Disillusionment and the Two Obamas

Several months ago, this blog advised the Democrats to grow a pair. They did not, and they paid for it in the midterms. Now, two months into the presidency of Barack Obama, what is the country's stance on the President and his policies? Those on the Right are unsurprisingly against almost everything he has ever said or done (though it must be said that this level of vehement rhetoric goes above and beyond that which was applied to Bill Clinton). The Left are equally as annoyed and disappointed in Obama, just for radically different reasons than the Right is. How has the President managed to dismay and anger just about everybody?

The Right's critiques of Obama range from outrageous, hilarious, to hysterical, vague, and shallow. The right-wing media's over-the-top propaganda machine and big-spending sugar daddies, along with their Tea Party allies, have undoubtedly had an impact on convincing people that the President and his policies are ruining the nation, spending the country into a debt that they will never be able to come out of.

Conservative critics point out that the Obama administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars that would reduce unemployment to under 8%; when this number stayed relatively high, they could then claim that the stimulus was a waste of money, government spending was out of control, and the size of the government had substantially increased. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on several different occasions in several different ways, this critique is almost completely false: while it was naive to claim the stimulus would reduce unemployment to under 8%, it was largely composed of tax cuts/credits and only a fraction as large as it needed to be to spur economic growth; the supposed "huge increase in government spending" is almost entirely related to increased unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc., as a result of the financial crisis.

While small-government conservatives were bound to be aggrieved at any perceived government interaction in the economy, the Left is equally up in arms over the Obama presidency. Their disillusionment with the course of the administration had a huge effect on allowing the Republicans to sweep back into power in the House. This disillusionment springs from the perceived disparity in "campaign Obama" and President Obama. Now, anyone who had read his books or looked into his political views during the 2008 primaries would not be surprised by how his presidency has gone; he has largely stuck with a cautious, well-thought out approach that clings to the center and attempts to gain bipartisan consensus on important issues. But voters by and large didn't want a centrist, get-'er-done president. They wanted true "change to believe in", like Obama himself talked about whilst campaigning:



Conservatives might take his "fundamentally transforming the United States" quote in a decidedly darker direction, but many of those rapturous faces on November 4, 2008 hoped and believed in this fundamental transformation. This perception of who they wanted Obama to be and who he has governed as has led to the classic situation of glass half-full/glass half-empty.

The half-full view has a pretty favorable view of the president: he's actually been the most progressive president the country has seen for decades (which says a lot about the political spectrum in the U.S.); Congress has been more productive in 2 years than many other sessions were in entire terms; the stimulus bill and other financial measures halted what could have been a Great Depression-like meltdown; he's been hampered not only by vociferous Republican dissent, but also members of his own party (other liberal presidents like FDR and LBJ had well over 60 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation, a luxury Obama could have only dreamt of); the Affordable Care Act is a giant step closer to providing if not single-payer then more affordable health care to as many Americans as possible; the financial reform bill will help to prevent future Wall Street excesses from getting out of hand and damaging the economy; Obama is after all, not a wizard, but rather just one part of the three branches of government - he cannot force his will upon the rest of the government to do what he wants.

From this point of view, the Obama presidency has been pretty productive so far, despite some setbacks and downers that are inevitable for any presidency. This perspective on the president is, unfortunately for Obama, in a constant fight for supremacy against the glass half-empty critics on the Left; the half-empties apparently were winning the fight enough for the midterms to be a "shellacking" for Obama and the Democrats.


Those on the Left who truly wanted fundamental change wanted a president who would fight for them, not the plutocrats. They wanted the banks nationalized, a bigger stimulus, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay closed, etc. Instead of breaking up the banks or nationalizing them, Obama's "socialist" policies supported those of George Bush, who essentially threw money at the Big Banks without asking them what they were going to do with it (by comparison, Germany's government - composed of conservatives and neoliberals - enacted a financial rescue package to the left of Obama and the Democrats).

The banks, big business, and Wall Street not only got off with just a slap on the wrist from Obama but he praised their obscenely large salaries and has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street insiders that so many in the public want to see taken down. The Left wanted to see the Democrats and Obama actually take a stand; instead they saw Obama cave in and compromise with Republicans with little or nothing liberal to show for it. Such perceived cave-ins and compromises inflamed resentment and negative sentiment on the Left.

The stimulus was decently-sized, but needed to be much larger; Obama could have fought for a bigger piece of the pie, but instead paraded around the insufficient stimulus as if it would truly cure the country's financial woes. After almost ruining health care reform, the Democrats had to settle for leaving the industry in private hands, thereby ensuring a morally and fiscally irresponsible system could continue. Not even the weak-sauce public-option was that important to the President, apparently.

The financial reform bill did not go nearly far enough in making sure Wall Street's influence on the overall economy would be reduced, letting them off the hook once again. At a time when corporate profits and hedge funds are raking in the dough more than ever, Obama's response was to ensure they keep making millions and billions of dollars while middle-class and poor Americans remain homeless and jobless.

On the civil liberties front, Obama's track record is downright deplorable: Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Patriot Act and its flagrant violations of basic rights, including torture, was continued. Such continuations of Bush-era policies were not what people had in mind when they voted for "Change we can believe in". Obama's lukewarm support for gay rights has become increasingly irritating to those who no longer wish to wait for progress. Many wonder why he does not simply issue an executive order to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell - much like Truman did when he desegregated the Army in 1948.

While it is true that Obama has reduced troop levels in Iraq, 50,000 soldiers still remain as occupiers in a foreign country while 30,000 additional troops were sent to continue the occupation of another foreign country - costing precious lives and dollars in the process.

To top off the right-wing health care reform, right-wing stimulus, right-wing violations of civil liberties, and right-wing financial reform, Obama basically told the Left "shut up and take what we give you". No wonder many liberals were unmotivated to vote in the midterms - Obama had turned out to be much more like Mitt Romney than Dennis Kucinich.

Where does the truth lie among all these views, opinions, and condemnations of President Obama? Things are certainly not so black, white, and gray like the Left, the Right, and the middle seem to think.

Republican obstructionism cannot be overstated - the filibuster has been used by Republicans more in the last 2 years than in the entire nineteenth century -, meaning that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation. And the president can only sign the bills that come before him; while the House has passed an array of progressive legislation, this has often been watered-down or rejected by the Senate. Clearly, the president would prefer to have passed a more comprehensive climate-change bill, a bigger stimulus, or let tax cuts for the rich expire. In his opinion, the votes weren't there and these were the best options he could come up with. Unfortunately for Obama, the Democrats' failure to break Senate filibusters is frustrating to many voters who view them as being more weak-kneed than they might actually be. This in turn reflects badly upon the president, who must shoulder much of this criticism. Not to mention the vitriol being spewed about the President from the Right - it's quite breathtaking in its hysterics and predictions of doom. Perhaps the reason the Right's criticism has been so vicious is because of Obama's success - conservatives would absolutely love it if one of their candidates had been a media darling like Obama was in 2008.

The president seems to think that a lot of the criticism coming his way is because he hasn't enacted enough change in a quick enough fashion. But partisan supporters aren't idiots or overly optimistic. They realize that politics is politics and they won't get everything they want right away and in exactly the way they want it to. No doubt conservatives were annoyed with Bush for not being able to make abortions illegal or privatize social security. No, the problem many disappointed Obama supporters have with the president is not that he hasn't enacted change fast enough, but that he hasn't even really attempted to be the president he persuaded people he would be.

The President showed an embrace of the kind of leftist-populism motivating progressives when running in 2008, but has since showed a sort of apprehension or even disdain for actually governing from the center-left. Perhaps afraid of the political/social ramifications of enacting truly progressive legislation too rapidly, Obama has often said that he is looking farther down the road with his policies than many are seeing. This trepidation for more leftist policies seems to be borne from a desire to win over moderates and gain some support from the Right, which is slightly naive in that he has stuck with trying to be bipartisan after it had become abundantly clear to everyone that there was no interest on the other side of the aisle. There are, however, examples of politicians steering to the left and achieving success, which gives credence to the notion of a different tack for the administration.

Obama's enthusiasm gap stems from the changed perception of him as bringing change to being a "business-as-usual" guy. If voters had wanted someone who could be a good politician, beat the Republicans at their own game, and knuckle-down to get things done, surely they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. But voters wanted radical transformation, not business as usual.

To think that one man could change an entire faulty, broken system is ridiculous - the problem lies rather in that Obama hasn't looked like he wants to change the system. If the president had railed against Big Banks and Wall Street, advocated for a much larger stimulus and outlined a comprehensive plan, clearly calling for single-payer health care but had then been stymied in Congress, he could rightfully say to voters "I'm trying my best here to get the things done that this country truly needs, to truly help change our nation for the better. But these other guys don't want that; they want business as usual. If you want to see true change, vote against them and vote for change in 2010." In such a scenario, even if Obama loses, he wins. Instead, he began bargaining in the middle, hoping for bipartisanship and then paraded around such little victories as though they were V-E Day, while also castigating the Left for wanting a bit more than standard Democratic politicos. Such a maneuver has clearly failed to motivate or inspire those who voted en masse for Obama.

Motivation was always going to be difficult to maintain after the euphoria that greeted Barack Obama's presidential election. The disillusionment that has gradually increased from Obama supporters is perhaps slightly unfair, as the president is simply being the kind of politician he's always been. It is, however, his fault for embracing progressive rhetoric to get elected and then dropping the brand when he entered the White House.

While some of his policies aren't as strong or effective as they could be - the Bush-era continuation of civil liberties violations is scandalous - much good has come from his presidency. Though one step forward instead of three or five is a small step, it is a step nonetheless. The alternative is and will remain unthinkable and unforgivable. Much of politics is about perception. Obama needs to persuade those who most want to believe in him that it is worth doing so.

The United States is a Secular Nation

A recent sex scandal in Indonesia has opened up a can of worms over the role of religion and secularism in that country. Why is this relevant to anybody that doesn't live there? Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world, and many are debating about what to do about young people using the Internet, which helped spread the sex tape in question, as well as opening up debate about attitudes toward sexuality. Here are some interesting statements about the situation from the BBC article:

More than 80% of Indonesians are Muslim, and while it is a secular nation, most people are still largely conservative.

But that is changing, especially among young people who have access to information in a way their parents could never have dreamed of.

Uzham Izhar, 32, had brought her two-year-old daughter.

"We want to live in an Indonesia that follows Islamic values," she said, as she patted her daughter asleep on her lap.

"Islamic law isn't just for Muslims, it's for the whole country.

"This kind of country is very dangerous, and it is particularly dangerous for my young daughter. I don't want her growing up in this kind of Indonesia."

These very words could be transplanted to the U.S. and it would not be out of place at all. Many reactions towards changing policies that are favored by young people, such as support of gay marriage, has been opposed on religious, specifically Christian, grounds.

A common boast by conservatives is that "the United States is a Christian nation". Conservatives also claim that many or most of the Founding Fathers were inspired by Christianity and God when writing the Constitution, a document in which, in reality, there is no mention of Christianity, religion, or God at all.

Is the United States a Christian nation, though? God is, in fact, mentioned on national currency, and many court houses have the Ten Commandments present on their property. The president has been known to usually be sworn in by placing his hand on a Bible. There has also never been a non-Christian elected president of the United States (despite what some people say about Obama's "hidden Muslim" tendencies).

Certainly, the role of Christianity in American politics is substantial and influential, in that it would be very difficult to go far in the current political climate if one was anything other than non-Christian (or, in many cases, non-White as well).

As well, 76% of Americans said they were Christian in 2008. An even more impressive number would be the 34% of adult Americans who proclaimed to be Evangelical or Born-Again Christians. However, though these numbers may seem high, they are not incredible or shocking. Religious adherence has been on a steady decline in the U.S. for the past several decades, as more people are becoming apathetic to organized religion in general, not just Christianity.

If 76% of Americans are Christian (though this doesn't mean that they all go to church, or engage in other Christian-related activities), then that means that almost a quarter of the population, or over 50 million people, are not Christian.

Other countries, as well, have large swathes of population who consider themselves Christian. In Canada, 77% claim Christianity as their religion. In Spain, 73% are Christian. 88% of Italians are Catholic. In the United Kingdom, 71% of the population is Christian. In Germany, the amount is 67%.

Are these other countries considered "Christian nations" because the majority of citizens are Christian? All of this depends, of course, on what exactly is meant by "Christian nation". American conservatives appear to be using the term to indicate that the country is fundamentally Christian in its very fabric, due to the "Christian influences" on our Founding Fathers and written in our Constitution, as well as being in many other aspects of our history and politics, and of course because a majority of Americans say they are also Christian.

The Founding Fathers

Other countries don't seem to view the U.S. as a "Christian nation" in the same way that conservatives do. Though not exactly empirical, a quick glance at the French and Spanish Wikipedia pages for "Secular State" lists the United States as secular. However, the English-language page of the same category does not list the U.S. under the heading of "Americas". Why do Spanish and French language speakers consider the United States secular, but English-speaking Americans (who make up the majority of Wikipedia contributors/readers) do not?

The obvious problem with this belief is the contradiction that there is actually no reference to God in the Constitution. At all. Many Founding Fathers were not what we could really call Christian today, and much of the influence for the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America came from the Enlightenment, with such heavyweights as John Locke and Voltaire's influence being pretty noticeable. The motto "In God We Trust" actually wasn't added to our currency until the Civil War - much later than the 1780's, wouldn't you say?

This fact - that the United States is not founded on Christian principles, that the separation of church and state in American society is one of the bedrock foundations upon which the country was built - could not be more easier and well-summarized than by this statement in a peace treaty signed between the United States and Tripoli in 1797:

"As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This treaty was signed by President John Adams and ratified by the Senate in a unanimous decision. See, the Founding Fathers knew that the country had first been populated by crazy religious nuts who had fled (re: were kicked out) of their own countries for having insanely different religious views, and they didn't want to see the same kind of massacres, persecution, bigotry, and violence that had marked other countries who had adherents to different religions other than the official state's (check out the French Wars of Religion or the 30 Years' War).

Americans tend to think of the Puritans as noble, God-fearing, humble farmers who bravely traveled across the ocean at the beginning of winter to start a new, fresh life for themselves in America. They were actually kicked out of their home country, England, for being radically different in their views, from where they then fled to the Netherlands, a country known for its liberalness and openness to diversity, upon which they were once again thrown out.

If the United States were to have an official religion, which would it be? The problem with picking "Christianity", is that there are so many different sects of the religion that any single one being picked over another would cause dissidence and chaos amongst those who do not adhere to it. That is why the Founding Fathers knew that America must have a separation of church and state and remain secular.

Many on the Right choose to interpret such basic facts in the wrong way, sometimes even confusing which documents said what. This type of deliberate misconception of basic and fundamental American documents, that form the basis of our government, politics, society, and culture, has been going on for decades, and it needs to stop.

What will help this stop is for people to hear and understand the truth, which not only would educate those who are easily brainwashed (people who believe anything their mentors tell them without forming an opinion for themselves [Conservatives, duh]), but increase the amount of people who are politically active and involved, which is good for our democracy.

Barack Obama, not insane

Luckily, not everyone subscribes to this ludicrous notion concerning our Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Speaking at a press conference in Turkey, President Barack Obama said

"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

How refreshing! How logical! How correct! How idealistic! How... he was vilified by the Right.

It is imperative that the truth be told about American history, especially when in regards to such powerful and fundamental aspects of American life and society. A country that does not know its own history is free to make it up so that it suits them. It does not suit the Right to know that the United States is and has always been a secular nation, and therefore they are attempting to spread a lie so much that it becomes a truth. This cannot and should not happen.

The Democrats Need to Grow A Pair

Obama on election night

The 2008 United States Presidential election witnessed a dramatic upheaval, as the Democratic Party gained majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, not to mention the fact that a northern liberal was elected to the presidency for the first time since John F. Kennedy in 1960. The first-ever African-American president, Barack Obama, had motivated and moved many with his call for change, and change is what the American people clearly wanted after 8 long years of incompetent Republican leadership. Finally, progressive goals could come to fruition with a Congress capable of delivering on what would surely be the president's desires for "change we can believe in".

Early promises and wishful thinking, however, has turned into disappointment as President Obama's first term has gone on. The closing of Guantanamo in one year has yet come to pass. Progress in the Middle East has been slow in coming. Gay rights has taken a backseat to more pressing issues. More troops have been sent to Afghanistan, making the prospect of a sooner-rather-than-later withdrawal a bit more unlikely. Criticism from the Left has not been as harsh as that coming from the Right, but perhaps it should be.

One of the biggest complaints against the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress has been the lack of a public option for the Healthcare Reform Bill. It seems nobody is really that happy with the end result, although the reasons for disgruntlement vary. Some important points can be taken from those polls: 1) Many Americans are woefully ignorant of what the bill actually contains and what it will mean for them; 2) More people think the Democrats than the Republicans would be better for handling of reform of the industry; 3) Most Americans want to see more government involvement in dealing with reform of healthcare; 4) Many Americans feel that the bill did not "go far enough", i.e., they are disappointed over the lack of a public option.

Pro-Healthcare Reform rallies were not loud enough

The dithering and bipartisan pandering to Republican sentiments towards reform allowed the debate to slow down to a crawl, putting into jeopardy of fixing one of the most important issues currently facing the United States. Yes, the bill was eventually passed, and it is not perfect, but better than nothing. However, the manner in which it was watered-down and beaten made many tired of debate, almost killing it before it could become real. Though passage of this bill is meaningful, it is not meaningful enough.

With majorities in both the House and Senate, and a president willing to actively promote and endorse these causes, why did Democrats sink to the Republicans' level and attempt to negotiate with the minority? It is almost undeniable that, if given the same situation, Republicans would have simply rammed through the legislation of their agenda without needing to debate it with the opposition. It's as if Democrats were afraid of wielding their power as the majority. This type of bipartisan-flakery and watering-down is not even unique to the healthcare reform movement. And it's becoming old, really fast.

The Democrats stand on the precipice of enacting actual, meaningful progressive legislation in a country that is still very conservative, overall. This is a gilt-edged chance that may not come again, and so far, the lack of a spine has allowed actual progressive legislation to either be ignored, pushed back, or diluted by a divisive, ignorant, and idea-less opposition.

Which isn't to say that the President and Democrats haven't accomplished anything significant, either. Quite the opposite, actually. One of the biggest controversies (to Republicans, at least), the economic stimulus bill, seems to be working. Obama appears to be pretty popular, generally speaking, and this can only be a good thing for an American president, especially after the depths of anti-Americanism that sprang up while Bush was in office.

Criticism from the Left isn't so much about what has been accomplished (although the lack of a public option was truly heartbreaking) but rather the chance for the potential of meaningful, progressive change to be lost. The Democrats have achieved some goals, but they had and continue to have the ability to do so much more for the betterment of the country. Progressive legislation will always be an uphill battle in a country where the word "liberal" still carries a negative connotation. But this is no time for the Democrats, the president, or progressives to be cowed by their opponents. Rather, the Left needs to stand up, be brazen, be bold, be aggressive and do what they know needs to be done, regardless of criticism or complaints from the other end of the political spectrum. The Democrats have it in their power, they just need to develop a spine, grow a pair, and the benefits will come their way for years to come.

The GOP Should be Ignored

Ever since President Obama's election in 2008, the Republican party has made it quite clear how they feel about pretty much anything he or the Democrats have proposed for legislation. It doesn't matter what the subject is, whether immigration reform, the economic stimulus, healthcare reform, Wall Street/banking reform, energy independence, offshore drilling, etc., whatever the president or the Democrats propose, the GOP will shoot it down.

This type of petulant stubbornness, that whatever the Democrats propose is bad, evil, irresponsible, etc., is something that a 5 year old would do after having their sibling receive a candy bar instead of themselves. If you want to see just how absurd American politics have become, look no further than the recent election in the United Kingdom: the opposition party assumed control of the government, a new Prime Minister was elected, and the three main parties then proceeded to attempt to engage in an actual discourse about how to go about fixing the country's problems. As opposed to the United States, in which the minority party refuses to take part or suggest anything substantive toward a debate about how to lead the country, as well as having several "grass-roots" protests with racial overtone spring up, not to say anything of the negative influence of Fox News broadcasts, and the differences between the adult (the United Kingdom) and child (the United States) becomes quite clear.

The conservative wing in the country has become so warped and polarized that many critics, liberal and conservative alike, are questioning just what has gotten into them. You know the Right are way off their rocker when Glenn Beck (!) calls George W. Bush (!) a progressive.

It's also no coincidence that the amount of lies and slander thrown at President Obama is insanely high, much higher than the amount in 2004 against either John Kerry (a Democrat) or George W. Bush (a Republican). Since they have no facts, no substance, no credibility, and no authentic ideas supporting their criticism of Obama (and there are things you can criticize him for), conservatives have been forced to revert to the lowest level: that of a spurned 14 year old girl whose best friend gets the boy she secretly has a crush on.

The GOP is not content with simply making up lies about their political opponents. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Blatant hypocrisy is so easy to spot with the Republican Party, it's almost not even worth pointing out all of the fallacies and contradictions of their statements. Almost.

Recently, President Obama has received criticism over his handling of the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. How would a Republican president have handled it differently, though? Let's ask Sarah Palin:



Not a single Republican voted for health care reform. Republicans stayed away from voting for the economic stimulus, reigning in Wall Street, or reforming the banking system, and seem intent on filibustering almost every single piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats. If the Republicans refuse to participate in an adult discussion with the Democrats, and are casting absolutely no votes whatsoever towards meaningful reform that has the good of the American people in mind, and with no ideas of their own for how to fix America's problems, and their credibility hanging by a thread due to the influence of Fox News and the outrageously false ramblings of members of the Conservative Right and the Tea Party, the Republican Party is therefore not a part of the political landscape.

It's as if they are not there, and as such, they should be ignored. What they say has no truth or substance, and they refuse to positively contribute to any debate whatsoever. It's as if they are not there, and they should be ignored. With a majority (for the time being) in both the House and the Senate, the Democrats need to use this opportunity to pass meaningful legislation without the participation of the so-called Party of No. Failure to do so will simply give the Republicans an opportunity to emerge from the void that they are currently mired in, which is something the country cannot afford to do.