Reporting from Washington ”” Barack Obama won the presidency Tuesday by persuading voters to embrace a seeming paradox: leadership based on contradictory principles of change and reassurance.
The Illinois senator combined ambitious goals and a cautious temperament. He promised tax cuts, better healthcare, new energy programs and fiscal discipline all at the same time, and all without the bitterness and stalemate that arose when those issues were tackled in the past.
Now, as Obama moves through his transition to the White House, this effort to square the political circle becomes the defining challenge in the months ahead. Which Barack Obama will dominate as he begins to govern?
Too much of the ambitious liberal, and he rekindles partisan squabbles he was supposed to transcend.
Too much the cautious mediator who reaches across the aisle to compromise with Republicans, and he risks losing the energy and idealism that attracted millions to his candidacy.
I am greatly grieved.
And greatly fear for our country.
But I will pray regarding obama and his actions…
But, I will pray especially for the Church…the same evil is assaulting and dividing her.
Is God allowing her refining and sifting? Probably. The same separating and dividing seems likely to continue to occur in the secular realm.
Dr. Mabuse @ Kraalspace has written powerfully about the polarization revealed by this election. One commentor who had been abroad for years, said the animosity between libs and conservatives and the loss of civility and integrity/truth was shocking to him after being away. He feared civil war and anarchy.
Does the same force (light vs darkness) divide in both churches and the secular political arenas?
Is this the same force that pulls, fractures, breaksdown and divides families and individuals within themselves?
Is this the Sword that Jesus mentions in Matthew 10:34 ?
Hopefully the Church will come to actually live God’s Word, not just assent or pretend to it and become spiritually cognizant in how to oppose and defeat evil: Ephesians 6:10-18
However, what has been created by this election represents a clear and present danger to the Church, to Christ and His Gospel, The Truth, Love and Life that He modeled and gave us to guard in our hearts and to proclaim.
The danger is that obama and the liberal faction will be largely unopposed in the White House, Congress and (shudder) the Courts.
The next two years and on, if a Conservative backlash does not occur, will be the liberal’s and the pansexual lobby’s feast.
The damage, civil, political, judicial, moral and spiritual will take an act of God and decades of good government to undo.
50 million abortions cannot go unnoticed at the throne if God heard one man, Cain’s blood crying out from the ground.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy.
May we who know Him (John 17:33; I John 5:10-11) lift up His Cross and Gospel with new determination and perseverance.
Church: Never surrender!
GA/FL [#1] and Dr. Mabuse rightly note “the polarization revealed by this election.” Let’s remember that is polarization on the same lines, and to a similar degree, as in 1994. This is also the polarization that Bush and Rove consciously heightened in 2002 and 2004. Rove explicitly based his 2004 presidential campaign strategy on polarizing the electorate (and motivating his party’s base) rather than appealing to moderate voters. We’ve had a lot of polarization over the past 15.
Obama has his work cut out for him. He intends to be a unifier. Whether he will succeed in that or in getting our fiscal house in order remains to be seen. http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17583/#297815
There is nothing wrong with truthfully highlighting your opponent’s views, alliances and record during a political campaign. One of McCain’s failures was to do so to his opponent in a timely and coherent fashion. As a result, we now have a president-elect who has consistently and deliberately allied himself with the most politically radical elements of American society and has legislated and voted in a manner almost completely consistent with those views.
Which Obama will govern? There’s really only one, and he’s been apparent to anyone willing to look.
While I oppose Obama’s proposed policies on taxes and spending and the role of Govenment, I pray that he will govern as a unifier and a moderate, not as the liberal senator he was for his 4 years in the senate. Remember, Bush came into the office intending to unite the country and govern from the center too.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
MBIC, Phil, I do think that Bush was hamstrung by Al Gore’s unrelenting contesting of the election. It gave a green light to Democratic partisans to fiercely oppose Bush every step of the way. I also think Irenaeus is correct in noting the divisions pushed by Karl Rove. At the same time, Bush did make a number of efforts to reach across the aisle – renominating some Clinton judges who were not confirmed before the end of the prior term, pushing through Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind, expanding Medicare, etc. (actually, I do think the list could run into the hundreds, if you count very small items).
Anyway, the which Obama will govern question is a good one. Jonah Goldberg, writing in the NYPost this morning observed:
[blockquote]If Democrats govern from the center, good for the country. If they govern from their instincts, good for the Republicans.[/blockquote]
http://tinyurl.com/5w5d2a
[blockquote]Too much the cautious mediator who reaches across the aisle to compromise with Republicans, [/blockquote]
I’m sorry but this got my attention. President-elect Obama (gotta get used to that – and one day without the elect) has no record of doing this. (It was one of the great lies of his campaign.) So I continue to wonder what the heck they mean about “which” Obama? This Obama – the unifier – does not and has not yet existed. (Except perhaps in rhetoric.)
Although we can hope and pray the LA Times meant this in a hypothetical “it will happen even though it has not” sense.
I will post here what I posted on my blog:
I will pray for him (and I hope you will as well regardless of whether you voted for him or not) and for his coming adminstration. I certainly wish him and his familiy well, especially over the loss of his grandmother who died before she got to see him elected.
As such, I offer the following prayer ‘For the President of the United States and all in Civil Authority’ which is found on pg. 820 of the Book of Common Prayer:
“O Lord our Governor, whose glory is in all the world: We commend this nation to thy merciful care, that, being guided by thy Providence, we may dwell secure in thy peace. Grant to the President of the United States, the Governor of this State (or Commonwealth), and to all in authority, wisdom and strength to know and to do thy will. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness, and make them ever mindfulof their calling to serve this people in thy fear; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.”
I note several observations above and elsewhere that “Bush the Campaigner” differed from “Bush the President.” While Mr. Sulik correctly observes that the inauguration of the Bush Administration was hindered by Mr. Gore’s legal manuvering, more importantly the Bush Agenda was reset for him on 9/11/01.
Obama does have a record of trying to unite and reach beyond the divide. But why would a Republican want him to have the reputation? It is against their interest to paint Obama as a unifier.
Mr. Obama helped deliver a campaign finance reform law in Illinois. Law enforcement groups supported his legislation that taped interrogations. He enhanced tax credits for the working poor, supported welfare reform, among other issues. Hes a partisan in part because its easier for the sake of creating fear. Box him in as a liberal. Then get people to vote against him.
Fortunately, it didn’t work this time.
Why does the Left tend to conflate “fearmongering” with “advocating policies different from my own?” Are your opponets supposed to eagerly anticipate the imposition of policies which they see as harmful, John? It is one of the more tiresome aspects of that side of the divde.
Why does the Left tend to conflate ‘fearmongering’ with ‘advocating policies different from my own?” —Andrew717 [#10]
Why do so many right-wingers choose to depict a democratic liberal as a dangerous radical Marxist eager to nullify the First Amendment, abolish elections, ban Christmas, and send us to reeducation camps. One T19 commenter (as I recall) even hinted at extermination camps.
#1 It was the righteus man Abel whose blood cried from the ground. Cain was the first murderer recorded in Genesis.
Ireneaus,
a) becaues his writings and speeches before running for office were packed with Marxist rhetoric. And even though he toned it down during the campaign, he still managed to fit in key Marxist terms into some of his answers (“Spreading the wealth around”)
b) because he advocated for the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, which is designed by Democrats to curtail or silence conservative talk radio, even though when pressed in the campaign, he said he would not ‘push it’ but would not veto it, either.
c) because he came out and stated his dislike of the Constitution as being a declaration of ‘negative rights’, that the Constitution ties the hand of reactionary judges by constraining their powers — especially in ‘redistributing wealth’, and promises fundamental changes in the American system,
d) haven’t heard that one or e) either.
Irenaeus, I was speaking more generally. I’m honestly not being snarky, though I admit saying so does little to help. I am truly curious. One of the great bogeymen of the Left for as long as I can remember (back to the mid 80s) has been “fear.” Reagan was accused of “fearmongering” when he took stands against the Soviet Union. Jefferson’s Republican-Democrats said the same about the Federalists about the threat posed by French attacks on our merchant shipping in the 1790s.
The world is a dangerous place, and avoiding issues simply to preserve the false confidence of the ignorant is a wildly irresponsible tack. But time and time again attempts to raise valid objections to the Left’s policy proposals gets dismissed as the “politics of fear.” That phrase gets 1,290,000 google hits when left in quotes, by the way. It’s just as intellectually bankrupt as handwaving about Ted Kennedy or “San Francisco Values.” Just because something is considered to be a frightful prospect doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. It means people have very real concerns which should be dealt with by discussion, either to eliminate false fears through education or to reduce valid fears by solving the problems. Contemptuous dismissals like John’s get us no where and do further harm to the body politic. Who thinks this is a good idea, and why is it so damn popular on the Left, the side that is supposed to be more representative of “the people” (the [i]demos[/i]) to dismiss any attempt to discuss serious concerns with policies seen by a large proportion of the citizenry to be wrongheaded?
Irenaeus:
Some commentators are confused about what Marxism is. Spreading the wealth around is also what capitalism does. Obama has rejected Marxism, and to date he has not appointed a Marxist. Some people are confused between a planned economy and a commercial economy, and there’s no evidence that Obama seeks to altar the foundations of a commercial society. There is plenty of evidence he wants to make the economy more fair. Milton Friedman, actually, wanted to make the economy more fair and some libertarians have supported for example, the notion of a guaranteed income.
b) the fairness doctrine is a policy that ensures that the radio doesn’t fall into the hands of demagogues.
c) One commentator said “he came out and stated his dislike of the Constitution as being a declaration of ‘negative rights’, that the Constitution ties the hand of reactionary judges by constraining their powers—especially in ‘redistributing wealth’,”
This comment is ignorant because it doesn’t discern between descriptive and normative. “Negative rights” is a philosophical term used in political theory to describe a type of right. It does not mean that a right is bad. Nor did he say that judges should constrain wealth. He said that judges have decided they cannot. Obama has not ever said that he thinks we should have positive rights, or that judges should distribute wealth.
Those who really want to understand Obama should listen to this
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=84
Harold Washington, not Marx, was Obama’s political inspiration.
The rest is pretty much propaganda and lies.
Some commentators are confused about what Marxism is. Spreading the wealth around is also what capitalism does. Obama has rejected Marxism
From Wikipedia: Marxism: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society’s allegedly inevitable development from [b]bourgeois oppression under capitalism[/b] to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
Perhaps they are not at all confused about what Marxism is. And when has Obama ever rejected Marxist ideas? He is all about spreading the wealth and redistributing it. He clearly wants a more “equal” society.
And the Fairness Doctrine is certainly NOT about making sure the air waves are not filled with demagoguery. It about artificially creating what the government perceives as “fairness.” The free market is presently dictating which shows stay on the air. Air America has been an abject failure because people do not like it. You really should read Atlas Shrugged. The Fairness Doctrine is perfectly exemplified in that book, and it illustrates what happens when government tries to equalize everything according to “fairness.”
“b) the fairness doctrine is a policy that ensures that the radio doesn’t fall into the hands of demagogues. ”
Can perhaos better be described as b) the fairness doctrine is a policy that ensures that the radio doesn’t fall into the hands of the commericaly viable. The only thing preventing liberal radio from succeding is their failure in the open marketplace. I’m not a big fan of ignoring the first amendment and restricting political speech.
Alli B –
You might want to read what you quote. “Inevitable development” is a pretty important phrase. Obama doesn’t believe in that. As far as bourgeoise oppression, it seems that Obama’s not doing a very good job as a Marxist, since he’s pretty bourgeois himself.
Obama is more libertarian than that: communities should organize themselves. It’s been a core part of his theme.
As far as sharing the wealth, the evidence indicates that when there is too great a disparity in wealth, social trust erodes. The whole purpose of such a transfer is to prevent people like Paris Hilton from thinking they deserve to run the country. After all, do you trust people like Richard Fuld or Keating or the guys at Enron?
#17 the fairness doctrine does not restrict political speech. Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants to entertain us with. All it would require is for someone else to state the facts. It ensures that there is more speech, not less. Further, Obama seems ambivalent about it, and unwilling to sacrifice much political capital for it. But we’re not there yet. I will say, its amusing to see people get frightened about it. Who knows, he might decide to veto such a policy.
And then Rush would OWE him something.
If the fairness doctrine applied to all media including Air America, then perhaps there would not be any – or at least as much – opposition.
However, it only targets one segment of the population — Conservative talk radio, thus violating both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, and possibly the freedom of association.
brief history of the Fairness Doctrine from [url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine]Congresspedia[/url]
[blockquote]The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission, spanning from 1949 to 1987, that required radio and television stations to air all sides of important or controversial issues, and give equal time to all candidates [i][question: would this have forced stations airing Obama’s 30 minute infomercial to give McCain 30 minutes of air-time, too? -je][/i].
The Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in 1969, in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC.
In 1986, a federal court of appeals ruled that the Fairness Doctrine was not law and could be overturned without Congressional approval. Congress responded by passing a bill in 1987 to establish the doctrine as law. It received 3-1 support in the House and 2-1 support in the Senate. The support was broadly bipartisan, with even Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms voting in favor of it. But President Ronald Reagan vetoed it, and Congress did not override the veto.
On June 28, 2007, the House voted to ban the FCC from using public funds to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. The vote specifically rejected the potential for imposing the Fairness Doctrine on media outlets that feature conservative radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. The vote was largely a Republican rebuke to Democratic lawmakers who had recently suggested that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine might be worth investigating, in light of talk radio’s influence on debate over the Senate’s efforts to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.
James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation opposed the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that it easily allowed politicians to shut out opposing viewpoints by imposing costly lawsuits on media programs. He also argued that when the doctrine was in place, political speech was stifled on the airwaves. Radio shows would avoid controversial subjects so as to avoid being subject to the doctrine. Once the doctrine was repealed, he argued, there was growth in political discussion in the media. He wrote, “…broadcasters–especially radio broadcasters–became much more willing to air controversial points of view, in large part because of the repeal of the FCC’s fairness rule. Most notably, talk radio, which had been a relatively rare format, exploded in scope and popularity.”[2]
He strongly opposed the attempted resurgence of the doctrine, saying, “The Federal Communications Commission did the right thing 20 years ago in throwing this unnecessary, counter-productive, and unwise restriction on speech into the regulatory dustbin. It should be left there. To do otherwise would be dangerous and unconstitutional.”
[/blockquote]
“the fairness doctrine does not restrict political speech. Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants to entertain us with. All it would require is for someone else to state the facts. It ensures that there is more speech, not less. ”
John, you’re too smart to actually beleive this nonsense. There is a finite quantity of time available to broadcasters. By forcing them to devote an equal portion of time to air views which have demonstrably failed to generate enough ad revenue to succeed in the marketplace the doctrine forces stations to either subsidize the unprofitable program or go back to airing non-controversial programming such as gardening shows and the like. You and I both know that if Air America had been a success this discussion would never have come up. It is merely another attempt by the Left to use the coercive power of the state to accomplish what they can’t through their own merits.