|
Edited on Mon Dec-14-09 09:18 PM by 20score
For years the anger at Bush and his supporters built up. It was a daily barrage of insanity, over-reaction, maliciousness, anti-reality, counterproductive actions from self-righteous assholes. Religious fanatics were given more weight than scientists. Nature was looked upon as something that was just in the way, it had no value other than what could be taken from it immediately. The citizens themselves were just something to be manipulated to further a massive robbery of state coffers. Anti-war, especially anti-stupid war sentiment ran high. The country was divided and the rest of the world had good reason to be angry with us. There was a movement in the making ready for a leader.
Obama took over as the leader of this movement and anger changed to excitement. People started to believe things could change. Could America move from a nadir to an apex in one year? But people soon found out that although it’s great to have someone as president that is fluent in English and understands the policies he’s is putting forth, it’s not quite enough. At least for some. So came a divide, as there is every time leadership does the wrong thing or fails to live up to expectations.
Now Obama has been called Bush-Light, has been accused of being “Bush’s third term,” and these accusations are met with extreme resentment from people considered to be strong supporters. Well, he’s not Bush and he’s also not above criticism. Personally I was a volunteer for Obama during the primaries and during the general election. But I was infuriated by his vote on the FISA bill in July of 2008. A very close friend said to me that maybe it wasn’t my place to question him, that Obama must have his reasons for the vote. Now if my friend had heard a Bush supporter make that same statement anytime time in the last few years, she would have gone into an apoplectic rage. To me, if you can’t stay true to your ideals, then maybe you need a new set of ideals, or at least give them a higher priority.
It’s possible that the anger that is directed at Obama from those on the left would be of more use if it were directed toward mobilization. There are many who feel like it’s hopeless, many who feel they’ve been betrayed. Larry Summers should not be advising President Obama and Timothy Geithner should not be Treasury Secretary, we should be moving out of Iraq, completely. The Justice Department should be prosecuting John Yoo not helping him with an amicus brief. As our most gifted orator the President should be using his bully pulpit on a daily basis to insure a healthcare plan that benefits the public more than it does insurance companies. The list goes on.
Many people knew that bombing a country that had not attacked us would create more terrorists than it would kill. So they knew that if we really wanted to affect change in a particular area, you have to go to the cause, and not the symptom. That holds true for more than just war. Moneyed interests in politics and a media that does not inform seem to be the root causes for so many of our problems. If we mobilize to change those two areas, we may be able to fix so many of the symptoms we don’t want to live with as a people. Two things we can do would be to insist on public financing of campaigns, and protest the media themselves until they cover news, as journalists should. To be resolute, that as long as corporations are using public airways, they must serve the public.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
