By now, the lives of our new president and his family have undoubtedly begun to resemble an all-out war. After three full days of leading the free world, dealing not only with current crises but also cleaning up past messes, President Obama is certainly getting "the full monty."
Please join me in sparing a few moments to wish President Obama, his saint of a wife and precious daughters the very best as they cope with these tectonic shifts in their lives.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
23 January, 2009
20 January, 2009
Happy Inauguration Day!
Despite the terrible course of the past eight years, I find myself in agreement with President Obama regarding President Bush: in order to begin the healing process, we must be willing to forgive. Forgetting is out of the question. Forgiveness, necessary.
Today the electric thrill of being American lives in my spine, my heart, my spirit. I haven't felt so proud of our nation since the early days following the terrorist attacks on September 11. I cherish the wild concatenation of viewpoints and beliefs that makes our nation great; but every now and then, it makes me inarticulate with joy that we can bring those viewpoints into alignment -- as Americans.
Times may be tough. There is work to do. But for this moment, this one shining instant, we set those tasks aside for history. Today, we revel in the euphoria of our triumph as a nation.
Happy Inauguration Day, and may all of our thoughts and prayers be with President Obama, his family, and all of the members of the incoming Administration.
Today the electric thrill of being American lives in my spine, my heart, my spirit. I haven't felt so proud of our nation since the early days following the terrorist attacks on September 11. I cherish the wild concatenation of viewpoints and beliefs that makes our nation great; but every now and then, it makes me inarticulate with joy that we can bring those viewpoints into alignment -- as Americans.
Times may be tough. There is work to do. But for this moment, this one shining instant, we set those tasks aside for history. Today, we revel in the euphoria of our triumph as a nation.
Happy Inauguration Day, and may all of our thoughts and prayers be with President Obama, his family, and all of the members of the incoming Administration.
29 September, 2008
The Obligatory Debate Post *updated*
I will be the first to admit that I did not watch the debate Friday night between Senators Obama and McCain. Family obligations prevented me from watching it live, and a frantic rush to prepare for those obligations prevented me from recording the debate.
So I may have a slightly unique perspective on the whole affair. I came home late Friday night to dissect the debate post-mortems to find out what each candidate had to say. I was not terribly surprised (but dismayed nonetheless) to find that no one was really talking about policy, but rather about horse-race.
"Who won?" "Obama agreed with McCain..." "...McCain looked angry..." "...who made the worst blunder?" ... blah, blah, blah.
I'm not saying none of that matters. Maybe Obama should have been less concilliatory (I personally don't think so, on principle), or McCain should have been less angry; but I want to know what they said. Unfortunately, none of the punditocracy seems to care.
I'm admittedly intrigued by the debate over who won. This says a lot about the state of our media and our nation. It seems clear that the partisan-paradigm-filters were on full force on Friday night, because Republicans were clearly watching a different debate than the rest of the world.
Obama is a skilled, maybe even brilliant orator. He has excited the Democratic Party's voters like Kennedy, like Clinton. It's to be expected that Democrats will highly favor his performance, especially if he really did score points.
Independents also gave Sen. Obama the nod, thogh different polls disagree as to what amount. Further, post-debate polling shows that Obama moved a pretty fair amount of opinion to his side. So, the most pessimistic way to put it from obama's point of view is that he won a small victory.
What does the "liberal media" say? It's a tie. What do Republicans say? 90% say he won.
Huh?
What universe were they in?
**Update: Apparently, not all Republicans gave the debate to McCain. Some very prominent ones say Obama won.
So I may have a slightly unique perspective on the whole affair. I came home late Friday night to dissect the debate post-mortems to find out what each candidate had to say. I was not terribly surprised (but dismayed nonetheless) to find that no one was really talking about policy, but rather about horse-race.
"Who won?" "Obama agreed with McCain..." "...McCain looked angry..." "...who made the worst blunder?" ... blah, blah, blah.
I'm not saying none of that matters. Maybe Obama should have been less concilliatory (I personally don't think so, on principle), or McCain should have been less angry; but I want to know what they said. Unfortunately, none of the punditocracy seems to care.
I'm admittedly intrigued by the debate over who won. This says a lot about the state of our media and our nation. It seems clear that the partisan-paradigm-filters were on full force on Friday night, because Republicans were clearly watching a different debate than the rest of the world.
Obama is a skilled, maybe even brilliant orator. He has excited the Democratic Party's voters like Kennedy, like Clinton. It's to be expected that Democrats will highly favor his performance, especially if he really did score points.
Independents also gave Sen. Obama the nod, thogh different polls disagree as to what amount. Further, post-debate polling shows that Obama moved a pretty fair amount of opinion to his side. So, the most pessimistic way to put it from obama's point of view is that he won a small victory.
What does the "liberal media" say? It's a tie. What do Republicans say? 90% say he won.
Huh?
What universe were they in?
**Update: Apparently, not all Republicans gave the debate to McCain. Some very prominent ones say Obama won.
26 September, 2008
Is "post-partisanism" possible?
This may sound crazy.
I don't think that "post-partisanism" is even a real ideological possibility in our current political climate.
Briefly, post-partisanism is the loosely defined phrase du jour that has been bandied about this political season. It applies in a rough sense to any politician or policy that makes an overt effort to cross partisan lines or re-frame political debates in a non-partisan manner. It seems clear why the term has been popular during this presidential cycle; both Senator Obama and Senator McCain claim to eschew partisan politics.
I am personally a huge fan of removing partisan vitriol from our national discourse. Partisan bickering and deeply entrenched ideology do nothing to solve the very real problems our nation faces. For example:
Ann Coulter constantly decries the "stupidity" of "the left." She spews venomous phrases that do nothing to address any actual problem that any actual person may face. Nevertheless, her hate makes its way into the bloodstream of American discourse and slowly poisons any attempt to reach out to the other side.
The germaine concept is polarization. Until very recently, individual U.S. citizens generally did not identify strongly with a particular party. For evidence of this, just check out the historical maps at 270 to win. Until the 1990s, it was very common for nearly the entire nation to vote for one candidate/party, then vote for a totally different candidate/party in the next cycle.
People felt free to vote for either party. Certainly there were ideologues and partisans; these have been the constant companions of democracy since before Plato wrote The Republic. but for the most part, Americans were politically fluid. If one party made a stronger case for their platform, that was by golly the way the people voted.
Our national discourse has become so polarized that most people have adopted "bunker mentalities" with regard to their politics. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you feel that you must support your party. We demonize the "other;" we blame them for everything that ails us. Conversely, we accuse "them" of lying about us.
The result is another term that has become popularized in political culture: cognitive dissonance. Essentially, cognitive dissonance is the ability to cherry-pick reality to fit your established paradigm. Cognitive dissonance has become the default operating condition for many politically aware Americans, and even those of us that attempt to avoid it can't always do so.
One consequence of all this is that it is increasingly difficult to convince anyone that a particular idea is valid on its own merits. Ideas are now filtered through our red- or blue-tinted lenses, subjected to ideological litmus tests, and then considered or rejected almost before they are truly considered.
The people have begun to notice this on a conscious level. The highly contested and divisive elections of 2000 and 2004 have brought ultra-partisanism to the forefront of the national consciousness. This year could have been different.
Actually, this year should have been different. Both major-party candidates stressed a desire to move "beyond partisanship," to end the bitterness that has marked the last 30 years of American politics. McCain presented the image of a "maverick," a Republican who would stand up to his party; Obama, the uniter from outside the beltway.
I believe that Sen. Obama has attempted to conduct his campaign in a post-partisan manner. However, the time may not be right. McCain, despite his wrods to the contrary, began launching viciously partisan attacks against Obama almost immediately following his presumptive clinching of the Democratic nomination. Unwilling to subject himself to the treatment that John Kerry received four years ago, Obama has had to take the gloves off in return.
But therein lies my point: it takes two to tango. One side cannot undo all the hate, the poisonous rhetoric, by itself. Both sides will have to make an effort.
I don't think that "post-partisanism" is even a real ideological possibility in our current political climate.
Briefly, post-partisanism is the loosely defined phrase du jour that has been bandied about this political season. It applies in a rough sense to any politician or policy that makes an overt effort to cross partisan lines or re-frame political debates in a non-partisan manner. It seems clear why the term has been popular during this presidential cycle; both Senator Obama and Senator McCain claim to eschew partisan politics.
I am personally a huge fan of removing partisan vitriol from our national discourse. Partisan bickering and deeply entrenched ideology do nothing to solve the very real problems our nation faces. For example:
Ann Coulter constantly decries the "stupidity" of "the left." She spews venomous phrases that do nothing to address any actual problem that any actual person may face. Nevertheless, her hate makes its way into the bloodstream of American discourse and slowly poisons any attempt to reach out to the other side.
The germaine concept is polarization. Until very recently, individual U.S. citizens generally did not identify strongly with a particular party. For evidence of this, just check out the historical maps at 270 to win. Until the 1990s, it was very common for nearly the entire nation to vote for one candidate/party, then vote for a totally different candidate/party in the next cycle.
People felt free to vote for either party. Certainly there were ideologues and partisans; these have been the constant companions of democracy since before Plato wrote The Republic. but for the most part, Americans were politically fluid. If one party made a stronger case for their platform, that was by golly the way the people voted.
Our national discourse has become so polarized that most people have adopted "bunker mentalities" with regard to their politics. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you feel that you must support your party. We demonize the "other;" we blame them for everything that ails us. Conversely, we accuse "them" of lying about us.
The result is another term that has become popularized in political culture: cognitive dissonance. Essentially, cognitive dissonance is the ability to cherry-pick reality to fit your established paradigm. Cognitive dissonance has become the default operating condition for many politically aware Americans, and even those of us that attempt to avoid it can't always do so.
One consequence of all this is that it is increasingly difficult to convince anyone that a particular idea is valid on its own merits. Ideas are now filtered through our red- or blue-tinted lenses, subjected to ideological litmus tests, and then considered or rejected almost before they are truly considered.
The people have begun to notice this on a conscious level. The highly contested and divisive elections of 2000 and 2004 have brought ultra-partisanism to the forefront of the national consciousness. This year could have been different.
Actually, this year should have been different. Both major-party candidates stressed a desire to move "beyond partisanship," to end the bitterness that has marked the last 30 years of American politics. McCain presented the image of a "maverick," a Republican who would stand up to his party; Obama, the uniter from outside the beltway.
I believe that Sen. Obama has attempted to conduct his campaign in a post-partisan manner. However, the time may not be right. McCain, despite his wrods to the contrary, began launching viciously partisan attacks against Obama almost immediately following his presumptive clinching of the Democratic nomination. Unwilling to subject himself to the treatment that John Kerry received four years ago, Obama has had to take the gloves off in return.
But therein lies my point: it takes two to tango. One side cannot undo all the hate, the poisonous rhetoric, by itself. Both sides will have to make an effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
