Someone in a friend's blog (who is pro-Obama) asked "Why is the country in chaos?" - and quite simply, because we are at war. A fact that didn't change just because we elected a new president. I think people wanted to forget about the war, and carry on as if it wasn't a priority. And the way Health Care Reform was being crammed through seemed more like a "distraction" to the war - Look! Over here -->
And while I'm on THAT subject, I think when most Americans wanted Health Care Reform, they thought of other nation's programs like Canada and England. And what we got was a pile of shit. FEDERAL PRISON and a $15K FINE if you don't BUY health insurance? I don't think THAT was the health care Americans really wanted. They can do better than that.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
And something else that chafes me - the entire election was fueled by hatred against Bush (and to a lesser degree, Republicans). But imagine if, instead of hate, people were motivated to vote by pride and patriotism. The position only carries so much power - eventually people need to take personal responsibility for the world they've created. It wasn't all one person's fault, and it won't all be fixed by one person.
For what it's worth, I did vote for Obama out of pride and patriotism. An articulate, educated, thoughtful, calm candidate -- who was a minority, no less, so a nice step forward (not the end of the battle) in equal rights.
OK, also hatred of Bush. I would have voted for anyone not a Republican. BUT I was pleased when it turned out to be a candidate I was excited about.
My point was based more on the stats - how voter turn-out hadn't been that high since the 1960s (before I was born!) - so yeah, the highest voter turn-out in my lifetime. So what if all those people had voted in the previous elections, too?
I know the Canadian will agree with me on this point. What if WE had 76% voter turn-out?
I think that most people had stupidly high expectations for the man, and now they're crushed that America isn't the shiny happy land of harmony they'd hoped for.
...okay, maybe that's not what people expected, but they're still disappointed that Obama wasn't a game-changer.
Personally, this is more-or-less... exactly what I figured would happen. He's done a few small things that are good, he's made a few mistakes, overall he's been... a typical president.
I tend to feel that people's "stupidly high expectations" of Obama were understandable precisely because of his predecessor.
If people can see how the force of Bush's innate Bushness was very clearly a game-changer in the country compared to what had come before, it seems plausible that a very different person with a very different view of the country and the world would be a game-changer in the other direction.
It's just taking longer than planned/hoped--in part because (for example) Obama hasn't had the aid of a security crisis to propel his agenda forward.
Correction-you mean a NEW security crisis. Because we're still having the same problems we did under Bush, only now the neocons get to point at them and say that somehow they're Obama's fault for being "soft" on terror, when really very little has changed policy-wise.
True enough--although I'm not sure it would be in Obama's temperament to take advantage of a new security crisis to push through, say, government-run universal healthcare, or some other sort of sweeping legislative or social reform which he favours.
The most frustrating of the current claims you're describing from the neocons is the revisionist history where "there was no terrorist attack under Bush." When Giuliani, of all people, made that claim, I was flabbergasted.
I think he's been doing what he can for a country in so many messes I can't count them. In a political environment that apparently exists to stymie every possible bit of social progress he might otherwise make.
Plus the novelty of a well-spoken, articulate President remains in effect for me to this day.
I don't think I ever had outrageously high expectations.
...a political environment that apparently exists to stymie every possible bit of social progress he might otherwise make.
This has been all too evident over the past year. :/
As I said to lampbane above, I think some "outrageously high expectations" were natural because of the actions of the previous administration, demonstrating how a lot of changes (which were outrageous in a different way) could be pushed through based solely on the ideology of an individual or group of people.
Your continuing admiration of President Obama's composure and demeanour is an example of those elements still appealing to the electorate which brought him into office--so if one type of strong personality can lead to sweeping changes in the United States, why can't another?
I never had any expectations, because I don't think any politician really wants change-- why would they want to erase the circumstances that got them elected? I'm not saying that Obama's lying or anything, but the entire process is geared against the creation of effective change. I'll take what I can get.
That said, I wish we were getting a fair bit more when it comes to health-care reform... but I also know that a government-run health-care system will never fly here.
Unfortunately, I would tend to agree that "the entire process is geared against the creation of effective change," but the rest all depends on what constitutes "the circumstances that got them elected." A politician can want a change that wasn't a factor in getting them elected, unless you feel that anything which wasn't in place before their election is a factor.
I understand what you mean, though--if a politician campaigns on a particular set of problems, wins, and then solves those problems, they've made themselves obsolete by their own argument. ;)
...I also know that a government-run healthcare system will never fly here.
It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? :/
This is probably the single political issue on which Canada and the United States are the most diametrically opposed--getting rid of our government-run healthcare system would never fly here.
I very proudly voted for Obama. And had no optimism for his administration. I think the political process is so polluted by the false binary choice the two-party system has become and the power and money of corporations that it is almost impossible to cause significant change. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
False binaries are definitely a very common problem in the American political system--and although I'm grateful that Canada has multiple parties represented in its Parliament, I worry that our country is headed in a similar direction. :/
Your comment and the comments above have a common theme of inertia caused by the nature of the system...but significant change does happen within that system in the United States (both positive and negative)--at least some of the time. Since it's possible to get past intrinsic elements like the power of corporations (even when it's being reinforced by the Supreme Court), what distinguishes the situations where the inertia is overcome?
I don't know, mostly it just seems like a crapshoot. The way that elected representatives attempt to balance their duty to those who voted for them and their obligations to those who funded them is complex. But money is what greases the wheels in DC, so lobbyists often have a voice over and above the constituents. My level of cynicism has risen substantially with the recent Supreme Court ruling.
I don't blame you for feeling more cynical--I was really surprised by the Supreme Court ruling, and I can't see how this will end in anything other than increased plutocracy in the United States. :/
On the bright (?) side, elected representatives are attempting to balance those duties and obligations...at least some of them, some of the time.
Comments 24
And while I'm on THAT subject, I think when most Americans wanted Health Care Reform, they thought of other nation's programs like Canada and England. And what we got was a pile of shit. FEDERAL PRISON and a $15K FINE if you don't BUY health insurance? I don't think THAT was the health care Americans really wanted. They can do better than that.
All of this should have been so much easier for a president with his own party controlling both houses - so what went wrong? Did people expect too much from a person? from a position?
Reply
Reply
OK, also hatred of Bush. I would have voted for anyone not a Republican. BUT I was pleased when it turned out to be a candidate I was excited about.
Reply
I know the Canadian will agree with me on this point. What if WE had 76% voter turn-out?
Reply
...okay, maybe that's not what people expected, but they're still disappointed that Obama wasn't a game-changer.
Personally, this is more-or-less... exactly what I figured would happen. He's done a few small things that are good, he's made a few mistakes, overall he's been... a typical president.
Reply
If people can see how the force of Bush's innate Bushness was very clearly a game-changer in the country compared to what had come before, it seems plausible that a very different person with a very different view of the country and the world would be a game-changer in the other direction.
It's just taking longer than planned/hoped--in part because (for example) Obama hasn't had the aid of a security crisis to propel his agenda forward.
Reply
Reply
The most frustrating of the current claims you're describing from the neocons is the revisionist history where "there was no terrorist attack under Bush." When Giuliani, of all people, made that claim, I was flabbergasted.
Reply
Plus the novelty of a well-spoken, articulate President remains in effect for me to this day.
I don't think I ever had outrageously high expectations.
Reply
This has been all too evident over the past year. :/
As I said to lampbane above, I think some "outrageously high expectations" were natural because of the actions of the previous administration, demonstrating how a lot of changes (which were outrageous in a different way) could be pushed through based solely on the ideology of an individual or group of people.
Your continuing admiration of President Obama's composure and demeanour is an example of those elements still appealing to the electorate which brought him into office--so if one type of strong personality can lead to sweeping changes in the United States, why can't another?
Reply
That said, I wish we were getting a fair bit more when it comes to health-care reform... but I also know that a government-run health-care system will never fly here.
Reply
I never thought of it that way :)
Reply
I understand what you mean, though--if a politician campaigns on a particular set of problems, wins, and then solves those problems, they've made themselves obsolete by their own argument. ;)
...I also know that a government-run healthcare system will never fly here.
It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? :/
This is probably the single political issue on which Canada and the United States are the most diametrically opposed--getting rid of our government-run healthcare system would never fly here.
Reply
Reply
Your comment and the comments above have a common theme of inertia caused by the nature of the system...but significant change does happen within that system in the United States (both positive and negative)--at least some of the time. Since it's possible to get past intrinsic elements like the power of corporations (even when it's being reinforced by the Supreme Court), what distinguishes the situations where the inertia is overcome?
Reply
Reply
On the bright (?) side, elected representatives are attempting to balance those duties and obligations...at least some of them, some of the time.
Reply
Leave a comment