“Yes We Can.” You couldn’t go anywhere in the U.S. between September and November 2008 without hearing that campaign slogan, which became a chant, and eventually a catch phrase. While traveling in Pittsburgh this summer, I saw a hipster doofus, apathetic to politics of course, a conforming nonconformist, wearing a t-shirt mocking Obama, on it, “Yes, You Can’t.” Now, herein lies the inherit flaw in that mockery: yes, he can’t, because he is not a supreme dictator. He does not regulate every government policy. He does not override all branches of government. He is part of the checks and balances. For example, I once overheard a Tea Partier state, “We don’t have NASA anymore because Obama ran out of money.” Never mind the harebrained idea that somehow Obama personally funds NASA. And never mind the economic history leading to the spending cuts in the space program. There are too many factors involved in that decision to lay the blame on a single person. This holds true no matter the problem. And, truly, the American people, if they understand and support their democratic republic as they claim, can’t have it any other way. So, yes, Barack Obama can’t. And he shouldn’t have to.
Obama, once our media darling, has become the Right Wing whipping boy for everything wrong with the United States. I concede that the Left Wing gives him too much credit, but let’s stick with a healthy dose of Right Wing crazy shall we? Obama is a radical Muslim, secret Kenyan, Malcolm X’s love child. He smokes cigarettes, plays basketball in a do-rag, and is only good at public speaking. He fucked up the economy. He wasn’t really responsible for taking out Osama bin Laden. And, he’s a shade darker than the white majority, who are perfectly fine with adapting to global economics and power and realizing they are, in fact, the minority. Okay, now we’re done with “the crazy.”
I’m not going to detail Obama’s presidency or his policies. That’s not my issue; although I have sympathy for the man in that he inherited a country so entrenched in corporate greed, global policing, and class warfare that it will take a massive, nonpartisan movement to correct it. My issue is with the public backlash on Obama and the complete one-eighty it has taken since his election in 2008. I blame two parties: the campaign system and Obama himself.
The presidential campaign in 2012 will only further demonstrate my point that our politicians’ media campaigns are absurd. They are worse than a high school class election. There you can at least meet the candidates face-to-face. You know who they really are, even if the election is no more than a popularity contest. And that’s all the 2012 presidential election will be, a popularity contest. Yes, there will be issues at stake. There will be "hard talk" about these issues. The candidates’ campaigns, however, will have to bow down to the media in order to continue the sensationalizing of American politics. Gotta keep those ratings up. Sell, sell, sell!
Unfortunately, this is exactly the three-ring circus in which Obama partook. Study that campaign and you’ll find more propaganda than our country has seen in a long time. The Obama posters, bumper stickers, and pop art were geared toward heaping the thrust of change onto one man’s shoulders. Obama accepted this without question. He stepped into this role and he promised too much. Yet, is he at fault? If this is what it takes to win an election in this country, why not play the game in hopes that when you secure power, you’ll stick to your guns and do what you say? Here is the tightrope on which Obama teeters, the politics of promising too much.
Again, who is to blame? Do we blame our president for saying what we wanted to hear? Or, do we blame ourselves for allowing the media firestorm to continue? At what point to do we vocally and physically oppose the popularity contests and demand actual, honest, intelligent debate? At what point do we turn off our TVs and silence the media? Peter Travers of Rolling Stone asks all of us to stop complaining about this summer’s crappy movies because, after all, we’re paying to see them and thus funding the corporate machine. Can we afford to pull the plug on how we’ve let candidates be elected? Can we afford to allow them to actually tell us the truth? Can we allow ourselves to hear that in bettering this country there are no easy answers and voting along party lines only inhibits the process? I don’t have any answers to these questions. It’s up to all of us, as citizens, to find our own. But we need to stop blaming the man we elected to fix our problems, because we allowed ourselves to be blinded by his promises of change.
4 comments:
"But we need to stop blaming the man we elected to fix our problems, because we allowed ourselves to be blinded by his promises of change"
I don't understand why you'd excuse such behavior just because there's a platform that supports it. Should we not be upset when someone LIES to us? I guess Bernie Madhoff promising great returns, but only giving great losses, can be forgiven because there is a system in place that allows it to happen? I'd have to strongly disagree…
You hint Obama may have knowingly lied to get elected, or rather you propose a ploy to become elected:
"why not play the game in hopes that when you secure power, you’ll stick to your guns and do what you say"
Why would you think that if someone is brazen enough to lie to an entire country, he or she will straighten up when they become elected? 'Why would you not play the game' you ask? Because anyone with INTEGRITY wouldn't - and that is the only type of person worthy of leading a people.
You ask a pretty big question in how to change an entire campaign process. I don't think there's any real blueprint or answer… Though I'm fairly sure it starts with not compromising your own principles when you vote, even if you feel it's for a greater good.
First, "But we need to stop blaming the man we elected to fix our problems, because we allowed ourselves to be blinded by his promises of change."
This does not excuse the behavior, but rather implies that we take responsibility for the persons we elect. In that responsibility, however, we need to also realize the parameters of the political game.
If we elect a man who says he will make "such-and-such" come true, and " " has not been fulfilled within the time period in which we demand it, yet said official has been trying to do so, aren't we culpable for our own complaints?
Imagine you told me you would fix Social Security in your Presidency and within two years I get mad because it hasn't been fixed. Yet, I must ask myself if you have been trying to fix Social Security. What steps, obstacles, or trials have you, as elected official, come up against? As a voter, I have to know that my personal timeline for change does not coincide with the machinery of the political world. To just ship politically and ideologically to another spectrum, or to deride said elected official and protest that we need another "who will do the job better" is rash.
I'm not endorsing or excusing any behavior, but rather asking voters become more aware of the system.
Second, "Why not play the game in hopes that when you secure power, you’ll stick to your guns and do what you say?"
This does not imply Obama lied. This implies he knowingly played the game to get elected.
Instead of Hope and Change, imagine Obama, in his election campaign, discussed political realities: corporate greed, taxes, job cuts, green energy bills, the imbalance in Congress, corporate sponsorship, etc. Imagine he came right out and said, "This shit is going to be impossible to fix within four years, but we can start." And then he gave us a history lesson why such action will be extremely difficult. Now, that is a candidate I'd vote for (maybe).
Yet, if he'd said this, the media would've jumped all over him for a number of reason--no confidence in American democracy, a weak spine, too intellectual, etc. The popularity contest would've went with McCain/Palin, who had easy answers people wanted to hear. Some people, that is. Playing the game is an unfortunate necessity in political campaigns.
It's like when you tell a friend, "I'll be on time," when you know you may be late given a number of factors of your day. Of course, the weakness of my analogy is whether you'll show up at all. That, however, is the kind of reality that needs to be discussion--not the sound bites provided by campaigns.
What I am stressed is the Obama backlash is self-imploding since a majority of his voters gobbled up 'Hope and Change.'
Perhaps his campaign slogan should've been, "Patience and Perseverance."
How would've that played?
Man, I have a lot of typos. Don't know how that happened.
On your first rebuttal - how can one take responsibility for voting "yes" on something, when that vote puts into action something completely contrary to the "yes vote"? I think maybe we are differing on this point because perhaps you feel Obama is on the path, obstacle laden or not, he set out during his campaign. I do not.
You say Obama in his election was not lying but simply "played the game" to get elected.
Lying is presenting reality one way while knowing it not be true. You admit he made grandiose promises in his election for the sole purpose to get elected. Anyone with any sense knew the things he was promising couldn't happen in four years (including Obama). So, he decided to say what the people wanted to hear, the sole purpose being PERSONAL GAIN. How is this not lying?
You mention something about a friend being late I really just can't relate to (not because I've never been late). It's one thing when you intend to be on time, but aren't because of some unforseen obstacle, or one you thought you could avoid. That's understandable. But why would you, knowing there is going to be something preventing you from being on time, say otherwise? As I said in my previous post - anyone with INTEGRITY wouldn't even think of doing that, or think it's OK…
You claim this type of deceiving is necessary for the election process because if anyone dared speak the truth in a campaign they'd be gagged and lashed by the media. I don't agree. Anyone who could amass a strong following could get elected - the media would follow suit (not every news station of course). Witness, on a smaller scale, Jesse Ventura.
Post a Comment