Obama's Way. Is there any other?

| | Comments (0)

If America doesn't pursue Pres. Obama's agenda, there is no agenda to follow to meet America's crises and challenges. And if there is no agenda to follow for the next 4 years, America will fail. This is a reality of current events which critics of Obama and his administration refuse to acknowledge, rendering all their criticism irrelevant. Let's examine the veracity and logic of these statements.

Let's look at the first statement; 'If America doesn't pursue Pres. Obama's agenda, there is no agenda to follow...' If America does not follow Pres. Obama's policy directions to address our challenges, whose policies would take the place of Obama's over the next 4 years to address our challenges? With a democratic majority in Congress, surely the answer is not Sen. McCain's or any other Republican's policies. The simple reality is, there is no Republican in federal government capable of asserting their policy prescription in place of Obama's over the next 4 years.

How about the policy prescriptions of Congressional Democrats, in place of Obama's, should America reject Obama's policies? If America rejects Obama's prescriptions, would America embrace those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? Given the Blue Dog Democrats vocal intentions to oppose Pelosi and Reid's spending prescriptions, wasteful earmarks, and expansion of social spending for every Democratic district, it is doubtful Pelosi or Reid's policies would get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to override a Republican/Blue Dog (conservative) Democrat filibuster. Of course, I am putting aside the obvious likelihood of Pres. Obama's veto of their policy agendas which differed markedly from his own.

What about an independent voice arising from the electorate and commanding protracted medial buy time and attention like a reincarnation of Ross Perot? Could such a person from the private sector replace Obama's policy agenda by way of a massive public polling of support for a new policy agenda instead of Obama's? In reality, there is no such voice gaining public support. And even if there were, how likely is it, the American public, more than 60% of whom support Obama's overall approach, would shift allegiance in the absence of an improving economy in 2010 and 2011?

Therefore, if there are no other's policy agendas capable of garnering the support and power of the office of President to lead our country in overcoming the challenges facing us, why is there so much effort and expense being launched at eroding Pres. Obama's public support? Unless one has designs on impeaching Pres. Obama, what good is served by attempts to cripple Pres. Obama's efforts to rescue the financial markets upon which our economy depends, end the recession, and invest in a more productive and prosperous opportunities in the economy after the recession ends?

Let's examine the second statement in the introductory paragraph: 'And if there is no agenda to follow for the next 4 years, America will fail." What would happen if Obama's critics succeeded in crippling Obama's presidency and policy prescriptions? The financial industry would at least partially collapse, which in turn would choke off capital lending to businesses and employers, which would cause the recession to worsen, rather than improve, and dramatically reduce even further the revenues coming into the federal government, making deficits and debt even larger. So, again, the question is begged, why are Obama's critics so intent on seeing our country's economy and future fail over these next 4 years?

There really are only 2 logical rationale's for Obama's critic's actions. One is to preserve their own notion of how the nation should be run. The worst thing that could happen for these critics is to allow the public to witness Obama''s policies succeed in restoring financial health to the private sector and reductions in unemployment. If Pres. Obama's policies are successful in large part, the hopes of these critics to one day impose their own beliefs on how our economic system should work in such times, will be dashed.

The second rationale is purely political. The goal of a political party is to win the electorate's favor of their wielding power and distributing portions of the nation's enormous wealth according to their own ideas of who is deserving of receiving it. Pres. Bush, for example, deemed that the Iraqis should be the beneficiaries of 100's of billions of American working family's tax dollars, and he justified that distribution on the basis of Iraq posing a national security threat toward the U.S.

Pres. Obama, as a counter example, deems energy independence from foreign oil imports vital to our future national security as well as economic stability. And hence, he has targeted billions of American tax dollars to be spent on research and development of alternative energy sources and distribution infrastructure by American companies capable of such research and development.

Political parties exist to win the power to make decisions. And it can be argued, that the merit of the decisions they would make, is less important to a political party than winning the power to make those decisions. The evidence of this argument was the rise of Republican led government in which their actions bore little resemblance to the merit of their campaign promises of what they would do if elected.

Finally, let's examine the third statement in the opening paragraph: 'This is a reality of current events which critics of Obama and his administration refuse to acknowledge, rendering all their criticism irrelevant.' There simply is no other policy agenda to pursue other than that which Pres. Obama presents and promised during his election in Nov. of 2008, for the next 4 years at least. And it is both wise and important for readers and listener's of Obama's critics to remember that if Pres. Obama's policy agenda is brought down, without removing Obama from office, our nation will be without direction and applied focus in addressing the very pressing and emergency challenges now facing our us and our future.

Pres. Obama is remarkable in his willingness to listen and consider the suggestions and input of his opponents and critics. But, the last thing the American people really want is a President whose direction and agenda is so compromised, so watered down, so inconsistent or contradictory as to completely fail to address, and overcome, the emergency nature of the economic frailties which threaten us all. We really don't want Pres. Obama to fail in his objectives to prevent a financial sector collapse, avert this recession from deepening or elongating into something far worse, and to insure a growing, more secure, and less costly economic future after this recession ends.

To the extent that people seek to improve upon Pres. Obama's policies with their input, America can and will move as one toward solving our crises. To the extent that people are successful in obstructing the success of Pres. Obama's policies and agenda, in order to preserve their view of how things should be or, to garner power for themselves going forward, our nation will surely suffer and fail in its common hopes and aspirations for our future, at the hands of such self-serving critics. It is crucially important to our nation's success that Americans distinguish between those serving to strengthen Obama's success as our president, and those vested in insuring his, and our nation's, failure, when listening to or, reading Obama critiques.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Contact

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on March 25, 2009 8:28 PM.

Obama: I am Responsible. was the previous entry in this blog.

Political Reforms Coming. WIll they measure up? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Offsite Links