Response to "Obama Criticism"

This is a response to Victoria's post, titled "Obama Criticism." I completely agree with what Victoria wrote. Obama is "taking the necessary steps to help our country." Although he has many critics, I believe that he is taking America in the right direction. Sometimes I am surprised to see how low Obama's approval ratings have become. It doesn't seem possible that the same men and women that voted for Obama back in 2008 have now turned their backs on him. After all, Obama has fulfilled a large number of extremely ambitious campaign promises, making this Congress the most productive one since the passage of the Great Society acts.

Perhaps the biggest issue in the early campaign season was the Iraq War, the conflict that came to symbolize George W. Bush's doctrine of preventative war. As the campaign began Americans were sick of the violence and conflict going on in Iraq while little progress was being made. Obama convinced the American people early on that he never supported the war and he would bring the war to a close swiftly and responsibly. Obama has made good on that promise.

As the campaign continued, and the financial crisis took center stage, Obama assured the people that he would reign in on speculative practices in Wall Street and make sure nothing like this ever happened again. As of last month, Obama has made good on that promise.

When Obama came into office people were being denied essential health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Premiums were skyrocketing and the American public was imploring the next administration to do the one thing that every president in modern American history had failed to do: enact real health care reform. Obama promised that he would be the one to do it. And although the battle was tough, compromises were made and a bill that will drastically increase health care coverage was passed. Obama has made good on his promise.

In a nation where campaign promises are often empty rhetoric, Obama has fared quite well. He has done what he set out to do. So why then, do the very same people who elected Obama now disapprove of the path he is taking America? I believe that the answer is twofold. First, people are worried about their jobs, and second, change has not come as perfectly or as quickly as some would have hoped. About the first point, I think Americans have simply grown tired at our slumping economy. They thought Obama could wave a magic wand and fix our broken economy but it wasn't that simple. Until the jobs come back, many Americans will refuse to approve of Obama's actions. In Victoria's article, she mentions certain criticisms by Sarah Palin. I think conservatives like Palin are simply taking advantage of this uneasy feeling pervading America. In all likelihood, a Republican in office would have done just as well or just as poorly in shaping the economy; these issues take time and it is unfair to demand quick results from any president. Yet that has not stopped them from using this to fan the flames of discontent throughout America. This is one reason why Obama's criticism has been rising.

Victoria also pointed out that the election of 2008 excited the young people, making them passionate about politics for the first time. While this was great during the campaign, it seems to be hurting him now. Because the young and the idealistic were Obama's biggest supporters. Obama seemed to be the new man willing to enact broad and sweeping change throughout Washington. However, when his ideas were met by reality, a lot of (young) people, including myself for a while, were sorely disappointed. This is perhaps another reason why those who voted for Obama now disapprove of him even though he fulfilled so many of his promises.

Victoria also mentioned Obama's speech at UT. I was lucky enough to be one of the "limited number of students" to be able to attend the speech. I was also able to attend Obama's rally just before his debate with Hillary Clinton during the primaries back in 2008. I agree with Callie Shell; the president is the same man we saw during the campaign. I was amazed at Obama's dedication to the issues. I was also amazed by how enthusiastic the audience was. Students were willing to camp out from 10 pm to 8 am just to hear the president speak. They cheered at Obama's initiatives and laughed at his humor. Supporters for Obama are still out there, and rightfully so. Obama has been a great president thus far, and has been the recipient of often unfair criticism.

Proposition 8 Overturned: the Right Decision

There has been much discussion recently regarding Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to strike down Proposition 8, the law that provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Conservatives have generated an outcry, declaring that one man alone silenced the voices of seven million Californian voters. Others have argued that Judge Walker's decision is a prime example of judicial activism, some going as far as calling the decision tyrannical in nature. These criticisms are absolutely wrong.

The first few complaints that appeared on forums and blogs across the nation had the same common theme: that the courts had stolen the power from the people. But it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that allowing gay marriage in America is a good or bad thing; it doesn't matter what your morality or conscience tells you about this issue at all. The point is, legally, Judge Walker's decision is absolutely valid. In fact, the entire purpose of the court system was to have the power of judicial review, or the ability to strike down laws if they are unconstitutional. So I don't understand why people are complaining when the courts struck down Proposition 8 even when so many voters approved it. That is literally the reason courts were created. The courts exist as a safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the majority. They ensure that rights cannot simply be voted away by a population that cannot relate to a certain minority group. That is why African Americans took to the courts in the mid-1900s. When the voters refuse to grant a group rights that they are due, then the courts are there to protect those rights. That is precisely what we are seeing here. The right to marry is a guaranteed right confirmed over and over again in the Supreme Court. As such, Californians have no legal ability to strip certain individuals of that right through the passage of a proposition. The law conflicts with a basic human right, and as a result it must be struck down. Judge Walker's decision was not judicial activism in any sense: it abided by precedent, and it did not in any way "legislate from the bench." Indeed, it was an act of judicial responsibility, because when a judge sees a law that is unconstitutional, he or she has a duty to strike it down.

Here is a great video of Ted Olson arguing in favor of same-sex marriage on Fox News.

Hopefully this case and others will find a way to the Supreme Court so that a national ruling can be made. To me it is ridiculous in this day in age that the right of gays to marry is considered a "state issue." Basic rights should not and cannot be fought at the state level because that ensures that some states will be tyrannical. As Ted Olson argues in the video, what if our right to free speech were questioned? What if the politicians up in Washington decided that they didn't want to get involved in the issue and let the states decide? What if we were only given that basic human right in some places in the country? We need to be consistent here. If the courts have ruled that marriage is a basic right then no state, anywhere in the nation, should have the power to infringe upon that right. That means that two consenting adults, no matter where they are or what their sexual orientation, must legally be allowed to marry. I hope that the inevitable Supreme Court finally makes this clear so that tyranny at the state level can come to an abrupt and permanent stop.

Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner

This post is a response to Saul’s post Going Too Far. Saul makes the argument that interest groups “hurt democracy due to their ulterior motives.” He cites a CNN article that details the infamous Town Hall meetings from last year when groups dedicated to stopping Obama’s health care initiative would “loudly interrupt[] and intimidate[]…members of the audience who refused to let them speak.” And Saul is absolutely correct in denouncing these tactics, whether or not their cause is a just one. However, I do not think we can make the leap that Saul is making. We cannot say that just because the tactics used by some interest groups are questionable the whole institution of interest groups ought to be scrapped.

Basically, in this post I argue that a crazed town hall meeting such as those detailed in Saul’s link is preferable to no town hall meeting at all. Without interest groups it would be very difficult for the voices of our nation to be heard at the legislative level. Sure, interest groups may not always have the nation’s best interest in mind, but they always do have some group’s interest in mind, and I firmly and strongly believe that whatever group it is, it deserves to have a voice.

Personally, I too was very upset at the shouting match that defined the town hall meetings back in 2009, as I was a strong advocate of Obama’s reform proposals. But I have to say: Hate the sin, not the sinner. Interest groups, whether we like them or not, are a crucial element of our democracy. They link the people to the government, and make our small Congress into a pluralistic battleground that more accurately reflects the populous as a whole. Saul has identified procedural problems with the way interest groups work in America, and perhaps they must be regulated in more stringent ways to prevent their “ulterior motives” from influencing their actions, but they must continue to exist for the sake of our democracy.

Investigating the Interrogators

An editorial written by an unnamed author in the Los Angeles Times is entitled "Investigating the interrogators" and discusses how the Justice Department should deal with the interrogators known to have tortured inmates at Guantanamo Bay. The editorial indicates that startling new evidence has surfaced indicting George W. Bush's own Justice Department in the use of torture. Apparently the Department defined torture extremely loosely, and as such was able to authorize methods of coercion including waterboarding, "facial slaps, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and the placement of Zubaydah, who has a phobia about insects, in a 'confinement box' with one." The evidence presented in the article is startling.

The article takes an unequivocal stance, and one that I firmly agree with: Obama's Justice Department must take legal action against these interrogators. The author is talking directly to the Justice Department, and his or her message is heard loud and clear. Obama has thus far avoided a tricky political situation by simply stating that we must "look forward, not back." However, the correct way to "look forward" in a position like this is to, without hesitation, firmly and strongly condemn the wrongs of the past. Only by denouncing past crimes can amends be made. While Obama has done a fantastic job changing America's message abroad, the abuses at Guantanamo remain one stumbling point. If Obama continues to do nothing about the interrogators, he is essentially turning a blind eye to what the author calls "one of the most shameful chapters in the war against terrorism." In this sense, Obama is hardly better than Bush at all. Sure, he didn't order the abuses, but he is hardly willing to admit they were wrong in any meaningful way.

The saddest part of this affair is that it is clear that Obama is unwilling to act mainly because of the political repercussions. While Obama can tout his "looking forward" rhetoric, it is obvious that he understands the need to apologize and correct for past wrongs. After all, Obama has at least offered an official apology to Native Americans, an Act that has been brewing for many years. Obama knows that the right course of action is to prosecute the coercive interrogators, and if he is unwilling to do so, then the Justice Department must take the lead.

Preparing for the Midterms (Elections)

In November, the next chapter in Obama's administration begins. The midterms are upon us, and many Democrats are starting to fear for their jobs on Capitol Hill. The atmosphere is remarkably different than it was 2 years ago, when Democrats represented change and hope and a glimpse into the future. Now Democrats must face reality. They can no longer bank on such ethereal concepts to win elections. They have been in power and they have a record that they must defend.

However, the DNC makes the case that all is not lost. Sure, the Democrats have been grounded, but compared to past terms, they are doing fantastically. The greatest fear in the eyes of the Democrats is repeating 1994, when the so-called Republican Revolution dramatically nullified Democratic control of Congress. However, today's times seem different. Sure, we are no longer in 2008, but 2010 doesn't seem so bad after all. The Huffington Post reports on a memo written by the DNC that cites more favorable Democratic statistics. For instance, "President Obama is much more popular than...President Clinton was in 1994." The memo is a reminder that while Democrats seem to be flustered in comparison to 2008, they are far better off than they were in 1994. In my mind, this kicks off the midterms races and sets the stage for the Democrats to pick up as many victories as they possibly can.