped him with the inauguration speech according to CNN; so, I guess that means X-Wing won’t be a fan of it, eh?
It reminds me of people’s attitudes towards Bush after September 11th, honestly. I remember wanting a joke calendar with Bushisms or something on it either that year or the year after that. My dad said he refused to get it because “BUSH IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN HIS LIFETIME! HE SHOULD BE GREATFUL!”
When the next election came up, he voted Kerry. cough
It’s not the President’s fault people voted for him. He ran, but it’s their fault he got elected (or well, they’re the agency that caused him to be elected. Whether it’s fault or not is for now undecided) even if I might be tempted to blame it on Bush and the media and all that, ultimately the voters decide. The fact that they’re easily manipulated is no surprise, only mildly depressing. Stop blaming that on the President.
Also, there has at least been some indication of change, if not the kind you (or frankly, I) want. Better funding for science, so far as I can tell better economic advisers (though whether their advice will be that solid now is debatable). And remember that it wasn’t far off half the population opposed him. They aren’t going to suck the fuck up to him, it’s just the vocal minority who support him blindly are being heard now. Hurray.
I’m just saying he couldn’t have really gotten elected if he hadn’t run. It’s not like everybody voted and he was like, “Oh, yeah, okay, I guess.” I mean, it’s not any one person who is responsible for an election, but I’d say running in the first place is one of the more essential steps.
I just get sad/angry when I see people eating up bullshit, for the rest of it, and it’s a lot of people doing it.
And running is a barely material step at all. Almost anyone can run. You could run. I couldn’t, damn anti-foreigner laws!
But everyone eats up bullshit, pretty much all the time. Get annoyed at people for eating up bullshit if you want, I fully endorse that, even if it is depressingly pointless. There’s no real need to get annoyed at a guy who’s at least trying to feed hopeful bullshit.