Some of Obama's most vehement critics are from the left. Deeply mistrusting and cynical from decades of observing American politics, they are always inclined to assume the worst intentions from Obama's actions and words. Even if, under his watch, health care reform has gone further than ever before in history, those critics will simply say that he should have done more and put the needs of the American public by the wayside from the very beginning. Why do those miserable fools still observe politics if they expect that no good will come from it? More importantly, why do they seek to make the optimists miserable like they are?
What's so different between those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum? Not much. These left-wing critics are no better than the radical right-wing critics of Republican politicians. The latter may consider a Republican, who is already considered to be a conservative by the mainstream public, to not be conservative enough. The recent election in NY's 23rd congressional district is a prime example of how the right fringe showed its displeasure at the nomination of a moderate candidate: it nominated its own candidate because it didn't consider the GOP candidate to be "conservative enough".
By the way, they lost that election. Consider what would happen if these threats by purist Democrats to primary Blue Dogs and even President Obama himself were to come to fruition in 2010 and 2012. The media and the GOP would have a field day with the "Democratic Party is fractured" meme, and the GOP would almost certainly benefit electorally. Republicans could win back both the House and the Senate, and possibly even the White House, if the Democrats are disorganized and fighting amongst themselves. They'd create an even greater mess for the next Democratic president to clean up, and inevitably, his critics from his own party will claim he's not doing everything exactly to their liking.
The Democratic Party's inclusive, "big tent" philosophy naturally results in a base that is diverse in age, skin color, background, and experiences; it's a double-edged sword, and Democrats will always be somewhat handicapped by their diversity. The Party leadership must place great emphasis on the "common, shared human experiences" theme, because now the conservatives and the progressives are feeling absolutely no love for one another. Obama, naturally, is in the crossfire, receiving blows from both sides.
He is treated like a child in a family with two highly-demanding parents; I've been around families like this, especially within the Chinese community. You know how those families are. The parents force their children to practice their musical instruments for hours a day, and expect them to excel in academics. Straight-A report cards and top scores on standardized tests are not even cause for praise. Oh no, they must go above and beyond--win all the science and math fairs, skip grades, gain entrance into the most prestigious colleges in the nation (with full scholarships, no less). Obama's stuck in the same rut--he can't please his base, no matter how hard he tries. His critics say that all his accomplishments so far (and there are quite a few) are par for the course, and that any Democratic president would have achieved them; they claim he hasn't lived up to his slogan of "change we need". Never mind that he's ten months into his first term, and that his major promises are also the ones that take the longest to achieve.
Granted, most of these parents are products of their upbringings and environments; in China, for example, the competition is extremely fierce among secondary school students, because China has too many students and too little space in colleges and universities. The parents, if they were immigrants, had probably come to America in search for a better life, and want their children to be better. I'm going to go ahead and say that most of Obama's critics simply wish for him to live up to his promises and bring about real change so that all present and future Americans may benefit, just like those parents wish for their children to have better lives than they had. As for some of them, though, I can't help but think that they are either so cynical and jaded that they expect no less than for him to betray his party, or that they have never liked or trusted him for some reason.
All politicians make promises during their campaigns; how quickly they can fulfill them is difficult for them or anyone else to predict. If they had told the truth and said that they can't promise they will give everyone's pet issue their full attention in their first year in office, would anyone vote for them? My argument is that we should believe those promises, but not expect our politicians to act on all of them immediately, and not expect them to have our number-one issues as their top priorities right away. Some people set themselves up to be extremely disappointed, but why do that when we know better? I swear they are like parents who are so cynical that they expect their teenage children to do drugs, imbibe alcohol, and hang out with the bad crowd even if none of them are actually involved in those activities. Add to that the parents' not believing their children even when they are telling the truth. It's sad that it had to come to this.
What bothers me the most is that the latter tend to like to spread their misery around. They go to Obama photodiaries or other positive Obama diaries and post comments that are intended to disrupt the stream of mostly positive responses and chastise the other commenters for being naive, stupid idol-worshippers who were blind to all his (supposedly) true loyalties and allegiances that they (think they) know him to have. Like they are in his inner circle, or could tap into his thought processes and discover his true intentions.
He ought to be criticized when necessary, but some of his critics are truly taking it too far and attacking his character, assuming the worst intentions, and bullying those who still support him. Do they really think they are helping the cause by attacking the President this way? Do they really think primarying him is a good, noble action against a supposedly corrupt politician? Do they really expect him to fulfill all his promises at an inhuman pace, circumventing the obstacles of the media, his opponents, and all the delays in the legislative process? Who is really naive here?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
One long, winding rant
In a forum that I frequently read, the discussion of the bloody murder of a model by her wealthy husband quickly disintegrated into a cruel mockery of her "blonde bimbo" image. To them, she was the epitome of a vapid, naive young woman who used artificially-enhanced looks to gain the affections of wealthy men. Their mockery of her reminds me of the public's and the media's treatment of Anna Nicole Smith, who also died tragically, with the aid of others who were supposed to be helping her. What they forget is that these two women, and others like them, were human beings both before and after their transformations who became caricatures of themselves in order to gain the attention of others. I guess, in a sense, they deserved the treatment...but even after their deaths? It's beyond tasteless--it's cruel.
What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.
I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).
Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?
Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.
Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.
What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.
I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).
Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?
Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.
Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.
Monday, August 17, 2009
I am so sick of many of the progressive activists in the Democratic Party, and I agree with most of their platforms. Public option, to them, has become (with some reluctance, because they actually want Single Payer) their Holy Grail. It "goes under the bus" or "dies" when the President fails to mention it at a town hall meeting, or when he expresses openness to another method. They go ballistic when he says "health insurance reform" instead of "health care reform", even though health insurance is in the most urgent need of reform if we're ever going to see actual progress in improving health care. They vehemently condemn the President and the Secretary of HHS when she says that Obama does not see the public option as essential to the bill. Anyone who says that public option is not everything and the only thing that matters, is a traitor in their eyes.
I know health care is a deeply personal issue which regularly stirs up strong emotions in anyone who has had a terrible experience dealing with callous, greedy insurance companies and the obscene costs of medical treatment, but does the debate really have to come to the point in which people from our side begin to behave disturbingly like those right-wing extremists in the Republican Party? We have all seen what could happen if people let their emotions overcome their reason.
To them, now, Obama is a sellout. He's pledged his allegiance to corporations and profits over the American people, and he should expect no support from the left flank of his own party in 2012 when he runs for re-election. He broke his promises, and he is not the "Change We Need", but "More of the Same". Why isn't he prosecuting Bush, Cheney, and all those who violated the Constitution to permit the torture of detainees? Why hasn't he already repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Why hasn't he already gotten us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Oh, and for that matter, why hasn't he single-handedly cured AIDS and cancer, eliminated poverty and infectious disease, ended nuclear proliferation, and stopped global warming? Aren't we expecting a little too much, too soon from one man to whom we've pinned so many of our greatest hopes? Hasn't he said that the real power to bring about change lies in the people, that they should hold his feet to the fire? Well, instead of moaning about the "death" of the public option, lashing out when it feels threatened, and writing about its woes, why don't they spend the time actually calling and emailing those politicians like they implore us to do, it seems, every single day?
I know health care is a deeply personal issue which regularly stirs up strong emotions in anyone who has had a terrible experience dealing with callous, greedy insurance companies and the obscene costs of medical treatment, but does the debate really have to come to the point in which people from our side begin to behave disturbingly like those right-wing extremists in the Republican Party? We have all seen what could happen if people let their emotions overcome their reason.
To them, now, Obama is a sellout. He's pledged his allegiance to corporations and profits over the American people, and he should expect no support from the left flank of his own party in 2012 when he runs for re-election. He broke his promises, and he is not the "Change We Need", but "More of the Same". Why isn't he prosecuting Bush, Cheney, and all those who violated the Constitution to permit the torture of detainees? Why hasn't he already repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Why hasn't he already gotten us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Oh, and for that matter, why hasn't he single-handedly cured AIDS and cancer, eliminated poverty and infectious disease, ended nuclear proliferation, and stopped global warming? Aren't we expecting a little too much, too soon from one man to whom we've pinned so many of our greatest hopes? Hasn't he said that the real power to bring about change lies in the people, that they should hold his feet to the fire? Well, instead of moaning about the "death" of the public option, lashing out when it feels threatened, and writing about its woes, why don't they spend the time actually calling and emailing those politicians like they implore us to do, it seems, every single day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)