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!!!!!!!!"

5 comments:

K-Rod said...

"...threatened to re-write the definition..."
That is not a FACT, that is your opinion. You just shot your credibility to heck.

The post oozes with blind adoration of the Obama.

Inherited a political mess? From the Democrats in control of Congress?

"...begun in earnest the hard work..."
Oh please, did you just say it was "hard work" like Bush was criticized for saying?

Putin is playing with Obama like a cat plays with a mouse.

North Korea just flipped Obama the bird. Obama's response is to run to the UN and give a "stern" talk.
NK = 1
Obama = 0

"I may not agree with all of his stances"
B.S.
Please inform your readers.
We would love to hear some criticism and skepticism from you toward Obama.

Let's hope the Obama Depression has bottomed out.

Barack "global regime" Obama blinked when North Korea tested him.

A little intellectual honesty is needed along with that "strategic" patience.

K-Rod said...

President Obama is adding to our debt at a rate of $8 trillion in one term.

Ouch!

Reponse?

//*crickets*//

Hasslington said...

I see that our friend the "Guidant Missile" is back....

Well, regarding our debt, we took a substantial surplus and turned it into a giant deficit under President Bush, in large part due to big tax cuts without comparable spending cuts, coordinated largely by the national Republican leadership. That was irresponsible (and it hardly seems to have done the trick insofar as our long-term economy is concerned).

At present, I suppose that we could cut back on spending in order to work on the deficit today, and in turn watch jobs continue to evaporate in huge numbers over the next couple of years. (Let's face it--that's what would happen initially.) This would most likely protract the recession scenario both here and abroad.

Or we could add to the deficit in order to try to save some jobs, but put ourselves in a deeper deficit hole as a result.

For anyone with eyes to see and the willingness to tear themselves away from their political ideology for a moment (many bloggers cannot or will not do the latter), both potential pathways are clearly flawed. Yet we need to go in one direction or the other for the time being, or our economic ship will just keep leaking water in a lethargic manner.

For his part, the president has chosen the latter path, and in addition he has coordinated with other world leaders in an effort to display the fact that this is indeed an international economic problem. Okay, it's a start, symbolically and otherwise.

I'm not certain that the present domestic spending plan is a great one--I'm still wary about the overall price of the package--but I do agree that rather desperate times call for coordinated efforts (in which the government must play an active role), at both the domestic and international levels. So I appreciate the president's efforts and resolve.

Now, this response will surely prompt about a dozen angry, rapid-fire responses from our friend K-Rod. So, in an effort to avoid that, I simply thank him/her for the incredible devotion he/she so often shows to this blog-site, and suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

By the way, the "crickets" bit (above) is characteristically childish. Some of us have jobs during which we cannot sit at computers and share our personal angst in the form of political one-upmanship with other angry people all day long, you see.... Hence, as would stand to reason, responses must sometimes wait.

But, then again, that bit was surely inserted in order to provoke a response, which it has done, so I have to give a certain amount of credit where it's due....

K-Rod said...

Let me cut through the clutter and find the meat.

"I'm not certain that the present domestic spending plan is a great one"
Really? So you're not 100% "certain" Obama's addition of trillions of dollars to the debt is "great".

Is that all of the substitive response to the two comments above?

Will we ever hear some criticism and skepticism from you toward Obama?

Hasslington said...

K-Rod / "Guidant Missile" :

1.) I just wrote about my wariness regarding the totality of the present spending package. That quite obviously suggests that I am not fully comfortable with everything the president has done to this point. Also obvious is the fact that no one need adhere to your bizarrely-obsessive dictate to criticize the president to the exact extent that you wish them to. It's fine for you to think he's a "pinko commie" (or some other such slogan), but one need not do that in order to disagree with the president. And simply because someone disagrees with many of your clever-but-Hardy-Boys-era-antique points, it does not mean that they are "crazy" or "wrong." Really.

2.) Overall, I believe that the president's long-term geo-political strategies are more in keeping with an obviously-shrinking, obviously-internationalizing world than your alternative suggestions. Anyone who has spent any time outside of the U.S. (not on vacation; but rather substantive, working time) knows that the rest of the world is very, very rapidly changing and is now very ready to compete with America if it remains insular and one-note in a number of areas, both domestic and foreign in nature. Altering the American paradigm to a more internationalist mindset is the only way to ensure long-term feasibility to U.S. power; it's the only way to protract it. Any talking-points-heavy economic theories, shorn of international context, is to my mind work that is half-done and very nearly useless for 2009.

3.) The entirety of my earlier response above was indeed substantive. It simply wasn't substantive in the exact way you wish it to be, which perhaps suggests personal myopia derived from a certain amount of personal angst. (For context, your trillion single-day comments on Mr. Penigma's site recently suggests a certain lack of decorum.)

4.) Thank you for your comments. You are creepy in your insistence on waves of comments, but I admit that you do possess genuine intelligence. Hence, I have published some of your comments (except the ones you wrote as "Anonymous" a while back, a few of which were borderline mentally-ill). Now I suggest that you perhaps save up some money and take a lengthy working trip outside of the country. For context, you know.