« Iran | Main | "Apollo - Houston; you are go for landing" »
June 26, 2009
Deconstructing Obama or: Business as Usual - Part I
I’ve been working on this (hopefully) comprehensive post for weeks. It will be posted in several parts.
For starters, let me get this off my chest; I voted for John McCain because I didn’t think he was as bad as Obama. This is an odd thing for me to do, because I’m not above leaving a position blank on my ballot because I don’t like any of the candidates. In this instance I felt that the potential threat to the America I know and love was so great that I had to vote for McCain, because to do otherwise would be to tacitly approve of Obama, which I did not.
Perhaps it’s odd to people who know me, who would undoubtedly call me an ‘idealogue’, that I had to think about voting for, (ostensibly), ‘my’ candidate. I don’t see politics through that prism, however, and align myself with Republicans because I believe it’s the party that comes closest to protecting what I think America is all about. Because the genesis of my loyalty wells from that spring, as opposed to a blind adherence to all things Republican, each election consists of many choices for me; it’s not as simple as ticking off all the candidates with an “R” next to their name. There have been a few times where I’ve declined to vote for the Republican or Republican endorsed candidate because I’m not particularly enamored with them, and in the last election I voted for Brian Sonntag, a Democrat, who has actually been working hard to try and make my state more fiscally responsible; I believe in rewarding that.
To take that thought further, there are many things that George W Bush did as President that I strongly disapproved of; moreover, I was vocal in my disapproval. I was so vocal, in fact that a connected woman in a local conservative group I belong to was going to Washington DC two years ago and after hearing me rail about my frustrations, approached me and asked me to write a letter that she would try to hand deliver to the President while she was in meetings in DC. Unfortunately, her tentative meeting with the President fell through, and the letter was never delivered. My disappointment with President Bush came despite the fact that Mr. Man and I both donated quite a bit to his re-election campaign.
So what roused my ire? President Bush’s lack of adherence to the principles of the Republican party and by extension, the principles America was founded on. I strenuously objected to the prescription drug programme that he pushed and eventually signed in to law. I believe in self-sufficiency, and the government is one of the most inefficient and cumbersome agencies on this planet, and therefore not an enabler for self-sufficiency. Also twisted in the whole drug programme were political concerns; many industries that were unionized (for example the auto industry), yet struggling to succeed in America (due to onerous taxes, regulation or poor trade agreements), were being further crippled by the generous compensation and health packages for retirees. With the government shouldering some of the responsibility for that compensation through the prescription drug programme, the pressure on industry was slightly lessened. Furthermore, the AARP is a powerful lobby group that tends to support Democrat candidates, and in the past the Democrats have used seniors as a cudgel to batter Republicans with. Despite the fact that there aren’t scores of destitute seniors and most retirees have a quite good standard of living, the potential for damage to the Republican brand by seeming to turn a blind eye to seniors was palpable. These considerations, not principle, were what I felt motivated President Bush and the (then) Republican Congress to pass that bill. To me, this seems like a poor reason to create a new government bureaucracy that forces taxpayers to fund services for strangers and pick up the administration tab to boot.
The other cause celebre that President Bush championed that I was vehemently opposed to was his proposal to handle the illegal immigrants in our country. I think people should obey the law. Saying it is okay for people to lie, steal and commit illegal acts because they are poor is wrong.
Mexico has problems, most of them brought on by the Mexican government and citizens. The citizens refuse to demand accountability, fairness, investigations into corruption, and allow their politicians to explore a level of deception and selfishness that is incredible. The population is satisfied with promises of bread and circuses, satisfied when their elected officials claim the conditions in Mexico are not the government’s fault but more often than not, the result of American decisions.
Mexicans should be enjoying a better standard of living, yet refuse to demand it. Mexico has incredible oil reserves, NAFTA opened the door for all sorts of American industry to move there (which it did), and they receive massive revenue from tourism. Yet because of the corrupt government, this revenue seems to go into politician’s pockets more than infrastructure, and Mexicans, instead of changing their condition, illegally cross into America. The Mexican government sees a boon in this, in that it has to support even less infrastructure and citizens and as a result publishes comic books that give tips on how to enter America illegally; aliens then come to America and demand rights they never required from their own government. Interestingly, Mexico imprisons and brutally treats any illegal alien it finds in its country, but in the past several years, more and people have managed to come from elsewhere in South America and make it to America through our porous border with Mexico. There is even some evidence that Adnan el-Shukrijuma, wanted by the FBI, trained in nuclear technology and an al-Qaeda operative, entered the United States through this path and used the illegal document trade to obtain a new identity.
On a more basic level of ‘fairness’ why should illegal behaviour be rewarded? People flee oppressive regimes, yet the United States sometimes takes years to legitimize their status as defectors, and we regularly turn away Cubans who brave the sea to come to America yet face brutality if they return. There is no evidence or poll that supported Bush’s notion that these were jobs ‘Americans won’t do’; illegal aliens make up only 4.9% of the entire labour force, their presence has pushed down wages for unskilled workers and illegal aliens receive one and a half times the amount in benefits from the government as they pay in taxes ($16 billion to $26 billion). These statistics are real, culled from the CBO, Centre for Immigration Studies, Pew Hispanic Centre and other places. Why should illegal aliens get jobs ahead of legal immigrants, who have been made redundant by the recession and face deportation back to their country of origin? Legal immigrants need medical certificates, proof of employment (or a waiver for school), undergo checks and often have to wait for years just to enter the country, whereas the proposed ‘immigration reform’ would have levied a small fine, not required medical checkups, (despite growing incidence of parasitic disease in California which has been linked to the burgeoning immigrant population), had only the most rudimentary of background checks and granted benefits and opened our borders to the extended family of illegal immigrants.
Again, the reason was partly political. Democrats and the press have done an admirable job of painting the GOP anti-minority, despite the fact that Republicans were the first to welcome blacks to their voting ranks, (Condoleezza Rice’s father, like many other blacks in the south, was barred from voting by Democrats who refused to register them ), nominated the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court (Miguel Estrada) and President Bush appointed two black Secretary of States and the first Hispanic Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales).
Yet because the GOP opposes affirmative action, it is seen as ‘anti-minority’ and has now bought into the media’s theory that the party cannot survive without the Hispanic vote and that is most effectively obtained by ‘bribing’ the community with very favourable immigration laws. I reject this rationale and don’t think it justifies compromising our principles even if a shred of it turned out to be true. Leaders should not be so easily bent by political motives, and I was disappointed that President Bush (and John McCain among others), supported the bill, and that some even began to intimate that those of us in the party who opposed it were racists. Luckily the American public made their voices heard, and I was one of them; I called the White House, my Representative, my Senators, emailed a letter to the President and hand wrote a letter to the Vice-President (his correspondence secretary sent me a reply). As it turned out, despite being a co-sponsor on the immigration bill, John McCain did not garner the majority of the Hispanic vote last November.
Despite the few disagreements I had with President Bush’s policies, he appears to be a man with convictions. He believes people should be free and oppression is wrong; as someone whose father lived under the yoke of communism, I applaud that. He loves America, and values the service of our men and women in uniform, and he and Laura have spent a lot of time at Walter Reed. He has a genuine compassion for people, and while some of his decisions were influenced to a degree by political concerns, he was also by suffering people, channeling more government funds to AIDS relief in Africa than any other President. Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war at various times, he didn’t abandon that effort in order to further his political image. He used government funds for stem cell research, which had never been done before, but stopped short of approving further embryonic stem cell research because he questioned the morality of it. He was fairly frugal with taxpayer money with regard to the Executive Branch; he didn’t embark on superfluous trips, throw lavish galas or endless state dinners. He was an early riser and a late worker; even during his much derided trips to Crawford, he worked every day and received his regular briefings. Early on he extended a hand of friendship to various Democrat leaders like Teddy Kennedy, inviting him over for hot dogs and a movie screening of ‘JFK’; he later worked with Kennedy on the education bill. He was never above the hardworking Joe and Jane American; he laboured on his ranch clearing brush and wasn’t an elitist; this common touch was very evident particularly in the days after September 11th. He made an effort to avoid what he thought could be construed as politically motivated attacks, and was satisfied with misdemeanor charges and a slap on the wrist for Sandy Berger, (Clinton’s former National Security Advisor), even though Berger knowingly removed classified information just prior to his testimony in front of the 9/11 commission, and Republicans were outraged there weren’t strong penalties for Berger.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade; I disagreed with the previous administration and made my voice heard, even though I am a Republican. I believe issues and conduct should be examined in light of what my principles and values are, and those are pretty simple. People should obey the law as closely as possible, (I’m talking about the big things, not speeding tickets), and live moral lives where they do not steal from or harm another person. People should not use their power and position to enrich themselves by questionable means (insider trading or pork projects to political supporters), or grant themselves privileges that are denied to others (like sweetheart mortgages), or attempt to gain control over another person’s life, which they are not entitled to (nationalised medicine). Justice should be blind and the same rules applied to everyone because to do otherwise is to invite favouritism and corruption. The same opportunities should be available to everyone, and results should come from individual effort and not some government entity trying to enforce its version of ‘equality’. We should strive to be fair and just in our dealings with other humans and other countries, champion liberty and use the Constitution as our guide when we create laws. People can make better decisions for themselves than some faceless bureaucrat 3000 miles away.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with Barack Obama; hope is not a principle and change is not a value. I don’t know what drives him, what he uses as a guide when he makes decisions. ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ are feel good words that mean nothing, that don’t show me the character of the man or what is important to him.
I respect many people who I disagree with because otherwise they are people of principle, but I cannot respect someone who doesn’t seem to have any principles at all.
Next Installment: The Democrat’s Double Standard.
Posted by hanyap at June 26, 2009 3:41 PM