I must admit I am somewhat confused about the rhetoric that I'm hearing by many who oppose well, just about anything President Obama does. I find that some of the outrage and indignation is rooted in some sort of collective amnesia and cognitive dissonance. I want to point to several areas that I believe are important for us to view.
There are legitimate points that can be argued when it comes to many of our current president's policies --- and those points should be debated. There is also, nevertheless, an element here that defies reasoning. There are many of those that are vehemently protesting, who say they oppose the President's policies as a matter of principle (i.e. opposition to socialism; opposition to growing deficits etc.) and that's fine. However, when the previous administration was guilty of similar "transgressions" (and sometimes even greater ones) there was a deafening silence. Let's take a look at those areas:
Cowboy Socialism
There have been many charges of socialism aimed at President Obama. However, when President Bush actually began his experiment into socialism, there was not this personal demonization of him that we see now with our current President. Bush's $700 billion bailout plan, the partial nationalization of the nation's biggest banks, the federal takeover of insurance giant AIG and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did not illicit this present level of outrage and disdain. Even U.S. Congress members, who voted for the Bush bailout plan, are now accusing President Obama of socialism. I am aware that there were those in opposition to President Obama's plan, who were also in opposition to President Bush's plan, but where were the crowds of angry citizens wanting their America back? There are some who say that this belief in Obama's bent towards socialism is also rooted in his healthcare reform agenda (with its public option component). What these illogical arguments have exposed, however, is that we American's are all quasi-socialists --- some reluctantly; some hypocritically and some proudly, but nevertheless, quasi-socialists. Who has seriously called for the dismantling of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA? On the contrary, "hands off" is the cry in regard to these government-run and controlled programs.
BDD: Budget Deficit Disorder
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion; a few months before he left it was more than $10.549 trillion --- that's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch. Without any fanfare, protest and little notice, the national debt grew by close to $5 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency. Now, buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation was a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It was the 7th time the debt limit had been raised during his administration. In fact it was just on July 30, 2008 that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.
Additionally, President Bush's last budget, that covers the fiscal year of 2009, was criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike because they believed he achieved his goals through fiscal trickery, by not fully accounting for war spending and by assuming, for example, that domestic spending would hold steady from 2009 to 2013. Further, it has to be realized that most of the Bush administration's budget deficit was accomplished with the help of a Republican-led congress. Yet, no significant howls about bankrupting our children and grandchildren; no serious drive to look behind the numbers of the "fuzzy math" contained in those budgets. Fast-forward to 2009 and great deal of those who were silent are now up in arms. Granted, I could accept as an argument: "I wasn't paying attention then like I should, but I am now." But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing the vilification of someone who is nine months into an inherited mess. So if the federal deficit was a major concern to those who protest now... where were they then?
Reaching For The Czars
The newest line of duplicitous attack is concerning the "czars" in President Obama's administration --- the count is at about 34. The word czar, nowadays, is usually short-hand for a Presidential adviser whose title is too long to pronounce. This assault also shows the double-standard being applied to this current President. We are being told by certain pundits that there is a shadow-government being formed through the appointment of these czars. It has also been further asserted that these czar appointments are circumventing some sort of confirmation process by Congress. Although I am a strong proponent in checking governmental and Executive power, I am an even stronger advocate for honesty in our political and social discourse.
Truth is, just about every president since Franklin Roosevelt had "Czar" appointees in their administration. Bush had a total of 36 positions filled by a total of 46 different individuals over the years. Some had the blessing of Congress, but most of them didn't --- over half (24) of Bush's czars were by executive order or special appointment.
Some of the czar positions created by the Bush administration are worthy of note:
Cyber Security Czar
Regulatory Czar
AIDS Czar
Bird Flu Czar
Health IT Czar
Katrina Czar
Manufacturing Czar
Domestic Policy Czar
War Czar
Copyright Czar
Abstinence Czar
Mine Safety Czar
Latin American Czar
WTO Health Czar
Corruption Czar
Privacy Czar
Health Czar
Yet, no great debate about Executive overreach; no hostility about "shadow-governments;" and no grand conspiracies about the "evil" motives and intentions of the previous administration in regard to czars. As far as I'm concerned, when a president is handed two wars and the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression, I want him to be well-advised.
Constitutional Conundrum
There is a fear and assertion that the election of President Obama presented a threat to our civil liberties and an attack on the Constitution. It has also been further asserted that there is a drive by the current administration to set-up some sort of totalitarian government, where the rights of individuals are trampled on. Once again, I support a healthy skepticism of government, but I believe that these allegations are rooted in fear and ignorance. Much of this newfound vigilance (I concede that there are some who were always vigilant) in regard to government intrusion and disregard for civil liberties smacks of hypocrisy and selective amnesia.
President Bush quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted while he was in office, asserting that he had the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress which conflicted with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he could ignore were military rules and regulations, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. This same President, once, during a meeting with Republican Congressional leaders, in which they expressed concerns about renewing the Patriot Act, reportedly showed contempt for the Constitution, calling it "just a goddamned piece of paper."
Moreover, the Bush administration presided over the beginning of the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens --- in other words domestic spying. Now, the argument has been made that it was for our protection and to thwart any future attacks. However, it could be argued that it also laid the groundwork for the "Big Brother" styled government that President Obama is being accused of trying to implement. What I find most troubling is that those who display a strong distrust of government seem to have been more than happy to sign certain civil liberties away. But once again, when real violations of the Constitution were committed in the previous administration there was an absence of significant dissent.
Conclusion
This piece was not written to castigate those who have real concerns about the direction of our government and our country; it was not even written to persuade readers who have a decided point of view or ideology in opposition to our current President's. It was written, however, to point out, what I believe, are clear double-standards and hypocritical standards of judgment when it comes to this present administration. Those who oppose (on principle) what they perceive to be runaway deficits, decreased civil liberties and expansion of governmental and Executive power under President Obama, should have shown the same level of protest with President Bush's very similar actions and policies.
I want us to sincerely ask ourselves: upon what do my arguments and protestations rest? Have I been consistent, in tone and reason, (across the political board) in my criticisms of policies and actions?
I do not discourage honest disagreement, dissent or debate. I am not writing this to advocate for a particular policy or position. I believe an honest discussion takes place when you remove the dishonest and the duplicitous barriers to that discussion. It is for those who have engaged (knowingly or unknowingly) in this injustice that this was written. As for me: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice , and to love kindness , and to walk humbly with your God? "(Micah 6:8 ESV).
Has over 19 years experience working in the field of
anti-racism, equity and inclusion training
Holds Masters in theology & sociology; a PhD in sociology with an emphasis in Critical Race Theory
Is an internationally-recognized authority in the field
of critical race theory and Black Studies
Author of :When Racism Is Law &
Prejudice Is Policy: Discriminatory and Prejudicial Laws, Decisions and
Policies in U.S. History
Has worked with organizations such as Youth For Christ,
Campus Crusade, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Fellowship of Christian
Athletes, Athletes in Action
Has served as a pastor, chaplain and counselor (including
serving as a visiting- chaplain for the NFL)
Proud Husband of Lisa Marie and father of Serena, Clifford, Michael & Ezekiel
This is a great article! I see a lot of people expressing hate towards Obama and his policies, but very little of it seems to actually be based on reality - anyone with criticisms needs to back them up with substance and reason, rather than just ranting and seeking to demonize, attacking everything he does because of their own personal dislike of him rather than taking his actions and judging them for what they are.
Thanks Ben. I wanted to speak to a certain lack of consistency in the criticisms of President Obama. And you're right, there is a level of demonization that is disturbing. Arguments divorced from reason should not rise to the level of legitimacy. Thanks for commenting Ben!
Well documented, ecxellent article. It says what many are thinking and that makes it very relative. I'm afraid that white America hates diversity and that won't change soon. But voices must be heard that this is wrong, not only wrong but dangerous. When the middle class voice is not heard, (and the middle class is becoming more "colorful" as we speak), then the middle class acts socially and liberally, which can be quite revolutionary and dangerous to conservatives trying to maintain the status quo (which comes from fear, which means that conservatives are deathly afraid!) Republicanism is becoming hatism, and that is a fact that's becoming more obvious every day.
Thanks e. It is not protest that I am opposed to; it is not legitimate debate and disagreement that I have a problem with. It is the selective incrimination; it is the collective amnesia that many seem to be suffering from. If the problems are the ones stated in the piece then we should have seen this some time ago. If not then, why now? Thanks for reading and commenting e.
"upon what do my arguments and protestations rest? Have I been consistent, in tone and reason, (across the political board) in my criticisms of policies and actions? "
Wonderful article, Edward. Once again you have called upon myself and the rest of America to be honest in our judgement of others- not just the president. Your message is a welcomed challenge to grow.
Thanks Ken. I appreciate your words of encouragement (and humbled by them as well) --- they have been a blessing to me. I am extremely happy that you could take something from this writing. Blessings to you brother.
Very well-balanced and informative yet again. Many forget the shenannigans of previous administrations, and the old adage of 'throwing stones when in glass houses' still rings true today. It's almost as if there is no difference between the parties as they both have the same stones to throw. Thanks for keeping everyone honest.
Amen and Amen. I am neither all for or all against our current president, nor do I deny the shortcomings of our past president. But you are right, it is easy to get clouded vision when the masses speak up on either extreme. We need to weigh each situation/policy - whatever on its own and based on our own convictions. Thanks for making me and all us think. I have my reasons for not caring for many of the policies our president stands for, but I still think he's got some great ideas and would like to see our entire government come to agreement. Lord help us all! Blessings to you! Teresa
Thanks for commenting Teresa. Scriptures says: A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight (Proverbs 11:1). In our critique of anyone or anything, it MUST be just. As I said this wasn’t about me advocating one position or another, it was about us thinking --- especially, we as Christians. If our first allegiance is to Christ, we won’t be easily steered to extremes or to committing injustices. Thanks for reading and commenting my dear Sister.
» left by Dr Clarence Rucker, Jr from MI (62 days 23 hours ago.)
Thanks Edward, your information is well known. However, when it comes to President Obama, their is the 'White Hate' segment that find this as an opportune moment. Observe from ": “I hope Obama wins because in four years, white people just might be @#$@#&*ed off enough to actually do something. … White people aren’t going to do a thing until their toys are taken away from them. So things have to be worse for things to be better.”
It seems the media do not present the news as once did, now they "Speculate." Remember, they all have experts...smile... This article should be forefront in AP circles. (The hate groups {That is all being reported} do not like the giving away of information by Carter. As quiet as it is, I know Carter is telling the truth.)
Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Thanks for commenting Dr. Rucker. Sadly, in the history of our country, there have always been those who have attempted (and succeeded) in manipulating the fears, ignorance and prejudices of people. Our ultimate antidote is love. And in that love we will find: hope for our fears; understanding for our ignorance; and humility for our prejudices. We, especially those of the household of faith, must be resolute in our love. Thanks again Dr. Rucker for commenting --- you bless me with your honesty.
Thanks David. Yes, he inherited a mess and has his work cut out for him. And although I believe he has gotten a raw deal when it comes to these criticisms, he must be clear about his goals and objectives; he must provide leadership in a more engaged fashion; and he must have the courage of his convictions. If he fails, we all suffer defeat as a nation. That is not an uplifting prospect. I appreciate your remarks David.
I agree with some of your points in this article. The American public got a huge "Wake Up" call when they started losing their homes and jobs. I wish that people would all read the "Congressional Reporter" to learn exactly what they are talking about and what is really going on in the government.
Thanks for commenting Debra. I agree that many American's have been losing their homes and jobs and that is DEFINITELY a part of this anxiety that we can feel in the atmosphere of our political discourse. However, in terms of home foreclosures, we must have hit the snooze button when that alarm went off because that strangely enough isn't one things being seriously protested.
Further, it was a crisis that started more than 4 years ago. I will be taking a look at the Congressional Reporter (I look at the government's websites for the House, Senate & White House as well). I wish we were discussing joblessness and foreclosures more. Thanks for bringing those realities back into this discussion and welcome to SearchWarp.
Excellent points - just for the record, some of us were quite "ticked off" with Bush also... It gets discouraging when you get to the point where both "teams" begin to look alike. BUT I still keep voting and suspect you might be a voter too. Thanks for writing this one, Edward! Marijo
Thanks for writing Marijo. Yeah, I understand that there was plenty of anger towards Bush to go around. My critique was based on the arguments that are being made by some: were they this vehement with the other administration? Seeing that their disagreement is said to be based on a principle. This isn't the two-wrongs make a right argument; far from it. What it is, is the argument that Jesus used with the religious leaders of His day. He called out hypocrisy; he called-out double-standards in judgment. This He did constantly; this He did consistently. He was not a member of any team; He simply lived to please the Father and to do His will --- I know that's where your heart is as well. Yes, I do vote and I am registered Independent --- can't dance with any party :) I appreciate your insights Marijo. Blessings to you sister.
» left by Jim from Atlanta, GA, USA (61 days 13 hours ago.)
I feel that this article stretches to use the "Bush did it too" argument to justify Obama's desires. For the record there WAS a large outcry against what Bush did on most everything.
Conservatives have had to hold their nose too many times to elect the "least Socialist" candidate. Bush proved to be "Liberal Light" and he had to work with a Democrat Congress . . . which started most of the mess we are in now.
The mortgage problems (not a "crisis" but a "scandal") was started by Democrats forcing banks to loan money to people who could not qualify for loans - recipe for disaster.
Using Bush as an example to question the attitudes towards Oabama is lame. In my opinion ALL liberals (i.e., socialists, marxists, etc.) have no place in American government. The USA is the greatest, strongest, most productive country to ever grace the face of the planet. The "poor" here live better than people in many other nations.
The problem with all Liberal/Socialist policies is that you eventually run out of other peoples money. Rather than use Bush to justify Obama's follies I think people should look at the Bush Administration & Democrat Congress and say "no more" . . . including Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, etc.
How about an article that speaks to the failure of Socialism/Marxism and Communism everywhere? Even the communist Chinese are starting to figure it out . .
Sorry Jim, I forgot to answer your first argument i.e. “Bush did it too” In my piece I didn’t advocate for any policy position. There are many programs that former President Bush started that President Obama has furthered, that I don’t agree with either in its administration or its continuance. It would be an erroneous assumption to believe that I’m a cheerleader for any political party or figure. What I do have a problem with is injustice. If the outcry against Bush, of which you speak, is by the same people involved in these current demonstrations, are they consistent, in tone and reason? Where were the mass crowds (and the same people)? Did the past eight years not happen? Do the last eight years have NOTHING to do with where we find ourselves today? I could ask similar questions of those on the left --- if war and the escalation of war was the problem under Bush then how could you be silent now under Obama? I am not speaking for or against any position, I am only pointing out that we are revealed as hypocrites if we only fail to respond to a violation of our deeply-held principles when the transgressor is on the “same team.”
I contend that even football coaches get a few years to turn a struggling franchise around, before serious calls are made to discredit them or remove them (well, unless you’re the Oakland Raiders). A President after being handed two wars and an economic crisis unseen since the Great Depression can’t rightly be asked to turn it around in 9 months. That’s my argument. It is there to be disagreed or agreed with, but must it descend into name-calling and personal attacks? I don’t think it should. Thanks again for reading and commenting Jim.
Thanks Jim for stopping by. Ok, where do I start? You bring many allegations to this discussion without citing information to support it; and have committed the fallacy of ad hominem attacks (attack on the persons) and not the issues.
Let’s deconstruct the mortgage crisis we have found ourselves in. According to studies by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, Joint Center for Housing Studies and others, the CRA has led to increasing homeownership in precisely those markets where the law was intended to do so and CRA-related lending has been found to be profitable.
Coincidentally, the law was strongest in the 1990s, before the statute was watered down and before the surge in subprime lending. Not coincidentally, the CRA was weakened by the Phil Gramm-led Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and subsequent regulatory “reforms.”
More important, it is essential to understand that CRA-covered lenders did not make the loans that went bad. When the law was passed in 1977 approximately three-quarters of all mortgage loans were made by depository institutions covered by the CRA. Today approximately three-quarters of all loans are made by independent mortgage brokers and bankers who have never been covered by the law.
And as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition reported, CRA lenders originated only one-quarter of subprime loans, with the overwhelming number of those loans—the loans that have led to the mortgage meltdown—being made by institutions that had no CRA responsibilities. In 2005 the Federal Reserve reported that just 5 percent of loans made by CRA institutions were high-cost loans, compared to 34 percent for non-CRA lenders. Admittedly, I am a sociologist and not an economist, but I am familiar enough with simple math to know that 34% is significantly larger than 5%.
The attack of socialism and Communism, to me, in of itself, is a knee-jerk reaction and part political theater, because there are many examples of socialist programs that are a staple in American life: i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA etc. Additionally, we seem to have always had a corporate socialism (subsidies, rampant deregulation, tax loopholes etc.) so to speak and have gotten less for the government-funded corporate socialist agenda: jobs shipped overseas, lay-offs, shuttered factories and the like.
Dear Jim, would you trade your home, if you have one, for the tent some of the poor in America will be sleeping in tonight? Would you trade your car, if you have one, for the shopping cart that many of the homeless in America will be pushing all their earthly possessions around in?
I believe it is a destructive politics that seeks to demonize the “other” (whether the “other” is Democrat or Republican; liberal and conservative) and usually flies in the face of critical facts.
I will grab a portion from my article: “Those who oppose (on principle) what they perceive to be runaway deficits, decreased civil liberties and expansion of governmental and Executive power under President Obama, should have shown the same level of protest with President Bush's very similar actions and policies.” It is my Christian belief that, a false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight (Proverbs 11:1). In our critique of anyone or anything, it MUST be just. As I said this wasn’t about me advocating one position or another.
Edward, this time I had to come back and rate. The way I feel about it is that the rating system does not do it justice. The White House Blue Bloods needs it. You know the ones, "The Great Americans" ...smile...
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
