The Secret of Obama's Popularity

Despite the fact that his popularity in the polls has dropped a bit lately, Barack Obama is still just about everyone's favorite President. In fact, he seems to remain amazingly popular no matter what he does. I mean it. I think the guy could say he hates babies, and burn the American flag on the front lawn of the White House, and the majority of Americans (and certainly the Muslim world in the case of the latter example) would still say he's great. What's this guy's secret? How does he get everyone to love him, regardless of his actions? Let's take a brief look at some of the events that I, in my humble opinion, think should make most reasonable American citizens (regardless of their politics) cringe. The most recent event that caught my attention, happened yesterday morning (or at least that's when I read it in the news), when two top White House officials stated that it was likely the President would have to raise taxes for the middle-class, to pay for his health care reforms. President Obama has since gone on record as saying he will not raise taxes for people making $250,000 or less a year (I consider myself middle class, but I don't make nearly that much), but of course, the rich are still up for grabs. I suppose (cynic that I am) that Obama could have had his officials release their "information" as a trial balloon to see how people would take it, then when the public balked, he went to the media and repudiated that statement. In fact, an Associated Press analysis said that raising taxes on the middle class would "be blow to his (Obama's) re-election chances in 2012 and would prove noxious to his party in the 2010 midterm elections". But people still want health care reform; they just don't want to pay for it (as if we won't in the end, anyway). Not too long ago, Obama gave an extremely attention getting speech in Cairo to the "Muslim world" in an attempt to repair U.S. relations with Islam. I suppose the assumption is that Obama's immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, deeply insulted Islam, widening the gulf between "us and them" (never mind that Islamic terrorism has been going on much, much longer than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). In President Obama's speech, he not only "made nice" with Muslims, he seemed to completely identify with them (which is rather odd for a guy who supposedly is a Christian). According to Washington Post commentator Frank J. Gaffney Jr, "Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to 'the Holy Koran'," which is a reference typically used only by Muslims. Obama also said "I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Caffney said the term "revealed" "is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad". After invoking the names of the Prophets Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, Obama used the phrase "peace be upon them", which is only used by Muslims to bless deceased holy men. The American (and Christian) President seems to be at least bending over backwards, if not deliberately adopting a Muslim world view to forge an alliance with the Islamic world. While in and of itself, fence mending isn't a bad thing to do, should the American President surrender his stated national and religious identity to accomplish this task? Would Mr. Obama refer to the "Holy Torah" and say "Blessed is He" after invoking Jacob or Moses when talking to Jews in Israel? Speaking of which, the Cairo speech didn't do anything to score points with Israeli columnist Naomi Ragen in her June 10th commentary. She states that, beyond forging new bonds with Islam, terrorist organization Hamas (yes, the same Hamas that holds the people of Gaza in a concentration camp of terror, and who has retained IDF soldier Gilad Shalit as a captive for over three years now) has gained new hope for their cause (the destruction of the State of Israel and the expulsion or murder of all Israeli Jews) by the Obama speech in Egypt. Of course, President Obama's stance on Israel's continuing to build settlements in their own country hasn't exactly endeared him to our long-time ally, and the only democratic nation in that region. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer states that Obama claims "that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility", yet the President seems to experience no hesitation in dictating conditions and terms about the internal matters of only one country on the planet: Israel. Doesn't that seem like the President is talking out of both sides of his mouth? On a somewhat lighter note, Mr. Obama had a small social gathering at the White House last week. With Vice-President Biden, Obama welcomed "black scholar" (sorry, but that's how the news media continually refers to him) Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Police Officer James Crowley over for what is sometimes (but incorrectly, according to Obama) referred to as the beer summit. This was Obama's response to his criticism of Officer Crowley's actions in arresting Gates as "stupid". Numerous police agencies immediately objected to Mr. Obama's comments and demanded an apology. Other Cambridge officers, including an African-American officer who was at the scene of the arrest, supported Crowley and said that he acted in a completely appropriate and legal manner. The entire event has been used as fodder for various political cartoons and late night show comedians. Yet, has the President's reputation and credibility been damaged all that much? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has certainly gotten into some hot water after the recent elections in that country, and though protests continue, Ahmadinejad has been endorsed by Iran's Supreme Leader. According to one political cartoonist, it seems amazing that one President should be completely rejected for his unpopular behavior while another is wholeheartedly rewarded. What is Barack Obama's secret? How does he always come out smelling like a rose (yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by that much)? Why does it seem that in the eyes of the majority of Americans, this guy can do no wrong? Actually, the answer is simple. It's because of George W. Bush. By the time Bush left office, he was one of the most loathed Presidents who had ever served his nation. I remember that his one and only public appearance in Canada, after leaving office, was a dismal failure. People were standing in line to insult, scream at, and generally spew hate and evil in his direction. Bush has wisely kept a low profile since then and probably should for the foreseeable future. Bush was so disliked by the end of his second term, even by much of the GOP, that you probably could have gotten Jack the Ripper, Hannibal Lecter, or Lizzie Borden elected to replace him, if that was the only way to get rid of Bush (although Hillary Clinton apparently wasn't an option). Ok, that's not exactly fair. Obviously, people voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers for other reasons than he was just a warm body and looked cuter than Bush. He promised the American people something they desperately wanted after eight years of the Bush administration. He promised change. During Obama's campaign, I was trying to figure out exactly what sort of change he was offering. It never seemed very clear to me what his platform was, except that whatever Bush represented, Obama would do the opposite. That obviously seemed like a good idea at the time, but ended up (in my opinion) being the equivalent of a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage. This isn't exactly a new trick. Politicians have been getting elected by promising people everything they want, probably since their has been such a thing as politics (which means, a very long time). Everybody wants to have all of their desires fulfilled, especially if somebody else says they'll do all the work and that they'll pay all the bills. That brings us right back to the present day. Obama was elected largely because he was going to be different than Bush and pretty much different than the Washington political machine that we've all become used to (party lines notwithstanding). That sounds good. I'd like to see a change from the status quo as well. It would be refreshing to have a President who really represented the people for a change, and not his (or her) political party (and personal agenda). Sadly, I don't think we have that kind of President. I'm not entirely convinced he always serves his party's interests (though most of the time, he does), but I am sure he serves his own internal agenda a great deal of the time. Messiah Obama has promised the country and the world that he would give them everything they want. He's an adept salesman and has managed to convince everyone that he could really pull it off. While reality is slowly dawning on America, the vast majority still see him as the greatest thing since the invention of the iPod. But what happens when someone like me does (successfully) criticize the President? What happens when someone questions something Obama has done that makes his supporters pause and register concern? They come back with "He's a lot better than Bush". That's the secret. That's the key to Obama's success. No matter what he does or how much of our money (which neither the national coffers nor we as citizens have) Obama spends, the response is "he's better than Bush". There still remains such a national "sigh of relief" that "Dubya" is no longer in the White House, that we tend to gloss over whatever "issues" Obama may have. We tend to see Obama through the lens of the Bush years, and that softens the view, obliterating the harsh wrinkles and scars, letting us see only the Obama beauty and charm. Reality check. Bush is gone. We can only hammer on what Obama inherited from the previous administration for so long. Bush inherited his mess from Clinton, and Clinton inherited his mess from Daddy Bush before him. The beat goes on. At some point, Obama has to be appraised as an objective person and President, independent of who or what came before him. Obama's actions are his own and need to be seen in that light, not in the comfortable glow of "Bush is finally gone". Given the American public's ADHD-like attention span, I'm surprised that the use of the Bush legacy has endured to this point. Love him or hate him, just look at Barack Obama for who and what he is, not who you think he's better than. Making him "the greatest President that ever lived", just because the guy who came before him was "the President you love to hate" doesn't cut it. It's not fair to the nation and it's not even fair to Obama. I was never a Bush fan. I'm a conservative, but I don't care about party politics. From what I can see, the two major political parties in this country are pretty much the same on the level of their process. Only a few superficial details are changed around. I look at the decisions Obama makes, the words he says, and how it all seems to add up. I don't think about Bush when I'm thinking about Obama. When I consider Obama's policies, it's compared to what I understand as "common sense" (if such a thing exists). All I'm saying is, don't love Obama because you hated Bush. Look at what Obama is doing, the result (not the promises...promises are worth the air they're printed on), and what it means. Does it really make sense for the President to plummet this country into the largest deficit ever, just to give the people what makes them feel good? Yes, fixing health care is necessary and it would be wonderful, but (how can I say this strongly enough?) SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT! Seen in that perspective and in the light of what I've been trying to say, is Barack Obama really that terrific?

Living up to Expectations

Post the Obama Inauguration, the whole world and certainly the United States, seems to be doing one big happy dance. The Messiah apparent has now taken the throne and all of our troubles and woes will quickly vanish, and an age of unprecedented and everlasting peace is upon us...maybe. It's a little too soon to start analysing President Obama's performance. After all, he hasn't had a chance to actually do anything yet. That's not a criticism, it's a fact. And yet, I do see signs of unrest already forming in the clouds. There are many examples, some of which I outlined in my previous blog I feel sorry for Barack Obama...and I admire him. I want to use just one recent example; the controversy over Obama's appearance on the cover of MS. Magazine. The link I posted in the last sentence includes a picture of the cover, which depicts Obama, ripping his shirt open in "Superman" fashion with the t-shirt underneath saying, "This is what a Feminist looks like". In fact, feminists were split on whether or not this was a good thing. Occasionally, but rarely, does MS. Magazine have a man on its cover and many dissenters thought that a woman such as Hilary Clinton or even (gasp) Sarah Palin should have appeared instead. Others, and chiefly the editorialship of MS. Magazine, say that it's possible for a man to be a feminist and that an Obama Presidency is good for feminists. The previously mentioned dissenters still, to some degree, are smarting that Clinton didn't win the Democratic nomination for President (and possibly the Presidency itself), nor was she even vetted as a possible VP for Obama (the latter would have ended up in a hopeless battle of wills between two strong leaders, neither one wanting to take the back seat to the other...Clinton will better serve "the party" as Secretary of State). As I recall watching and reading the various reports on this issue, one of the criticisms levelled against Obama's being displayed on the magazine's cover, was that he hadn't appointed enough women to high Cabinet positions (and I previously discussed this). I guess this means Obama failed the "feminist" test by not meeting his "woman-in-high-places" quota. Before you condemn me to "male chauvinist pigdom", I do believe strongly in equal access and don't believe in making distinctions between men and women in terms of capability for any role. I have no problem with Obama being President based on race and would have had no problem (had it worked out that way) with Clinton being President based on gender. What I am saying is that I don't believe that anyone is entitled to any particular role just because of race or gender. In other words, I don't believe in quotas. Affirmative Action's dismal failure proves they don't work. In fact, quotas are demeaning to the very people you're trying to benefit, because they say "you couldn't have made it on merit alone...you need help". Obama is supposed to be the superhero that rights all wrongs, frees the oppressed, heals the sick, raises the dead...no wait, that's Jesus. Well, as far as the American public and citizens of the world are concerned, Obama is all that rolled into one person. He can do no wrong, at least today. However, when tomorrow and the day after tomorrow come around, criticisms such as those I've just mentioned will rise over the horizon like rain clouds hiding the morning sun. The feminists are just an example. Every interest group expects President Obama to serve their particular needs. It's almost as if each American individual is expecting Obama to service just them. What happens when he doesn't? What happens when President Obama continues to use his own judgement to make decisions rather than everyone's expectations? What happens when someone asks him for something and he has to say "no"? Everyone loves a rising star, but will turn them into "paparazzi-fodder" the split second they appear to fail. Obama doesn't even have to actually fail to be turned against by the fair-weather fans. All he has to do is seem to fail by not meeting everyone's expectations all of the time. Given the dismal reputation George W. Bush takes with him, like a personal storm cloud, as he leaves the White House for the last time, it's relatively easy to be the popular new kid on the block. All you have to do is say, "I promise to be different than Bush". The whole world is ready for that. The question of what "different" actually means will become important in the weeks and months ahead. We not only must pray that Obama guides this nation with wisdom, but we have to pray that we understand that a leader must lead the people, and not follow their every whim.