Debate about Obama (cont'd.)

This is a continuation of the discussion mainly between Richard and me from Dec. 1 in response to Obama's speech, his new strategy in Afghanistan, and his overall governing position.

Richard, the main difference I see between us is that you are certain of your position, while I am ambivalent and, within limits, can often take either side in an argument because a part of me leans toward each. Therefore, I'm more willing to make compromises, more likely to see the glass half-full. You emphasize sticking to the goal and the ideal; I emphasize the necessity for compromise to get some progress. I am more likely to say "something is better than nothing;" you are more likely to say, "let's stick to our demands for what we believe in." I am so close to your position that at times it is difficult for me to sustain the other argument in the face of your pursuasiveness. Nevertheless, I continue to trust Obama to make the decisions more than I would either you or me. That is not blind allegiance to authority; I would not have said the same thing about George Bush as president.

The difference in this case is my admiration for Barack Obama and my willingness to concede to him superior knowledge and judgment, and to trust his process of deliberation and therefore his decisions. But that doesn't change the fact that I really want the same results that you want, Richard. I just don't think we're going to get them in this go-round.

Should we stand pat and try to elect a more progressive congress in 2012 and another president in 2014? Or, as you suggest, pass fewer but more progressive bills now? What's the guarantee that Congress would pass even one progressive bill, if we conceded the others?

And, by the way, you trivialize the assessment of the man and my support of him when you refer to the pro-Obama group as a "cult of personality." That implies being dazzled by superficial appeal and hero-worship, when in fact my support of Obama is based on a deep understanding of the way he thinks, his values, the kind of process he goes through in making decisions, and the people he has chosen (with some notable exceptions) to advise him. It's also based on reading his books and especially David Plouffe's book about the campaign -- which tells you a lot about Obama, the man, as well.

That's far different from the pejorative connotation of "personality cult."

Ralph

The essential difference

William Shatner had Rush Limbaugh on "Raw Nerve" for an interview, and Rush put his finger on the basic difference in them and us about health care reform, as reported on HuffingtonPost:

"Here's my premise and you agree with it or not," Shatner posited. "If you have money, you are going to get health care. If you don't have money, it's more difficult."

Rush skirted the issue and chose to talk about real estate instead. "If you have money you're gonna get a house on the beach. If you don't have money you're gonna live in a bungalow somewhere."

"Right," Shatner responded, "but we're talking about health care."

"What's the difference?"

Shatner pressed on. "The difference is we're talking about health care, not a house or a bungalow."

Rush then accuses Shatner of assuming "there's some morally superior aspect to health care."

Exactly !!! Thanks, Rush, for your moral clarity. I disagree, but at least you are honest in your greed and "I've-got-mine-so-screw-you" mentality.

I do think there is a moral question here. Do we in the most developed country in the world have a moral obligation to see that all of us get basic health care, just as we get public schools and police protection?

Some, like Rush and many Republicans in Congress, would not include health care. That's an honest answer.

But it's not the one I want to live with.

Ralph

Obama's Commander in Chief speech

I want the war to be over.

I want the war to have been over.

AND:

I am willing to let Barack Obama make the decision.

I believe he is better informed than I am, has spent more time getting a wide range of skilled knowledge, careful assessments, and opposing points of view.

Which I have not.

And he has considered the options, not just narrowly about Afghanistan, or even Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in view of all the other economic and domestic problems we face.

I am willing to give him this 18 months.

Not everyone will agree. Not even all of my friends will agree.

I said something similar in the late 1960s when LBJ and McNamara were sinking us deeper in Viet Nam. I naively trusted that they knew more and had our best interests at heart. So I feel at some risk saying the same thing now.

But I have greater faith in Obama's intelligence, his moral compass, his ability to think strategically and long range -- and to not be swayed by politics or emotions -- which, I readily admit, I am.

Ralph

Hope springs . . .

We have to remember that Michele Bachmann's constituents elected her in the first place, so reason and good sense may not prevail. But we can always hope that they will realize that her nutty antics and her right-wing extreme politics do not represent their best interests.

The Minnesota Independent reports that her district has the highest rate, as well as the highest total number, of home foreclosures in the state of Minnesota.

Yet Michele has stuck to her guns and voted against all five key foreclosure relief bills in the House.

Better homeless and on the streets than in your own home, if that would be made possible by some pinko socialist government program, I suppose. Ask the people next November which they prefer, Michele.

Ralph

The melting pot vs xenophobia

The United States used to pride itself on being the melting pot, a nation of immigrants (who treated the true native people and one large segment of involuntary "immigrants" abominably).

Now we've moved into an era of anti-immigrant feeling -- especially from our neighbors to the south -- as well as the fear and mistrust of Muslims. Still, we're relatively serene about it compared to some of the European countries. In Switzerland, for example, 57.5% voted for a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets on Muslim places of worship.

It's not about architectural purity in the picture postcard country, but about the latent fear of Islamic influence in Switzerland. Two right-wing groups joined forces to sponsor the referendum that reflects political concern that, rather than assimilating into Swiss life, they will change the traditions and even the laws of Switzerland.

Gabriel Piemonte, writing on The Back Fence blog, put it in perspective:

I think the minaret episode speaks to the growing sense, in Europe and the US, among groups in these countries who (almost indefensible in the U.S.) see themselves as the "native" population that "owns" the country in which they live. This is leading to dangerous levels of volatility. Sadly it does not seem to be leading to conversation about how nations grow and change. For example, should the anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe develop into a rejection of all non-Christians? If you don't go to church and believe the Bible, should you leave Europe? It would be a pretty roomy place.

On the other hand, there are extremely conservative beliefs among Muslims that fly in the face of the important humanistic traditions of Europe, and there has been some fear of Muslims (and other cultural factors) preventing European countries from integrating these new European citizens into that tradition. We are similarly challenged, but I think the problem in the U.S. is that a coarse materialism has replaced serious ethical and moral concerns so completely that it is hard to say what the tradition we embrace that would integrate immigrants more effectively is. Consumerism just won't do the trick.

Actions like prohibiting the construction of minarets will only draw the Muslims more completely into their own insular worlds and reinforce any sense they have of being a repressed minority.

We in the U.S. have a little breathing time before immigration gets the spotlight again -- after we fix health care, jobs, Afghanistan, and the economy -- and until Lou Dobbs finds a new pulpit.

But sooner or later we will have to face these questions too.

Ralph

Obama's war

Afghanistan has already been called "Obama's war." Early on, he declared it the "war of necessity," to differentiate it from Iraq as the "war of choice." But once he has announced his decision to send another large chunk of troops, there will be no doubt.

There probably is no chance of an ideological, or even strategic, opposition derailing the the escalation. The only good things we know so far are that Obama has gotten maximum input and taken his time deliberating the options and that he has insisted on an exit strategy.

Opposition is being expressed primarily in the form of proposals to impose a "war surtax."

Yesterday, on George Stephanopolis' This Week, two Republicans had an exchange about it. Dan Senor, a neocon war hawk, called it a backdoor effort to derail the troop increase. Matthew Dowd, Bush's director of communications, said it was unfair to increase troops without any sort of shared sacrifice.

On the Sunday morning show, George Will had just declared that there will be no surtax. Dowd's response hit the right notes that should have been front and center in our deliberations all along:

I agree with you. There is not going to be a tax. But I think this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else. We have a war; we don't have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we think, 'Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we're not going to have a draft, we're not going to pay for it, we're not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.

This began with Bush's not only not asking for a draft or budget cuts, he even refused to put the costs of war in the budget and instead always had it in a supplemental bill to avoid thinking of it in terms of what needed to be cut.

The biggest deterrent to war would be a draft. Next would be a surtax or major budget cuts. We did neither under Bush. Is Obama going to continue that? Watch his address tomorrow night with that in mind.

Ralph

Serious security breach

The Virginia socialite couple, cum reality TV wannabes, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, should not reap any rewards for their brazen stunt of crashing the White House state dinner last week.

There have to be serious consequences for the Secret Service agents who are responsible for letting in this couple that were not on the guest list and had not been cleared. Yes, of course, they went through metal detectors and carried no weapons. That's good -- but it should not be treated as a joke or a publicity coup by anyone.

What better disguise for would-be assassins than to pick a couple who actually looked and dressed like the other guests? Who looked the part enough to slip in and mingle with the VIP crowd, and even get close enough to have pictures taken with Obama and Biden IN THE SAME ROOM IN THE WHITE HOUSE? What if they had been actual assassins -- who then did their job?

You know who would be president then? Nanci Pelosi. But she was also there and could have been on the list too. Next in line is 92 year old Robert Byrd.

It's true, they carried no weapons, and presumably they did clear through metal detectors. But death comes in other ways besides metal weapons. Injectible poison, for one.

I agree that criminal charges should be filed -- against the Salahis -- along with appropriate disciplinary measures for the secret service agents. That may happen.

But the current buzz about it all is that Michaele and Tareq have canceled their appearance on Larry King's show and instead are shopping around for another venue that pay them the half-million they're asking for an exclusive interview.

Things are out of whack when we turn the White House and the safety of our President and Vice President into a reality tv show -- and then crow about the feat.

This is serious and it must be treated as such.

Ralph