God, I hate this! It is one of those rare times when I have to admit that I half-agree with Boring Joe: Nope, I will never be able to say I love Dick Cheney, but I have come to believe that Barack Obama was not and is not ready to lead this country; he is an activist who belongs on the streets of Chicago. Of course my reasons for thinking this are diametrically opposed to Boring Joe's, although we reach a similar conclusion.
I will admit - it should not surprise anyone who has seen what I have written over the years - I voted for Obama. I will note, in my own defense (since I have unfortunately come to feel I need to defend the decision) that I could not bring myself to even consider voting for a ticket that had Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney on it. I tend to "vote against" (again no surprise given my previous blogs). To my mind, such is the great limitation of our system; we get shitty choices and have to pick from them or not participate.
Obama had potential, he had some appeal (independent of completely incompetent competitors) - the great contrast between someone who appeared both intelligent and thoughtful and the 8 years of his predecessor made him appear a viable alternative. Sadly, in discussing the candidates in 2008 with some people, many expressed concerns that Obama was not ready to lead. I confess I largely dismissed these based on the fact that Bush had also seemed out of his depth for a full 8 years (as well as not very smart). At least Obama, it seemed, would be someone who, if over their head, would be smart enough to deal with it. Sadly, 5 years later, this has proven untrue.
I suppose it should have been somewhat obvious where this might go eventually the night of his election, when African-Americans cheering his victory were shown in the streets celebrating it as meaning that the power differential in the nation had flipped in one night; now they would visit oppression upon others for a change. I realize this reflects years of a different differential, but the fact that many seemed to think that the answer to that was to flip it, that revenge was at hand, should have been a bad sign. The fact that racism, in whatever form or direction, was not an evil to be shunned, but was to be embraced as long as the target was someone else, was disheartening to one who wanted to see the change that was promised. Equality is equality, not a compensatory unbalancing.
Flash forward to a president now in a second term with no need to think in terms of obtaining another and I see someone who seems the great chameleon, whose prior words hold little weight. The great racial chasm in this country has opened even wider - it is seemingly much worse than was apparent heretofore and divides us more than ever. I consider it open for debate how much this has to do with one side or the other of this divide. Flash forward to a president whose first "allegiance" in times of social discord is to his "blackness" (which would be no more acceptable than one who first allied himself based on his "whiteness") than to his role as a president of all people.
Whether apparent in the events that lead to the famous "beer summit" or in his comments following the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, this president sadly seems unable to avoid representing his race as president in those times where his activist side takes over, seems incapable of avoiding reverting to community organizing as opposed to leadership. As Bush seemed to create a presidency where the campaign never ended, so does Obama, confusing rhetoric with leadership. A national leader should not be taking sides in such issues, but facilitating discussion, attempting to unify the citizenry.
"Change" is a very ambiguous term; I think I misunderstood what he meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment