Over the summer, students at Prospect find themselves engaged in a multitude of activities: band, athletics, summer school, summer reading, and of course, leisure pursuits.
Now, even though high school students are notorious for their busy schedules, it would seem logical that the President of the United States would be busier. But looking back at what the chief executive has been doing over the past three months suggests otherwise, at least in terms of successful, beneficial legislation.
One thing is for certain: though he might not have been legislatively successful, the President, unlike many prospect students, did his summer reading. On his weeklong vacation, he brought a total of five books totaling some 2,300 pages. So at least he did that.
After the electoral events of last year, I was dreading the summertime. After all, what better time of year for major ideological shifts than when students are on vacation, and the sun is shining? As the old adage goes, “idle hands are the devil’s playground.” But alas, I was wrong. The shift to liberalism that seemed so imminent as a result of Obama’s election never came to pass. This made me think: with the effusion of public support for Mr. Obama and his “gospel of change” one would imagine that people would be flocking to the far Left like lemmings to their demise.
However, a Gallup poll in August of this year found 40 percent of Americans described their political views as “conservative,” while only 21 percent as “liberal”. According to an August 2009 Gallup, Obama’s job approval rating is 50 percent. Additionally, Gallup discovered that Americans, by a surprisingly staunch two-to-one margin, say their political views in recent years have become, if anything, more conservative than liberal.
It seems to me like we’re dealing with a very average president here, not the earth-shattering, messiah figure that will bring “balance to the force” of American and global politics. But then, the polls could be deceiving us, as they sometimes have.
So, let’s look at what Mr. Obama has accomplished over the last several months. His main concern, legislation to revamp the health-care system, is having major difficulty getting anywhere on Capitol Hill. He wanted the both the House and Senate to support massive, all-encompassing healthcare bills by early August. That didn’t happen. The House Energy and Commerce Committee managed to attain an unstable compromise on one version of the bill several weeks ago, and the Senate Finance Committee seems to be moving in the direction of coming to a consensus. More and more, the Obama plan seems to mirror the ill-fated healthcare designs of Mr. Clinton in 1994. Will history repeat itself? Will this bill, like Clinton’s, brand Obama as a “big government liberal,” and cause the plan to fall flat on its face? Only time will tell.
However the fact remains that Congress is still far behind the timetable that Mr. Obama sanguinely established earlier this year. That’s strike one: healthcare.
On April 4, 2009 the president attended the NATO Conference in Strasbourg in an effort to garner allied support for “pursuing the growing threat to American security” in the Middle East. This region, specifically the extremely volatile Afghan-Pakistani border area, has become a major aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. Not only is this expanse a threat, but it represents an area that the United States is vulnerable against and in which the President is having (as several presidents have) trouble securing allied support.
Since his presidency began, Obama’s mantra seems to be establishing a perdurable and certainly pro-U.S. regime in Afghanistan. In order to accomplish this, the man who promised an abatement of U.S. forces in the Middle East and an end to “excessive military spending” has proclaimed that more troops (over 21,000) will be sent overseas and an additional $80 billion supplement to the previous $750 billion allotted to the pentagon.
In addition to squeezing this money out of congress (and by that same token, out of our pockets) the President has also pursued an insistent policy of pressuring our European and Asian allies for sizeable additions of combat troops and monetary support. At the April NATO conference, sadly, Mr. Obama’s propositions were trenchantly rebuffed. A swing and a miss on foreign policy: that’s strike two.
In regard to the economic crisis, Mr. Obama has warned us “If we don’t act immediately, millions more jobs will be lost, and national unemployment rates will approach double digits.” To this rather grim admonition, National Review simply responded “We acted immediately. Millions more jobs were lost. National unemployment rates are approaching double digits.”
The problem that we are running into with the economy is the same one that Herbert Hoover had to deal with when the stock market collapsed in 1929. Hoover, whose economic policy (along with Coolidge’s) is arguably the best this nation has every seen, was made to look “uninterested” and “uncaring” by his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
To the Keynesian Roosevelt and his liberal supporters, Hoover’s policy of non governmental interference with business during the economic crisis (particularly Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s “Leave it Alone” approach) and the business volunteer initiatives that he endorsed were not enough. Roosevelt took it to the other extreme, initiating what some might call “socialist” policies.
Despite the enormous public appeal of Roosevelt at the beginning of his presidency (which Mr. Obama also enjoyed) unemployment began to rise once more as the years of Roosevelt’s presidency progressed. At one point, then Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau announced, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”
The so-called job creation program instituted by FDR in 1936 was an illusion. Colossal government spending does not, nor has it ever has created employment opportunities or economic stability in the long term. With the onset of World War Two, the economy was restored to health and it seemed as though it was Roosevelt who was responsible, not the massive demand for war material.
With $2.2 trillion already spent on bailouts and another $11.5 trillion allocated for more bailouts, one would think that Mr. Obama might pause and consider the philosophies of Mellon and Hoover. We are presented with a great opportunity: the decline of the economy has acted as an “Economic Social Darwinism” eliminating individuals and businesses from the market that could not withstand poor market conditions, and were thus weak.
We have an opportunity to shape our economy into something more powerful than it was before, if we would follow Mellon’s plan of cutting the top income tax rate, cutting taxes on low incomes, and reducing the Federal Estate Tax. But sadly, this will never happen. So that’s strike three, Mr. Obama. You’re out.
But we as American citizens are not out of the game: we can do our part to improve the economic wellbeing of our nation by involving ourselves in worthwhile economic ventures like investing in the stock market (supporting businesses) which will be beneficial in the long run, rather than donating to charity (supporting individuals) that will have no impact in the long term. Like great American thinker and patriot William F. Buckley Jr. once observed, “There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.” Let us exercise that self-reliance now, by supporting the economy, by supporting business.
The Amazing Beautiful Beast • Nov 24, 2009 at 3:36 pm
;D ;D
The Amazing Beautiful Beast • Nov 24, 2009 at 3:35 pm
;D
Sir Jake Goodman • Nov 16, 2009 at 12:47 pm
@ Tanisha
1. In the early days leading up to and following the election, much of the news coverage made it appear that Obama’s coming to office would instantly remedy many, if not all of the nations problems. Logically that is impossible.
2. The main issue is that of the specific items he declared as central objectives, none have been achieved, even with overwhelming backup through supermajorities in congress. Gitmo is still open, Afghanistan has gotten worse, the stimulus does not appear to have done much to change the reality of the recession any faster than would have occurred without help, ect. The argument is not that he has not accomplished a million things, but that he has accomplished nearly nothing, having realistically no opposition.
3. We do need a change. A change from an oversized government ignoring personal liberties and making decisions for the people. Government is meant to protect the people’s rights to have life, liberty, and to pursue their happiness. Government is not meant to spy on the citizens, decide how we live our lives, control schools education policies through limits on how funding must be spent (abstinence only education), throwing away our hard earned money, running the nation into massive deficits that will cause catastrophic issues in the future, and so on. We as a nation needed a change from the heavy-handed, large government world of George W. Bush, unfortunately change will take another 4 to 8 years to arrive.
Tanisha • Nov 9, 2009 at 5:27 pm
It is crazy with your view because you said President Obama is not like a messiah from what i could see who said that he was? And from what i could see it is not unique to you that Barack Obama is more then average this is a victory for some people and others. If you were president there is other things, over a million you cannot do everything at one time. So when you become President and have to deal with everything and someone calls you average because you cannot possibly get to everything you would not have anything to say.I’m understanding everything that you are saying, but like the song say’s nobody’s perfect, and Obama “we do need a change”.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 15, 2009 at 11:25 pm
@ Brendan
You can never take away man’s true means of production, his mind, without a lobotomy. How many great thinkers or inventors went through periods of unemployment or underemployment and continued to struggle through. The American spirit is that of hard work and persistence. What would America have been if Washington had called it quits at Valley Forge?
Sir Brendan Moriarty • Oct 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm
To the Muskeeter,
A. Please cite where you got this
B. Nice biased source, George Will.
C. Does your silence about the other subjects indicate your conceding them?
To Jake
By lack of property i mean lack of possessions/lack of the means of production
Gordon Kirchner • Oct 12, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I feel like I owe you this
Your blog is one for prospect intellectuals. ,make no mistake. However, it is very good at what it aims to do. Your writing, as expected, is excellent, and some of the points your bring up are unique to say the least.
There, I said it!
Oh, and P.S. To those of you who think it’s cute to use references from famous literature instead of your real names…it’s not. I know who two of you are anyway, and as for Ichabod, I can say that the headless horseman does NOT ride again.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 12, 2009 at 9:51 am
@ Brendan
How can you be bound down by a lack of property. Not owning anything allows you the freedom of mobility to find a place where you can get property. Not owning land or a house gives the person no incentive to stay in their current location of poverty, such as the people of Oklahoma in the dust bowl. They were starving to death if they stayed so instead they moved to a place where they believed they could have a livelihood, which they were able to at a level better than dying in a dried out former cornfield.
The Musketeer • Oct 11, 2009 at 9:21 pm
@ Brendan
You state; “I am not that good at math.” You are not that good at understanding english vocabulary either apparently.
To describe Barack Hussein Obama as “a very humble person” is entirely laughable.
Indeed, George Will just penned an article on this subject. In describing the disaster and embarassment at Copenhagen, Will writes;
In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns “I” or “me” 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago’s case compelling.
Will also recommends the following for his speechwriters;
Surely the (Silicon) Valley could continue its service to him by designing software for his speechwriters’ computers that would delete those personal pronouns, replacing them with the word “sauerkraut” to underscore the antic nature of their excessive appearances.
Finally, he concludes;
Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: “honest” Abe Lincoln, “Grover the Good” Cleveland, “energetic” Theodore Roosevelt, “idealistic” Woodrow Wilson, “Silent Cal” Coolidge, “confident” FDR, “likable” Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were “Tricky Dick” Nixon and “Slick Willie” Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is “vain.”
“A very humble person” – I think NOT.
Sir Brendan Moriarty • Oct 11, 2009 at 7:10 pm
To The Musketeer,
I must first say that humility should never be considered lack of leadership. Obama is a very humble person. I understand that leadership isn’t necessarily formed by arrogance or pride, but Obama understands that no one can know everything or be perfect. His willingness to compromise, however frustrating I find, is essential in politics. As much as I would love to have it, you can’t shove a bill down Congresses throat. I think what Obama is trying to do is to avoid the mistake (or at least in his mind a mistake) of Clinton when he tried to have a health care bill passed. When he tried it, Clinton’s admin. wrote the bill and submitted it to Congress. 2ndly, you say that the American people fear bigger government in regards to health care. This is false. Unlike Mr. Barr, I will cite my statistics. According a recent Gallup poll (Oct. 5th), 51% of Americans support or lean towards support for health care legislation while only 41% oppose or lean towards opposition to health care. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123470/Opposition-Healthcare-Legislation-Drops-Modestly.aspx) Now, I’m not that great at math, but I’m fairly sure 51>41. You also stated that no countries have accepted any Gitmo prisoners. This is also untrue. Ireland and Yemen have accepted prisoners (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/26/3-guantanamo-bay-prisoner_n_300986.html) In addition, France and Portugal have indicated there willingness to accept some prisoners while Germany has considered it. (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4223609,00.html) There is a still a lot of progress to be made on that issue, but there has been progress.
Also, it’s hypocritical to criticize what the president is trying to pass and then to say it’s taking too long. Either something gets past quickly that a lot of republicans are not gonna like, or it’ll take to time to find a solution that pleases both parties.
To Jake,
I would like a restructuring, but I wasn’t talking about that. I admit, I made a mistake when I was typing. What I meant to say was “How can someone be free if they are bound down by their own lack of property?” I hope this makes more sense when you put this back into my original comment. And I am disheartened at the slow approach towards regulation, specifically about bonuses, but writing legislation for such things would presumably take a great deal of time. That’s why an economic dictator would make so much sense haha. As far as wasteful spending goes, I am also saddened. But ’tis the nature of politics. There is always going to be pork, and not all pork is bad. But obtaining pork, in many ways, is the job of senators and representatives. Their job is to represent the interests of their state while the president’s job is to represent the nation’s interest as a whole. If you wanted to eliminate more pork, we should reduce the size of the legislature and increase the power of the executive branch. There would still be checks and balances, its just that there would be more power to be checked.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 11, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@ Brendan
Your speaking of restructuring economic distribution to be more balanced so that some successful businessmen do not become to successful. A direct quote from what you said “How can someone be free if they are bound down by their own property?”. Last time I checked no one is bound down by owning anything, unless it is something illegal that they are then bound and sent to prison.
On the concept of rational regulation I likely partially agree with you, however Obama has done almost nothing on regulation on any front, economic, healthcare, or tort reform. Since this is an article specifically upon the subject of the Obama presidency that argument is unnecessary.
However, ignoring that, how is it greedy to work hard to earn as much money as you can and spend said money as YOU see fit, not the government. If given the option, how many citizens would have given money to half of the items in the stimulus package, such as buying the federal government new cars, creating an entire new division of government to make sure it uses energy efficient lightbulbs, and countless other random tacked on concepts and pork. I am not saying that citizens should vote on everything the government does, however, if the government was “greedy” as you say, it would not be so spendthrift with money that they are given in trust by the citizens. I guess that would argue that the lack of “greed” in the American Congressional Culture is something that one does not have to be an anarchist to notice…
The Musketeer • Oct 10, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Andy, good article but I wished you would have explored some of the fundamental reasons for Barack Hussein Obama’s failure in a more blunt and straightforward manner (ie., “take off the kid gloves”).
Barack Hussein Obama’s failures can be traced to lack of presidential leadership and an instinctive negative reaction of the people to his proposed frightening expansion of government.
While it is true congress (and not the president) writes and passes legislation, it is presidential LEADERSHIP that produces successful legislation. It is called Reaganomics because President Reagan was the force behind the legislation entitled “The Economic Recovery Act of 1981. It is not called “1980 Congressnomics” (even though the congress technically wrote and passed it).
Barack Hussein Obama, with his massive democratic majorities in both houses, is unable to muster effective presidential leadership to pass his initiatives.
Additionally, while true conservatives (such as you Andy) can provide intellectual constructs for opposition to Barack Hussein Obama’s plans, the American people instinctively know his approach is flawed. Big government is wasteful, inefficent, unresponsive and surpresses freedom. Barack Hussein Obama’s unprecendented expansion of government has resulted in such an negative response from the American people, that even his democratic allies are pausing and re-thinking.
Ultimately, Barack Hussein Obama will also be unsuccessful in foreign affairs. The world may be taken in by Barack Hussein Obama’s sparkling rhetoric, warm smile, and peace prize. However, in the end, world leaders act in their nation’s best interest. This is why every nation denied Barack Hussein Obama’s request to take Gitmo prisoners.
So Andy, continue to speak the truth and get aggressive.
Sir Brendan Moriarty • Oct 10, 2009 at 3:15 pm
To Ben, aka Gandalf the Grey,
I am not confusing Economic Social Darwinism with anything. If businesses are dying off, people lose their jobs. It’s that simple. Imagine if we let a large number of banks fail. Directly, a lot of people would lose jobs because they wouldn’t be employed by those banks. But in addition those companies, other companies would fail or have their potential to grow limited. Currently, even after the bail-outs, many companies that are prospering, not failing ones, are having trouble expanding because they can’t get loans. These are companies that are doing well, and could hire people, but can’t because they can’t get a loan even if they have good credit. Imagine how much harder it would be for a company to get a loan if even less banks or loaning institutions were out of business. In addition, I don’t want to sound like I support the lining of CEO’s wallets with tax payer money, but to be candid, it was gonna happen anyway. The people who are taking huge bonuses now would have done so even if we didn’t bail the businesses out. The bailouts insured that the company could still function and could still support the regular workers that they employs. Imagine what would happen to all the secretaries’ or janitors’ pension funds if they’re former employers went out of business. It is they who the US government protected most when the bailouts were issued. And, I hate to use this as an evidence, but if the CEO’s were getting larger pay checks because of the bailouts, the money would eventually trickle down and help the economy. This, however, does not mean I support Regeanomics. Also, I’m aware of what Andy’s idea of Mellon like economics are. In some ways it is good, but in many ways its bad. In times of prosperity, its a sound tax policy, but it would devastate our budget if it were implemented now. If you think $1.4 trillion deficit is a lot, imagine what it would be if we implemented something similar to the Mellon program. And as far as Iran (Mordor) goes, we’re doing what we can. On Oct. 1st, Iranian and US officials met to discuss their nuclear ambitions. Diplomacy is a good tool that we shouldn’t be so quick to toss aside. Besides, Ahmadinejad (Sauron)and Iran are far from being able to strike Israel (Middle Earth) and the US. Maybe in a few years if there were no more diplomacy, but, as I said, there is diplomacy.
To Jake,
I never said our society wasn’t based off of Locke’s principles of right to property. All I’m saying is that if we have a weak government and little regulation, the American Dream could turn into a nightmare of unemployment and debt. You don’t have to be a socialist to recognize the greed and selfishness in American culture.
Ichabod Crane • Oct 10, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I just want to make two things clear:
This is more than Opinion, this is opinion drawing on facts. If you are using statistics to help your argument, say where you got them. Otherwise, you COULD be making things up on the spot and that is not at all useful to this debate.
Second, please keep in mind that this is Obama’s first year. He’s still beginning and he has over 3 years left. Every single one of his promises are not going to be fulfilled in his first year and Obama is not a miracle man. He has to jump through political hoops to get what he wants done: for him, there is no magic wand that gives him what he wants. No one can read the future so Congress is going to debate the positive and negative effects until they determine that the positives outweigh the negatives. Matters as serious and large as the ones Obama is trying make happen require quite a bit of discussion as to the pros and cons because the results can have very major effects, whether beneficial or disastrous.
Gordon Kirchner • Oct 9, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I think that some of these posts have been the cause for a basic government lesson. That is to say, that the Legislative branch makes laws, the President decides if they are to his approval, and the Supreme court decides if they are constitutional. So, who you REALLY have a bone with is Congress, not Obama, since it really isn’t in his control AT ALL.
You may disagree with his policies, but he is doing what any logical thinker would do. “Well, it worked the last time we had a great economic crisis, didn’t it?” To that effect, FDR’s New Deal DID help America out of one of the worst economic situations ever suffered on the planet.
I would also like to throw this thought out here. Do you honestly think that you would be able to be a better president than Obama?
Though it seems that Captain Beatty was right, in Farenheit 451. “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, topheavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.”
Gandalf the Grey • Oct 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@ Brendan
You are confusing Economic Darwinism with ignoring the lower classes. Economic Darwinism is based off of allowing failed businesses to die off, not on a callous attitude towards the poor. In fact, if the government actually followed a policy of Economic Darwinism, if would affect the rich more so than the poor. Rich business owners would be the ones hurt if the Bush and Obama actually let their firms fail instead of propping them up. The bailouts to the banks and lending firms only went to line the pockets of the rich CEOs and did nothing to help the poor.
Also, I doubt you fully understood, or read, Andy’s article because he mentioned that the Mellon plan incorporated cutting income taxes for both the rich and the poor.
Finally, Obama has done absolutely nothing to counter the threat from Mordor. This fixation he has on Afghanistan has blinded him to the real threat: Sauron is gaining strength as we speak and readying to launch on attack upon the free peoples of Middle Earth and America.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 9, 2009 at 10:36 am
@ Brendan
Simply because you think that the only beneficial thing of having wealthy people is to give someone for others to steadily leech life and money from does not mean you are right. America has always been a nation of individuals, and their rights to own the products that they have made and earned. Our nation is based off of Locke’s principles of property ownership, not Marx. Our nation has always believed in the rights of the individuals and your diatribe seeks to undermine such values.
@Beth
One would think that at liberal times people would switch to more liberal viewpoints. At times when people are losing their jobs, usually they want the government to meddle in the markets. If your house is on fire you usually don’t want the fire department to conserve water. Instead, what you have seen is a groundswell of conservatism, such as the tea party movements and the skyrocketing viewership of conservative newsgroups.
In addition, Obama has done nothing internationally basically other than talking to some people we gave the silent treatment to. Even so, he was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The only reason the rest of the world loves Obama is because he is not Bush. If anyone short of Sarah Palin was elected you would see the same reaction.
There is a simple reason behind why Hoover gets blamed and FDR gets acclaim and it fits with my first point, in a recession people want a liberal government. According to this article, Hoover’s conservative reaction would have become effective if given only a little more time. Instead, after roughly 2 years of time to fix the destruction of the international economic system he, clearly, was not able to fix all the problems that came up. Instead we gave FDR 8 years, from his election to the beginning of WWII, to fix the problem. How did he do? We were not rescued by the new deal, we were rescued by the mobilization of WWII.
I think that makes the third strike 3 so I guess thats 3 outs. Not sure what that means for the metaphor.
@Fran & Ian
This is not at all like Glen Beck, Andy is able to speak a coherent sentence without spitting, foaming at the mouth, yelling, or going on a tirade about ACORN and communists in the Obama Administration (Van Jones).
Sir Brendan Moriarty • Oct 8, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I’d also like to add, I agree with Jake that most of the Prospect population is uneducated about politics. In my APUS class, I could probably fit on 1 hand the number of people who know the Representative for their district in Congress, in the Il. Senate, and the Il. Representative. The student body’s apathy doesn’t surprise me. Most, if not all, didn’t watch the Obama health care plan. Most Americans probably couldn’t even name a leader of another country other than Kim Jong Il or Mahmud. The Prospector should take a poll. Find out how many Prospect Students can name their representatives in Congress, their representatives in State government, and leaders of other nations.
Sir Brendan Moriarty • Oct 8, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Now, I found much of this piece grossly disrespectful in its negative depictions of liberalism and its mockery of the President, but I won’t address that. What I will address is the statement about “Economic Social Darwinism”. Now, I agree that if we didn’t have government intervention, we would have a type of “Economic Social Darwinism”. The biggest corporations would succeed and there would be people who be making fabulous amounts of money. The question is, what about everyone else? Where does the common man fit into this new society. Survival of the fittest may have been good a few epochs ago, but in this day and age, survival of the fittest means a few rich, old white guys sitting around while the rest of society wastes away. If we didn’t have government intervention, our country would spiral into a vicious cycle of worsening employment rates. Soon our “civilization” would be so stratified that even Ayn Rand would be sickened. I would like to quote a famous American and say “On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized… In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every personborn into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought notto be worse than if he had been born before that period.” You might be thinking to yourself, “Who wrote this? It must be some communist.” No, it was Thomas Paine. Government exists to protect the rights of the common man. Chief among these is life and liberty. How can someone be free if they are bound down by their own property? How can someone live if they cannot afford the food that goes into their stomach? Survival of the fittest in today’s economy does not mean prosperity for a great number of people, it means great prosperity for a few select people. That’s why we have the US government, to ensure that no one person or corporation becomes too powerful. And, by the way, ask Bianchi what the New Deal programs mean to him and what they meant to his dad.
Maddie Conway • Oct 8, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The main problem that I have with this column doesn’t have anything to do with the issues about which I may or may not disagree but the way that both “conservatism” and “liberalism” have been portrayed within them; by the way that the author describes them, “conservatism” might as well mean “God” and “liberalism” mean “evil.”
Now, you’re probably thinking that I’m just another radically left-leaning teenager preaching my undying support for Barack Obama’s presidency, but this is not the case. Sure, I might tend to lean left–as a teenage feminist and gay rights supporter who has been raised in a secular home, it’s not exactly shocking. But that’s just the point: I LEAN left. I consider myself to be an Independent, because guess what? No matter how one attempts to spin it, neither side is ever always, completely correct. For this reason, I try to read both liberal and conservative opinions (hence why I read this blog) since am liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and moderate on even more.
Similarly, you see this balance in society. To quote Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, we are neither a left- or right-leaning nation: we are a pendulum nation, liberal when there is something to change and conservative when there is something to conserve.
To conclude, neither political ideology is good or wrong; rather, each are equal. The only “wrong” that comes with political ideology is partisanship.
Mrs.Walsh • Oct 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Andy,
You’re a very talented writer and I’m deeply impressed with your commentators quality of writing. However, you do sound like you’re moving to the far right. My grandfather had 3 children to feed during the Great Depression. Were it not for Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ I don’t know how my mom and her siblings would have survived. My mother and her sisters are all college graduates so they did accomplish this through their own ‘self-reliance.’ In fact, if you’ve ever had a bowl of Captain Crunch, my mom was a chemist @ Quaker who worked in R&D on that cereal.
However, if my mom hadn’t received a helping hand from the government when she was younger, they may never have survived. And my dad, a WWII veteran, had it even worse. His dad abandoned my grandma and their 4 children during the Great Depression. My father sold newspapers when he was 8 to help feed the family, and after school he’d pluck the feathers from chickens at a poultry processing plant in Chicago. If it weren’t for the GI Bill after WWII, my dad would never have received an electrical engineering degree. And my Uncle Bernard, who wrote part of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, when he was chief legal counsel to Everett Dirkesen, would never have gone to law school. Charity would never have saved my parents and given them the hand up the government did. When governments help their citizens in times of need the benefits can be exponential.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 7, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@ KRose
The fact is the average teenager does not care about the real world. Beyond that the average american does not know much about the real world. I don’t have the numbers but we’ve all heard the facts about Americans not knowing basic information about the world or our own country.
When I was at Prospect I dealt with the same problems you mentioned however, I was able to turn on the tv once a day to see what was going on. The fact is that students choose to be ignorant.
Things are only clichés, or stereotypes, if they are wrong. Do you really believe the average student knows much about Herbert Hoover beyond the fact that he was president during the depression. I feel I am fairly historically aware and I myself did not know all the information brought forth in this article.
Neel • Oct 7, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“Now, on to the matter of race. I would like to point out a statistic that I have not “made up”. That death threats for President Obama are up 500% from his predecessor, Bush Jr. That’s right, you read correctly, 500%! Preposterous that there are this many people who want to kill a president who was elected with an overwhelming majority. And yes, many of those letters are simply because of race. Enlistment in Hate groups, those such as the KKK, Neo Nazis, and the Aryan Nation are also growing by the day. The KKK have gone from hating Mexican Immigrants back to hating Blacks and Jews. If this doesn’t show how unready America really is for a Black president, I don’t know what does.”
Just wanted to say, I don’t think it’s really valid to use the actions of a small and unrepresentative section of the population draw a conclusion about the entire country.
Gordon Kirchner • Oct 7, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I find it funny that we have almost as many Alumni commenting on this as we do current students. It will be interesting to see how ProspectorNow grows.
KRose McAleer • Oct 7, 2009 at 9:14 pm
OK, I’m not going to comment on the politics, not because I DON’T care about/follow them, but because I’m trying to make a different point
PLEASE STOP INSULTING THE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE OF THE PROSPECT STUDENT BODY. Good God, they’re only teenagers, what can you expect? I’m saying this factually. If they WANTED to follow all of the political shenanigans, I’m sure they could, and they would have an interesting perspective. But right now their world consists of communication with friends, homework, getting into a good college, dealing with their family lives, etc. Maybe when they grow up and actually have time to be concerned with all of these intriguing political debates, they will.
But until then, please stop acting like you’re superior to us – we aren’t just ditzy-bubble-gum-chewing-technologically-hooked-airheads! That is SO cliche.
And I hate cliches.
Tim Holl • Oct 7, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I have very few issues with the blog. I do not believe that it is over the student body’s head because I was barely in the top half of my class at PHS and I understood the whole blog. Andy, nice job using sound logic to argue a controversial opinion. Hopefully your blog will motivate some of the “liberal” students who claim to be liberal while not actually learning about issues to do some research and reevaluate their ideology. (I was NOT generalizing all liberals. But there are a lot that only claim to be liberal because it’s popular right now)
Gordon Kirchner • Oct 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@ Ms. Latos
As someone who is currently not enrolled in a single “regular” class, I find that your perspective of the entire student body of Prospect may be a tad skewed. As Mr. Goodman pointed out, I may indeed be a little generous in my assessment, however, it is a well known fact that 63% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and that 15% was more of a “guesstimation” if you will. Anyway, as someone who is currently involved in American Studies, I can tell you that the history background of Prospect, specifically in U.S. history, is rather lacking, and their lack of involvement in current events is even worse. Despite a quite involved “Stem” program at Prospect, many people have quite a hard time figuring out definitions, and they probably know more text-abbreviations then they do 4-syllable words.
Now, on to the matter of race. I would like to point out a statistic that I have not “made up”. That death threats for President Obama are up 500% from his predecessor, Bush Jr. That’s right, you read correctly, 500%! Preposterous that there are this many people who want to kill a president who was elected with an overwhelming majority. And yes, many of those letters are simply because of race. Enlistment in Hate groups, those such as the KKK, Neo Nazis, and the Aryan Nation are also growing by the day. The KKK have gone from hating Mexican Immigrants back to hating Blacks and Jews. If this doesn’t show how unready America really is for a Black president, I don’t know what does.
Yes, I do agree that Obama has failed to accomplish much of what he promised in his given timetable. However, you must ask yourselves; What president, if any, has? Obama has promised a lot to the American public, and I will be impressed if he can even accomplish 1/4 of what he has promised during his 4 years in office.
Also, it would seem you all overestimate what Presidential powers Obama truly has. It really isn’t up to him to pass the laws, he has to wait for Congress to come to a decision, which, as we all know, is difficult even when your party has the majority. And, as the old joke goes, if Con is the opposite of Pro, what is the opposite of Progress? I can see a difficult future for Obama if Congress continues to take its time on these issues.
Nicole Latos • Oct 6, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Mr. Kirchner
Perhaps you are underestimating the student body. Having taken history and social science classes, all students are well-equiped to handle Mr. Barr’s quality of writing. If his article is challenging, then that would in fact be a good thing, as it may inspire students to look up allusions and vocabulary they don’t know, thereby furthering their knowledge.
I understand Obama is human, and therefore it is inevitable that he will not be perfect. However, ever since taking office, he has consistently failed to acheive what his entire presedential campaign was based on: change. The stagnation in foreign policy, healthcare, and the econmy exemplify this, as Mr. Barr states in his article. I ask you, Mr. Kirchner, what signficant ‘changes’ have you seen since Obama was elected?
I also don’t understand your statement that “the bottom half of the country is still unready for a Black President”. Our country has already demonstrated tremendous progress in electing a minority to office.
I would also disagree with your thoughts on President Obama’s healthcare policies. The fact that he has fallen far behind on his timetables for the bills demonstrate his irresponsibility and leave the public confused and waiting. Frankly as Mr. Barr asserts, Obama is not acting as the person that people voted for last November.
Sir Jake Goodman • Oct 6, 2009 at 10:48 pm
@ Gordon
Top 15% is being generous Gordon.
I think your argument about America not being ready for a black president is an inaccurate statement colored by sup-par so called “unbiased news”. I personally attended the rally in DC on Sept. 12, mainly just to see what it was. The only person I saw there talking about race was a black man on the sidewalk calling everyone racist. While a fraction of the opposition may be partially due to race, I don’t believe that anything higher than 10% of those there that day could have been racist.
@ Andy
Well done
Gordon Kirchner • Oct 6, 2009 at 8:40 pm
You bring up some interesting points, but I’ll be honest when I tell you that your blog is very clearly aimed at the top 15% of the school academically. The word usage is excellent, the references to U.S. history both original and relevant, and of course it’s always interesting to hear someone argue against something popular. However, much of what you said probably flew over the heads of many Prospect students. Simply put, many Prospect students just don’t have the vocabulary or a deep enough background in U.S. history to understand much of what you said.
My suggestion would be that if you’re going to blog about politics on a high school newspaper’s website, you simply cannot assume your audience knows what the heck you’re talking about. You need to be clear, concise, and give background on some of the key terms.
However, in response to what you said, it seems that you, like many Americans, whether you realized it or not, put too much faith in Obama. Obama is, as the saying goes, “Only Human” and of course like all politicians, has promised more than he can even be expected to handle. I would postulate that that is the main reason that his approval rating is so low(coupled with the fact that the bottom half of the country is still unready for a Black President.)
While I agree with your economic policies concerning Hoover, the unfortunate truth is that FDR didn’t serve 4 terms as a U.S. president for nothing. His policies were able to stem the tide until WWII came along and lifted the country up to its feet. If his policies were as bad as you suggest(which I would like to see where you were getting your information on that regard) then it seems unreasonable that he would’ve been re-elected not once, not twice, but THREE times.
In any event, it also seems that the country didn’t realize just how liberal Mr. Obama really is. His proposed Health-care reform has shown the public what his true intentions are, and it seems obvious that his proposed bills will go through heavy amending before they are passed.
Anyway, keep up the good work, perhaps this will get the students more actively thinking about politics.
Michael Uhlarik • Oct 5, 2009 at 10:35 pm
CASH!