The response below was written to my friend Tony who posted a bunch of information and opinions on his thoughts of President Obama. Of course, I had to respond:
Tony, I am thoroughly impressed with
the amount of time you took to respond to my comment. I laughed at
first because I'm usually used to these things dying off after a
while and nobody committing to providing a decent response to
questions posed. But I definitely think you did a good job at
explaining your line of thought. I also want to take a second to
apologize for the perceived pot-shot of saying you don't “critically
think.” That obviously isn't the case – your response proves it.
I think what I was trying to say at that moment was more, “don't
listen to the Romney spin,” because that's what I felt you were
doing on the “anybody but Obama” line of rationale. Right now,
the conservative right, including Romney's campaign, are using this
thought process by saying “look at Obama's record,” but never
offering anything of substance on why, as a candidate, people should
vote for him. Pundits on both side of the aisle are criticizing Mr.
Romney for not providing enough detail of his own campaign. The
“vote for me because I'm not him” attack is slowly proving to be
ineffective. And it all boils down to one thought – who is worse –
the devil you know or the devil you don't know. And many
conservative and some independent voters are starting to ask, “well
at least with the President, we know what he wants to do.”
So, onto your points. I want to
respond to each, for the simple fact that you did a good job
providing your point of view, but I also want to try to elaborate
more on what I was attempting to make with each of them. Sometimes I
feel like I am limited in what I say because I respond via my phone,
and trying to type responses such as these without the ease of a
keyboard is difficult. So, onto my responses:
In regards to President Obama's 2008
election campaign centered around “change,” you argue that he ran
on the concept of blind change. This is simply not the case. His
argument in the 2008 campaign very simply had to do with the idea of
having 8 full years of republican policies and rule crippled our
economy and our country. His campaign was far from “blind change.”
He spelled out very nice and neat what he wanted to do. He was
committed to changing Washington, bringing a spirit of bipartisanship
back to Washington. He wanted to be able to reach across the aisle
and make things happen. He truly did have big changes and plans on
making Washington a more cohesive place. Unfortunately, the bitter
loss of the republicans in 2008, along with the election of a select
few tea party extremists in 2010, made it nearly impossible for the
President to do much of anything. Even Mitch McConnel indicated that
his main political priority was to make sure President Obama was
going to be only a 1 term President.
Beyond that, the changes that Mr. Obama
wanted to accomplish – I would argue that many of them were
successful. His biggest change to the system is the way Americans
will be using health care in this country. The largest effect will
take place in 2014 – when Americans will start to feel its effects.
It is no secret that the democratic party has been attempting to
reform health care since the early 1970's. This president campaigned
on it, and it happened. He used what little time he had for a
majority in the senate and in the house, and was able to pass it. He
promised that and it happened. He promised that he would end the war
in Iraq, and he did. He promised he would put a renewed focus on the
war in Afghanistan and go after Al Queda, and he did. And he also
killed the leader who killed 3000 Americans, Osama Bin Laden. The
change that President Obama ran on wasn't blind change, but was in
fact, a true change to the way America had been running for not only
8 years, but in some cases the last 40. And he made a lot of it
happen, but much of it didn't because of republican opposition,
especially in the last 2 years, in the House and in the Senate.
Contrast that with Mr. Romney's
policies – both vague and general. He is on record of dodging
questions from reporters (the most recent I can recall is David
Gregory on Meet the Press), when asked about specifics. For example,
he continues to cite that he'll close tax loopholes to raise more
revenue, but when pushed on just one loophole he would close, he just
keeps saying “I have policies that will address this.” Mr.
Romney's tax plan sounds great in theory. He wants to cut the
general income tax rates which would lower the amount of revenue
flowing into the government, but then make it “revenue-neutral,”
by eliminating many of the tax deductions middle-class Americans
enjoy. Independent economists indicate that the potential for
keeping this revenue-neutral is a tough sell, but even more so,
taking the income rate down by 20%, as he wants to do, benefits the
wealthiest of Americans. But eliminating tax-deductions hurts middle
Americans. For example, he wants to eliminate the mortgage tax
deduction that so many Americans use to save a little bit of money.
And by keeping the budget revenue-neutral as he puts it, he still
doesn't address the underlying question of how he's planning on
lowering the budget in the long-haul, which he is completely critical
of the President on. His idea for lowering the deficit has him
touching no defense spending, but instead raising defense spending.
Economists just don't see his math adding up.
The point here is this – voting for
Mitt Romney should not be seen as an evil thing. But when he is
critical of the President for doing something or not doing something,
the first thing I would expect, and many voters would expect, is a
competing idea or philosophy on how he would go about doing it. And
the biggest criticism that Mitt Romney is receiving is that he
doesn't have those details. Or those details have changed depending
on what part of the country he is talking to.
Now let's talk about the gay marriage
thing, because I'm still having a hard time understanding your view
on it. From what I can see, it sounds to me like you don't support
it, which saddens me. It sounds like you'll support whatever law is
currently on the books. I respect that – as you have no choice
really. I too support whatever laws limit me or provide me specific
freedoms, I also have no choice. But that doesn't mean that those of
us who are oppressed shouldn't have the ability to fight for what's
right here. Ultimately you chose not to get “religious or
anti-religious,” which I'm glad you did. Given that our country
was NOT founded on christian-principles, but instead on the idea of
keeping religion at bay, using religion to support a bigoted view of
America is absurd. The fact of the matter is, gay marriage and
rights for the LGBT family is the civil rights issue of the 21st
century. Science is proving that sexual orientation is in fact
something that people are born with, or learn at a very early age.
It's not a switch that can be turned on and off. And while not a
protected class in the 1964 civil rights act, because at the time to
be gay was still seen a a psychiatric disorder, many states are
recognizing that the LGBT community deserves the same rights as
everybody else.
The problem here is this – I could
care less if I get married in a church. I don't plan to step on any
religious institution's “morals” on whether to marry Nate and I.
But what I do expect is that my federal and state governments give me
the same rules and policies, allow me to take the same deductions,
provide me the same benefits, and ensure any benefits I get from my
employer are not discriminated against either. I expect to be able
to visit Nate in the hospital when he's sick, and I expect him to be
able to do the same – with all spousal rights. I expect to be able
to adopt my children with my husband and both of us have equal rights
to them. Currently in Michigan, I can adopt or Nate can adopt, but
we both, unless married, cannot claim rights to the child – one or
the other.
The fact of the matter is we are
dealing with a “rights” issue. And rights issues were
specifically dealt with by the framers of the constitution in the
“bill of rights,” because they understood that the fate of the
minority could not and should not be left to the whims of the
majority. In cases when the majority has been asked to vote on
majority rights, they almost always choose to deny those rights to
the minority. Could you imagine if the nation had taken a nationwide
vote in the 1960's on whether to grant full rights to African
Americans? Or during the Reconstruction period? African American
rights would still be denied if that was the case. This is why the
supreme court has such power – to ensure that all men and women,
regardless of any difference, have the ability to have the full
rights and freedoms as everybody else.
Your deflection of President Clinton
endorsing President Obama is a simple one to answer. It's just that
– a deflection. His support of President Obama is not a slap in
the face to anybody supporting marriage equality, as you put it. In
fact, his wife, Hillary, is a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage.
She even mentioned it in a speech to the United Nations last year as
the 21st century's civil rights issue. And President
Clinton's support of President Obama has nothing to do with President
Obama's stance on same-sex marriage.
Here is some fact: President Obama did
not support marriage in the 2008 election for same-sex couples. He
supported civil-unions, ensuring that they enjoyed the same rights.
To me, that was enough. Again, like I said, I could care less if a
church recognizes my union. However, when President Obama's views
evolved over the last four years and he stated in that interview in
June that he firmly believed that same-sex couples should have the
same marriage rights as everybody else. I was proud. This was the
first President of the United States to offer such an opinion. It
was a proud moment in the gay community. Whether President Clinton
supports it or not is irrelevant. But since you brought it up –
President Clinton changed his opinion on same-sex marriage in 2009
and made it public. He supports same sex-marriage. And his signing
of a 20-year old law in a different time and a different place in our
history has no significant meaning to the fight of the here and now.
DOMA is pretty much a dead law now anyway – President Obama's
administration isn't enforcing its rules, and change is coming
anyway. The Supreme Court will most likely take up the appeal from
Proposition 8 in California, and in the next two years, we should see
a federal ruling on whether states can deny rights to same-sex
couples.
Let's move on to abortion. I'm going
to make this one pretty concise. I, like you, do not support
abortion. I think that many times it is used as an easy
birth-control method when somebody has an “oops” moment. And I
find that deplorable. However – I do not support making illegal a
woman's right to choose to have that abortion. The Supreme Court, in
Roe vs. Wade, has already declared that a woman has a fundamental
right to her body, which includes the ability to terminate a
pregnancy if she so desires. I do not believe that the government
should be in the business of taking away a person's rights.
Attempting to overturn Roe vs. Wade would do just that. Most of the
chatter about a woman's right to choose seems to happening by a lot
of men. And to be honest, it shouldn't be up to us. This is a
woman's health issue and therefore the women in the crowd should have
the loudest voice to it. And if you listen across any political
divide, a lot of women agree that even if they don't personally
support abortion, choosing to ban it is also extreme.
Mitt Romney seems to have a disdain for
anything woman's rights related. He told Mike Huckabee in an
interview last winter that he would support a constitutional
amendment defining personhood beginning at conception. This would
not only ban all abortions, but this would also ban the most popular
form of birth control – hormonal birth control. The problem in the
republican line of thought here is that it is not fully thought out.
Simply put – people are going to have sex. If you ban ways to
prevent them from getting pregnant (birth control), pregnancies are
going to rise. And if unwanted pregnancies arise, then more people
are going to want to have abortions. And if you make abortion
illegal, this doesn't mean people are going to suddenly want that
child any more. No, instead, they'll find illegal ways to have that
abortion (circa 1950 all over again). It's already happening in some
of the southern states where laws on abortion are much more strict.
Many women are driving to Mexico to get an illegal abortion, and
because they are not regulated in Mexico, they are putting their life
on the line. The same line of arguments used for less gun control
can be used here. Just because you make something illegal doesn't
mean that people are going to want to stop doing it.
So my problem with Mitt Romney isn't
that he wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. No, my problem is that he,
or the republicans who are unhappy with the status quo, are not
providing a valid replacement option. The status quo is the way it
is because it helps address important public health concerns of
women. But as I've already addressed, if you eliminate birth control
and abortions, you leave women no other choice but to seek illegal
ways to terminate a pregnancy, and suddenly coat hangers become very
popular again.
I don't know what point you were
addressing on the “civil rights” part of your discussion.
Despite the one quote you offer from President Obama's book, I see no
evidence from this President that he is anti-white or anti-christian
in any way. He's offered no evidence that I'm aware of that he holds
these views. The quote you offer regarding whites, while compelling
in the least, is also a reality. You cannot live in this society and
say that on some level, you don't judge people based upon how they
look. Plain and simple – it's a reality. It's how you deal with
those judgments and whether you give creditability to them and act
upon them that determines the kind of man or woman you are. I would
argue that Mr. Obama has done much to solidify solidarity in this
country based upon differences. I would argue that Mr. Obama has
done much to solidify our place in the international community,
garnering much more respect among our allies cross the globe than the
previous administration ever had. Mr. Obama truly seeks to unite us,
and has since he was running for the Senate. And while some may
argue that he seeks to divide us by social class, I would argue that
he isn't as much dividing us by social class, but looking to put us
back into balance from the policies of the previous republican
administrations.
And as a side note, as I said already,
this country is not a “christian-nation,” as you put it. We have
no recognized religion. We were not founded on Christian principles.
While we do have allusions to God in some of our institutions (like
“In God We Trust,”) these allusions are generalized and would
seek to include almost 99% of all people in this country towards a
deity of some kind – not necessarily the Christian God.
And lastly, the 47% comment. While I
agree that there was some twisting of context here, I wold argue it
is not as severe as you say it is. Listened to in full context, you
can see that Mr. Romney was speaking to a group of donors that are
more like him. Let's put it this way – Romney has been
characterized as not understanding the plight of the everyday
American. And you can't argue the fact that he hasn't had the same
experiences that the rest of us have had. He didn't grow up in
middle America. He's always been wealthy. He didn't have to take
out student loans. He is an upper-class American. And while this by
far doesn't disqualify him from the presidency. It means he has to
work harder to understand the issues that we, as middle-America,
face. I have no doubt in my mind that Romney truly doesn't buy into
the conservative ideas that he seems to put forth. I think he fought
so hard in the primary election, to go so far right, to win whatever
votes he could, that he's having a hard time turning himself around
to become a bit more moderate and reach where our country truly is on
the ideological spectrum.
Joe Scarbourough of “Morning Joe,”
made an excellent point. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were
ideological conservatives who truly believed that trickle-down
economics benefited everybody. They would go into working-poor
neighborhoods and see the issues facing people and truly believe that
their policies wold help these people. They truly believed that “a
rising tide lifts all boats.” I don't think, and neither do many
conservative pundits, that Romney believes this line of thought.
Many conservative pundits think that Romney is an empty-shell of a
conservative saying whatever he can on the campaign trail to appeal
to whatever audience he is talking to at that time. This video where
he is being as candid as he can, truly provides a glimpse into what
Romney truly believes about this country. While we could construe
that he is saying 47% of the electorate isn't going to vote for him
and make it about electoral votes, I don't think that is the meaning
behind the video. I truly think that Romney has a disdain for those
in this country who somehow need government to get an upper-hand. I
truly believe that Romney doesn't understand them. I think he's
written them off as victims and therefore, because of his business
background as a transactional leader, he sees that they cannot offer
him anything, and therefore he doesn't bother to concern himself with
them.
I mean basically, this is anybody's
guess. Anybody can offer feedback on Mr. Romney and what he is
thinking. He has so much out there about his views on EVERYTHING
that anybody can form any opinion about him and it could be wrong.
The best we can do is look at his actions today as we move closer to
this election and attempt to figure out what makes him tick. As for
me, Mitt Romney has provided no substantial solutions on how he plans
to fix the things that matter to me – whether the economy, health
care, student loans, gay marriage, civil rights, or whatever else.
His vision for the future of this country is not clear, and in fact,
leads back to the policies that got us into the mess we're in.
Contrasted with Mr. Obama, I truly
believe he has proven to be a successful first time president. Thoug
we have not gotten everything we had hoped for, I believe we owe it
to him one more term to see what more he can accomplish. Like Bill
Clinton said at the DNC in August, no President, not even President
Clinton, could have completely gotten us out of the financial hole we
were in when President Obama took office. I'm excited to see what
else Obama has in store for us for another four years.
