Here are two recent comments I posted on my friend Flash's "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/). They have to do with the "War On Terror" moniker, which I despise, even though I agree with eliminating al Qaeda as best we can. I reproduce them here (with a few corrections for clarity, as I initially wrote and posted them quite quicky) in order to document where I stand with regards to this on-going issue.
First, here are two notes regarding what I wrote:
1.) In COMMENT #1, I put "BIG SPENDERS" in all-caps because that's one of the accusations being leveled by some people at President Obama, even though the Iraq War, for instance, has required enormous payments of both American blood and American taxpayer money.
2.) The point of view is mine, which is to say that of one American citizen, so when I say "we" I am often referring to the United States.
And now, here are the comments....
COMMENT #1
I'd be more willing to consider a given argument about how to combat the dangers of the modern world if we all finally dropped the "War On Terror" title and got more specific regarding who and/or what we are fighting.
Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.
For example, when one attempts to "shock and awe" (as we did in Iraq) one is attempting to terrify, among other things. When one flies a plane into a building (as the al Qaeda terrorists did in New York), one is attempting to terrify, among other things.
Hence, terror is a strategic tactic that can be used for several purposes, good or bad. I obviously support our use of it when it makes sense, and I obviously disapprove of al Qaeda's use of it always.
But keeping this naive title "War On Terror" (which is so unspecific that it hasn't worked with public opinion outside of the U.S.) is what creates the sort of mass mental fuzziness that allowed the Bush Administration to conduct a war in Afghanistan as well as a war in Iraq.
The Afghan fight is the right one, and ought to be supported, whereas we mumbled ourselves into the Iraq fight by attaching it to this generalized "War On Terror."
If we are meant to fight actual, identifiable groups of radical Islamic terrorists (and those inspired by such groups), then let's always be specific about it and drop the junior-high "War On Terror" sloganeering. Thankfully, the Obama Administration seems to be moving in a direction that requires more specificity in these regards.
If we'd have done that before, maybe we'd have focused better on necessary targets and avoided being such BIG SPENDERS by attaching expensive wars of choice (Iraq) to necessary existing wars (Afghanistan).
COMMENT #2
"War On Terror" is so diffuse that it allows for multi-trillion-dollar wars of choice (Iraq) to be grouped in a general way with actual, necessary wars (Afghanistan).
Why is it that a lot of folks on the political right will complain (often legitimately) about the lack of specificity in domestic spending proposals, but are nonetheless happy to endlessly fund unspecific notions in the foreign policy arena, even though several such unspecific notions (leveraged with bogus discussions of patriotism) have proven to be incredibly costly, in more ways than one?
(The Iraq War and its aftermath, as it turns out, is more expensive than the domestic stimulus package. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has slid to the back-burner ever since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and as a result is at present a mess.)
I also disagree with this antique notion that suggests those who take issue with the knee-jerk conservative stance regarding this debate are somehow "worried about what others think more than what is good for America." I find that argument to be binary and overly-simplistic.
Let's wake up and smell the coffee, folks. Of late, more specificity (something like "...we are currently going after al Qaeda cells and groups inspired by them in the following countries/regions, and might expand that later, hopefully in careful consultation with other nations, if logic dictates it...") and less generality (encapsulated by such titles as "War On Terror," which sounds like a ride at Disneyland, along the lines of "Pirates of the Caribbean") has resulted in increased European pledges of military support for the Afghanistan scenario since President Obama took office. That seems like good, old-fashioned American pragmatism to me.
The reality is this: we're not always right, and neither are our allies. For instance, many of them should have gotten on-board the Afghan fight earlier, to be sure. But a lot of them were put-off by our subsequent sojourn into Iraq and by President Bush's incessant use of the term "War On Terror." (Hearing that, many wondered just what other country was the next to be invaded, and therefore wondered just what they might be getting involved with.) They were often petulant and condescending, which was annoying, but we were often naive and callow, which wasn't helpful, either.
Recent history suggests that others are sometimes willing to help in such endeavors when they are given specifics and are lent an ear, so to speak. Yet they tend to be unwilling to get caught up in expensive fights where reality is replaced with fuzzy sloganeering, even if the fight might be the right one.
So, the question we are left with seems to be this one: are we to continue projecting a self-aggrandizing and reductively righteous motif, which might leave us fighting alone? Or are we to show a bit of flexibility with our allies, and probably have more teammates with which to work, even if we are annoyed by them sometimes and only get 90% of what we want, instead of 100%?
Before we answer that, let's consider this: in the coming years, this will become an increasingly multi-polar world. This means that we are going to have to be increasingly savvy in an international context. That's not a liberal thing to say, or a conservative thing to say. That just IS.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Cultural Trends That May Or May Not Be Suggestive Of Something More Significant
Mrs. Hasslington and I agree on these Anglo-American cultural trends:
In England, if you are new in town, hardly anyone will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but a lot of people are happy to talk to you in the local pubs.
In Minnesota, if you are new in town, a lot of people will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but hardly anyone will talk to you in the local pubs.
In England, if you are new in town, hardly anyone will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but a lot of people are happy to talk to you in the local pubs.
In Minnesota, if you are new in town, a lot of people will say hello to you as you walk down the street, but hardly anyone will talk to you in the local pubs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Democrats Are On A Roll, But Will They Overstep Themselves?
At a national level, the Democrats are on a roll right now--electorally and legislatively--and the Republicans are struggling to find their footing. The power vacuum in the Republican party is pretty bad, to the point where Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are helping to fill in insofar as voices of the "party leadership" are concerned. John McCain's run as Republican party leader fizzled, Sarah Palin is considered untenable to a solid majority of the American people in just about any national poll conducted of late, Mitt Romney is a fake conservative with fake hair; the situation looks dire for the Republican party....
This kind of reminds me of when the economy recovered its footing in late-1983/early-1984.
Back then, the left-wing of the Democratic party seemed almost completely out of gas, because momentum had been clearly wrenched away from them, largely by President Reagan. (The center-right at that time was happy with Reagan, and the center-left wasn't exactly stirred to anger about him.) The difference is that back then the Democrats still had the likes of Tip O'Neill and company to steady things a bit....
Bringing the discussion back to the present, a similar phenomenon seems to be happening now, though this time the right-wing of the Republican party seems to be running on fumes, and their disapproving reactions to the president's job performance, whether occasionally legitimate or not, often sound somewhat desperate and petulant as a result.
I should point out that the above scenario is not the case with every right-winger, but rather a general trend. It seems to me that the lack of a charismatic, steady, electorally-intriguing conservative leader--or a few of them--is likely part of this problem. The Republican party faithful are wandering in the desert, looking for a few people to voice their concerns, and they're getting frustrated as the weeks slip by without that person or those persons being found.
For their part, most of those in what might be called the political "center" of the country (an always important group of people whose numbers seem to be expanding) aren't at present nit-picking with regards to the president. Instead, they're taking the whole domestic/foreign political picture into account, and have thus far largely decided the following: 1.) they kind of like the president, and 2.) at any rate, they think he's an improvement on the last guy. To be sure, they're not thrilled with everything the president has done, but they seem to be quite content with a lot of it.
Yet we are, of course, talking about politics here, so things are certainly not guaranteed to stay this way. But given the rough first two or three months both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush had with a substantial percentage of the American public (particularly President Clinton, whose unpopularity lasted through the 1994 mid-term elections), I'm left rather impressed by the steady start President Obama has had. I am therefore presently glad that I voted for him.
We'll have to wait and see if the president's seemingly centrist-friendly start has staying power. And we'll also have to wait and see if the Democrats overstep themselves legislatively at the congressional level, which they are quite capable of doing with leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, who seems to have set her mind on pushing a whole lot of legislation through congress over the next year or two. That latter possibility--congressional overstep--is at this point the bigger possible danger to the idea of the inclusive, "big tent" national Democratic party.
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John Thune (of South Dakota), who is in his late-forties, is waiting in a very quiet and patient manner in the middle of the presently chaotic Republican leadership queue, so to speak. I get the sense that a few years from now he will emerge much closer to the front. Everyone--Democrat and Republican--would be well-served to keep an eye on him. He could make a run at the #2 spot on a not-too-future presidential ticket. Or the #1 spot....
This kind of reminds me of when the economy recovered its footing in late-1983/early-1984.
Back then, the left-wing of the Democratic party seemed almost completely out of gas, because momentum had been clearly wrenched away from them, largely by President Reagan. (The center-right at that time was happy with Reagan, and the center-left wasn't exactly stirred to anger about him.) The difference is that back then the Democrats still had the likes of Tip O'Neill and company to steady things a bit....
Bringing the discussion back to the present, a similar phenomenon seems to be happening now, though this time the right-wing of the Republican party seems to be running on fumes, and their disapproving reactions to the president's job performance, whether occasionally legitimate or not, often sound somewhat desperate and petulant as a result.
I should point out that the above scenario is not the case with every right-winger, but rather a general trend. It seems to me that the lack of a charismatic, steady, electorally-intriguing conservative leader--or a few of them--is likely part of this problem. The Republican party faithful are wandering in the desert, looking for a few people to voice their concerns, and they're getting frustrated as the weeks slip by without that person or those persons being found.
For their part, most of those in what might be called the political "center" of the country (an always important group of people whose numbers seem to be expanding) aren't at present nit-picking with regards to the president. Instead, they're taking the whole domestic/foreign political picture into account, and have thus far largely decided the following: 1.) they kind of like the president, and 2.) at any rate, they think he's an improvement on the last guy. To be sure, they're not thrilled with everything the president has done, but they seem to be quite content with a lot of it.
Yet we are, of course, talking about politics here, so things are certainly not guaranteed to stay this way. But given the rough first two or three months both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush had with a substantial percentage of the American public (particularly President Clinton, whose unpopularity lasted through the 1994 mid-term elections), I'm left rather impressed by the steady start President Obama has had. I am therefore presently glad that I voted for him.
We'll have to wait and see if the president's seemingly centrist-friendly start has staying power. And we'll also have to wait and see if the Democrats overstep themselves legislatively at the congressional level, which they are quite capable of doing with leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, who seems to have set her mind on pushing a whole lot of legislation through congress over the next year or two. That latter possibility--congressional overstep--is at this point the bigger possible danger to the idea of the inclusive, "big tent" national Democratic party.
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John Thune (of South Dakota), who is in his late-forties, is waiting in a very quiet and patient manner in the middle of the presently chaotic Republican leadership queue, so to speak. I get the sense that a few years from now he will emerge much closer to the front. Everyone--Democrat and Republican--would be well-served to keep an eye on him. He could make a run at the #2 spot on a not-too-future presidential ticket. Or the #1 spot....
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Have You Read It In Its Entirety? Really?
I'm a teacher. (I've taught at the junior high, high school, and university levels in the U.S. and the U.K.)
Regarding the suggestion that certain books should be banned from libraries, school curriculums, etc., it has been my experience that this type of debate usually comes down to two general groups of people.
The first group is composed of folks who wish to ban the book in question, whatever that book happens to be. If you push them on the subject, one discovers that most of these folks have not read the book they wish to ban--or they have read only certain excepts which, shorn of context, can be used to argue for just about any agenda, political or otherwise.
The second group is generally composed of folks who have read the entire book in question and, regardless of whether they "like" it or not, do not want the book to be banned.
So far in my career, I've always been in the second group; it would have to be a very, very odd situation indeed for me to stand with the first group. Yet what I cannot imagine ever doing is making a decision one way or the other regarding a particular book without first having read it carefully and in its entirety, away from those who would like to whisper their agendas in my ear.
Friday, April 10, 2009
2009 Baseball Interlude, #1: Delmon Young Or Jason Kubel (Or Both) Could Tip Things One Way Or The Other For The Minnesota Twins This Year
If forced to choose, I would say that pitching and fielding is often slightly more important than hitting and run-scoring in baseball, which I consider the greatest of all sports.
That being said, I am going to make an exception this year when it comes to what may or may not make the ultimate difference for my hometown Minnesota Twins. So, here goes: if either outfielder Delmon Young or designated hitter/outfielder Jason Kubel has a breakout season, the Minnesota Twins will most likely make it to the playoffs this coming October. If neither of them distinguishes himself from his past accomplishments, the Twins probably won't make the playoffs.
For Delmon Young, this might mean a .300 average, 15 or more home runs, and 80+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .280+ average, 18+ home runs, and about 90 RBI or therabouts.
For Jason Kubel, this might mean a .290 average, 20+ home runs, and 90+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .275+ average, 25 or so home runs, and 90+ RBI.
These two players have great potential, but up to this point they have yet to fulfill expectations. Still, they're both relatively young (especially Delmon Young, who is still under the age of 25), and they both are presently healthy. I'd love to see both of them step it up a notch or two this baseball season, but this is not a perfect world. Hence, I'd be happy if one of these two players has a very good season at the plate.
With a hopefully healthy Joe Mauer (.328 last season) joining Justin Morneau (129 RBI last season) and company in the Twins line-up a few weeks from now, the team will most likely be in the playoff mix throughout the 2009 baseball season. (Obviously, the pitching staff also needs to do well in order for the team to compete.) So if Delmon Young or Jason Kubel can add to this mix by providing consistent pop at the plate, the Twins' chances look good. If not....
Delmon Young: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6138
Jason Kubel: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6102
That being said, I am going to make an exception this year when it comes to what may or may not make the ultimate difference for my hometown Minnesota Twins. So, here goes: if either outfielder Delmon Young or designated hitter/outfielder Jason Kubel has a breakout season, the Minnesota Twins will most likely make it to the playoffs this coming October. If neither of them distinguishes himself from his past accomplishments, the Twins probably won't make the playoffs.
For Delmon Young, this might mean a .300 average, 15 or more home runs, and 80+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .280+ average, 18+ home runs, and about 90 RBI or therabouts.
For Jason Kubel, this might mean a .290 average, 20+ home runs, and 90+ RBI. Alternatively, it might mean a .275+ average, 25 or so home runs, and 90+ RBI.
These two players have great potential, but up to this point they have yet to fulfill expectations. Still, they're both relatively young (especially Delmon Young, who is still under the age of 25), and they both are presently healthy. I'd love to see both of them step it up a notch or two this baseball season, but this is not a perfect world. Hence, I'd be happy if one of these two players has a very good season at the plate.
With a hopefully healthy Joe Mauer (.328 last season) joining Justin Morneau (129 RBI last season) and company in the Twins line-up a few weeks from now, the team will most likely be in the playoff mix throughout the 2009 baseball season. (Obviously, the pitching staff also needs to do well in order for the team to compete.) So if Delmon Young or Jason Kubel can add to this mix by providing consistent pop at the plate, the Twins' chances look good. If not....
Delmon Young: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6138
Jason Kubel: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6102
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Hasslington Blog-Site Turns One Year Old; also, A Comment On Comments
ONE YEAR OF BLOGGING HAS ENDED AND ANOTHER ONE HAS BEGUN....
Yesterday, this blog-site had its first birthday, though I was too caught up in the Minnesota Twins baseball game to write a post about this milestone. (The Twins won, by the way.)
This whole experiment is still a work in progress, which I consider a good thing in that it has allowed me to post my thoughts regarding a range of topics--political, cultural, and otherwise--as opposed to staying focused on one particular area of personal interest. It has also allowed me to experiment with post lengths and posting frequency, a process of evolution that I am by no means finished exploring.
So what might Hasslington's second year have in store as far as the look, feel, and content of this blog-site are concerned? At this point, I'm not sure. So stay tuned.
COMMENTS ARE WELCOME BUT WILL NOW BE SCREENED; THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
From this point forward, all comments written on the Hasslington blog-site will be read and approved (by me) before being posted, due to the fact that I have banned one individual from posting comments here.
This is the first instance in which I have banned someone from commenting on this site, and I hope that it is the only instance in which such a "banning" occurs from this point on. (This particular individual has been banned from at least one other site in the last couple of months, though that didn't make the decision any easier, since I'm generally wary of taking such an action.)
If readers wish to challenge, refute, and/or question anything I have to say--or if they wish to agree with, affirm, and/or extrapolate upon what I say--the comments section will remain open and welcome to your thoughts. It's simply the case that I will read what you have to say prior to it being posted, which will require a little more patience on your part.
I don't anticipate having to ban future comments from anyone who wishes to engage in a substantive exchange of ideas that are displayed in a challenging but mature manner, because that seems to me to be the basis of a healthy debate. What I won't accept are comments characterized by an overly smarmy, juvenile tone and designed mainly to start the internet equivalent of a playground fight.
(For context, 175-or-so comments were posted on this site during 2008, though some of them were my responses to comments left by Hasslington readers. None of those comments were erased by me, and only a few of them were erased by the authors of those comments themselves.)
Yesterday, this blog-site had its first birthday, though I was too caught up in the Minnesota Twins baseball game to write a post about this milestone. (The Twins won, by the way.)
This whole experiment is still a work in progress, which I consider a good thing in that it has allowed me to post my thoughts regarding a range of topics--political, cultural, and otherwise--as opposed to staying focused on one particular area of personal interest. It has also allowed me to experiment with post lengths and posting frequency, a process of evolution that I am by no means finished exploring.
So what might Hasslington's second year have in store as far as the look, feel, and content of this blog-site are concerned? At this point, I'm not sure. So stay tuned.
COMMENTS ARE WELCOME BUT WILL NOW BE SCREENED; THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
From this point forward, all comments written on the Hasslington blog-site will be read and approved (by me) before being posted, due to the fact that I have banned one individual from posting comments here.
This is the first instance in which I have banned someone from commenting on this site, and I hope that it is the only instance in which such a "banning" occurs from this point on. (This particular individual has been banned from at least one other site in the last couple of months, though that didn't make the decision any easier, since I'm generally wary of taking such an action.)
If readers wish to challenge, refute, and/or question anything I have to say--or if they wish to agree with, affirm, and/or extrapolate upon what I say--the comments section will remain open and welcome to your thoughts. It's simply the case that I will read what you have to say prior to it being posted, which will require a little more patience on your part.
I don't anticipate having to ban future comments from anyone who wishes to engage in a substantive exchange of ideas that are displayed in a challenging but mature manner, because that seems to me to be the basis of a healthy debate. What I won't accept are comments characterized by an overly smarmy, juvenile tone and designed mainly to start the internet equivalent of a playground fight.
(For context, 175-or-so comments were posted on this site during 2008, though some of them were my responses to comments left by Hasslington readers. None of those comments were erased by me, and only a few of them were erased by the authors of those comments themselves.)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
This Is What Happens When Bloggers Are Interested In Nothing Outside Of The Blog-O-Sphere....
FACT:
Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were relatively poor for the majority of his early time in office, up to and including the 1982 mid-term election cycle. (The obvious exception to this is the brief period of time after he was shot and was recovering in the hospital.) Yet he went on to become a two-term president who today is admired by a majority of American citizens.
FACT:
Bill Clinton's first two years in the White House were wildly uneven, and his approval ratings were in the toilet up to, including, and just after the 1994 mid-term elections, which saw a Republican wave sweep into the U.S. congress. Yet he left office with high approval ratings, and is seen as a successful president by a majority of Americans today.
FACT:
Other than the period of time just after September 11, 2001--and around and just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003--George W. Bush's approval ratings were either fairly poor, poor, or so poor they threatened to re-write the definition of "poor U.S. presidential approval ratings." He left office to a worldwide sigh of relief.
OBSERVATION:
Despite the aforementioned historical context, internet blog-sites seem to be abuzz with one complaint after the next about President Obama's job performance. Take a stroll through the right-wing blogs and you would think that the president has caused all of America's problems single-handedly and with "liberal malice" in his heart. Take a stroll through the left-wing blogs and you would think that the president has joined the Bush dynasty and declared an all-out war on nearly every "important goal" of the Democratic party.
OPINION:
Settle down everyone (especially, but certainly not only, Glenn Beck-like, emotional tantrum-throwers on both sides of the political spectrum, all of whom might benefit from a bit of international travel and study, as well as a lot of historical perspective, in order to acquire what adult thinkers call "context"). This president inherited an enormous political mess, in both the domestic and international arenas--the latter arena being the one which I would argue is even more important than the former, since this is an increasingly international world more than a domestic and/or provincial one.
In two-and-a-half months in office, President Obama has begun to calmly and systematically steady our international relations (often using capable surrogates such as Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Special Envoy George Mitchell, amongst others). His administration has, for instance, begun in earnest the hard work necessary to renew old alliances (such as those with our European allies, as well as Australia, Canada, etc., etc.) in ways that tend to be both more flexible and more sustainably strategic than the often outdated geo-strategic models employed by the Bush administration.
The president has also worked to begin to repair relations with countries that could cause us and our allies headaches (such as Russia) and could tip the balance-of-power equation (Russia; India) in an increasingly multi-polar world. Far from working counter to U.S. interests, this mindset could eventually better position the U.S. to lead in both "new" and "old" ways in what is obviously an increasingly complicated global power structure. (And it would not hurt to have Russia and India, for example, as solid allies.)
He has extended "olive branches" that are incentive-laden (initially in a necessarily general sense, which over time will become increasingly specific, once talks commence in earnest) with adversaries of the U.S. with whom some diplomatic progress may make a difference in the long run (Iran; North Korea; very moderate Taliban groups). At the same time, he has renewed U.S. commitment to opposing vociferously those adversaries of the U.S. with whom diplomatic progress would be impossible and/or counter-productive (al Qaeda; hard-line Taliban groups; etc.).
In the midst of an enormous Western-world credit problem, due in large part to "affluenza" (the economic influenza, characterized by awful investment decisions, brought about by sudden and meteoric amounts of affluence purchased on credit), the president has vowed to work in both a national and international context to address the issue on a number of fronts. I may not agree with all of his stances insofar as this very complicated situation is concerned, but I do very much agree with him that outdated energy procurement, use, and security paradigms will have to be addressed (along with health care costs, etc.) in order to soften the economic drag when the U.S. and world economies begin to recover.
(For one example amongst many, just wait until the presently low petroleum prices shoot sky-ward again when the developed and developing worlds recover from this economic downturn and, say, India, which has recently been introduced to its new, cheap car, demands more and more and more oil each month...as does China, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.... Drill, baby, drill all you want--that will not cover the difference in lost fuel resources for Westerners in a world in which billions more people demand transportation and fuel. As far as that's concerned, it's time for Americans, for instance, to think like Americans again and actually innovate in a creative manner by diversifying the energy portfolio so that petroleum is one of many different, equally-utilized fuel options.)
But very little of this seems to matter to a lot of "dedicated bloggers." To them, the president sucks, just like his predecessor sucked, just like his predecessor sucked, just like.... Hey, folks, this president is nowhere near perfect, and he is going to stumble from time to time, but he's a hell of a lot better than the myopic fellow who proceeded him in that office, which in and of itself is a reason to smile. Besides, this president actually seems to take the long-view on a fairly consistent basis (see my international comments, above). I consider this a good thing, though many bloggers--who seem to suffer acutely from a massive lack of attention-span capacity--don't think likewise.
They ought to turn their computers off (for once) and read a book in order to calm down and learn the art of strategic patience. It's what I try to do as often as possible, and what I will do once I'm done composing this message.
NOTE FOR TWITTER USERS:
For those who love to use Twitter, the above posting is condensed to the following:
"OMG! its gr8 2 put yer randum tweets away 4 a wile! no 1 cares much anyway! LOL!!!!!!!!"
Ronald Reagan's approval ratings were relatively poor for the majority of his early time in office, up to and including the 1982 mid-term election cycle. (The obvious exception to this is the brief period of time after he was shot and was recovering in the hospital.) Yet he went on to become a two-term president who today is admired by a majority of American citizens.
FACT:
Bill Clinton's first two years in the White House were wildly uneven, and his approval ratings were in the toilet up to, including, and just after the 1994 mid-term elections, which saw a Republican wave sweep into the U.S. congress. Yet he left office with high approval ratings, and is seen as a successful president by a majority of Americans today.
FACT:
Other than the period of time just after September 11, 2001--and around and just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003--George W. Bush's approval ratings were either fairly poor, poor, or so poor they threatened to re-write the definition of "poor U.S. presidential approval ratings." He left office to a worldwide sigh of relief.
OBSERVATION:
Despite the aforementioned historical context, internet blog-sites seem to be abuzz with one complaint after the next about President Obama's job performance. Take a stroll through the right-wing blogs and you would think that the president has caused all of America's problems single-handedly and with "liberal malice" in his heart. Take a stroll through the left-wing blogs and you would think that the president has joined the Bush dynasty and declared an all-out war on nearly every "important goal" of the Democratic party.
OPINION:
Settle down everyone (especially, but certainly not only, Glenn Beck-like, emotional tantrum-throwers on both sides of the political spectrum, all of whom might benefit from a bit of international travel and study, as well as a lot of historical perspective, in order to acquire what adult thinkers call "context"). This president inherited an enormous political mess, in both the domestic and international arenas--the latter arena being the one which I would argue is even more important than the former, since this is an increasingly international world more than a domestic and/or provincial one.
In two-and-a-half months in office, President Obama has begun to calmly and systematically steady our international relations (often using capable surrogates such as Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Special Envoy George Mitchell, amongst others). His administration has, for instance, begun in earnest the hard work necessary to renew old alliances (such as those with our European allies, as well as Australia, Canada, etc., etc.) in ways that tend to be both more flexible and more sustainably strategic than the often outdated geo-strategic models employed by the Bush administration.
The president has also worked to begin to repair relations with countries that could cause us and our allies headaches (such as Russia) and could tip the balance-of-power equation (Russia; India) in an increasingly multi-polar world. Far from working counter to U.S. interests, this mindset could eventually better position the U.S. to lead in both "new" and "old" ways in what is obviously an increasingly complicated global power structure. (And it would not hurt to have Russia and India, for example, as solid allies.)
He has extended "olive branches" that are incentive-laden (initially in a necessarily general sense, which over time will become increasingly specific, once talks commence in earnest) with adversaries of the U.S. with whom some diplomatic progress may make a difference in the long run (Iran; North Korea; very moderate Taliban groups). At the same time, he has renewed U.S. commitment to opposing vociferously those adversaries of the U.S. with whom diplomatic progress would be impossible and/or counter-productive (al Qaeda; hard-line Taliban groups; etc.).
In the midst of an enormous Western-world credit problem, due in large part to "affluenza" (the economic influenza, characterized by awful investment decisions, brought about by sudden and meteoric amounts of affluence purchased on credit), the president has vowed to work in both a national and international context to address the issue on a number of fronts. I may not agree with all of his stances insofar as this very complicated situation is concerned, but I do very much agree with him that outdated energy procurement, use, and security paradigms will have to be addressed (along with health care costs, etc.) in order to soften the economic drag when the U.S. and world economies begin to recover.
(For one example amongst many, just wait until the presently low petroleum prices shoot sky-ward again when the developed and developing worlds recover from this economic downturn and, say, India, which has recently been introduced to its new, cheap car, demands more and more and more oil each month...as does China, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.... Drill, baby, drill all you want--that will not cover the difference in lost fuel resources for Westerners in a world in which billions more people demand transportation and fuel. As far as that's concerned, it's time for Americans, for instance, to think like Americans again and actually innovate in a creative manner by diversifying the energy portfolio so that petroleum is one of many different, equally-utilized fuel options.)
But very little of this seems to matter to a lot of "dedicated bloggers." To them, the president sucks, just like his predecessor sucked, just like his predecessor sucked, just like.... Hey, folks, this president is nowhere near perfect, and he is going to stumble from time to time, but he's a hell of a lot better than the myopic fellow who proceeded him in that office, which in and of itself is a reason to smile. Besides, this president actually seems to take the long-view on a fairly consistent basis (see my international comments, above). I consider this a good thing, though many bloggers--who seem to suffer acutely from a massive lack of attention-span capacity--don't think likewise.
They ought to turn their computers off (for once) and read a book in order to calm down and learn the art of strategic patience. It's what I try to do as often as possible, and what I will do once I'm done composing this message.
NOTE FOR TWITTER USERS:
For those who love to use Twitter, the above posting is condensed to the following:
"OMG! its gr8 2 put yer randum tweets away 4 a wile! no 1 cares much anyway! LOL!!!!!!!!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)