A President at a Loss
August 9, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
A pal of mine, whose political views are to the left of my own, is not very happy with President Obama. He dislikes Obama’s continuation of many of President Bush’s policies and he is disillusioned with Obama’s meager leadership skills, but his criticism is fairly low-key, characterized by a sense of quiet restlessness.
Nevertheless, if I dare to criticize the president—on the policies, the passivity, the professorial condescension, the pea-eating lectures or on the general over-ratedness that I and many others counted, in 2008, as weaknesses rendering him unsuited to the Oval Office—my friend becomes “concerned” about me; my complaints “trouble” him in unspecified ways, but he no longer flings the cheap, easy and inaccurate epithet of “racist” my way, because he has learned that one can legitimately find Barack Obama underwhelming in the extreme, without any underlying motive.
Still, he accuses me of “hating” President Obama, but that too is inaccurate. Being Irish-Catholic, I hold no pious illusions that in merely professing Christ I am somehow immune from the temptation to hate, but I know that I do not “hate” Barack Obama.
I know this because for all I may not understand about the mysteries of God or prayer or love or hate, I do know this: it is impossible to hate someone if you are sincerely praying to Almighty God for their sake.
I pray for President Obama every single day—for his safety, for his growth in wisdom, and most especially for his salvation, which is not as arrogant as it sounds. Believing that God wants everyone to be reconciled to heaven, praying for someone’s salvation is not a judgment on that individual’s soul but a plea that the soul may be ever more open to the love of the Creator. A soul so-directed cannot help, then, to be one that is attuned to a frequency of justice tempered by mercy, and mercy constrained by justice, which is the balancing message of the Cross.
But lately, it is the president’s safety that has taken precedence over the rest of my prayer.
The last Bush presidency saw a peculiar rise in “assassination chic” merchandise and art. Books, movies and plays were disseminated and discussed with offense taken only by the so-called “wingnuts” of the right who, though disgusted, understood that these extravagant fantasies were simple, immature venting: in truth, the left knew that such a horrific event would martyr Bush, place Dick Cheney in the Oval Office and solidify, not weaken, Republican power. The saner among them were even capable of looking beyond politics to the humanity of the president, and urging their friends to back down from the fringe-madness, however cathartic.
Just so, Obama, Biden and the American right. Except for the absence of gleeful Assassination Arts and Crafts, the situations mirror each other to a remarkable degree, and the administration has little reason to fear anything from the right except for their boisterous opposition and the possibility that the more spiteful among them might sing “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, goodbye” as Marine One carries the former President Obama to Andrews Air Force Base.
If it’s true, then, that the opposition never wants to martyr the object of their animosity, thus handing sympathy and myth to the other party, why do I pray for Barack Obama’s safety and salvation?
Because our times are confusing; our understanding of ourselves as a people has become fractured and events are unfolding about us with an abruptness that challenges comfortable assumptions about everything from our safety (are our immediate threats to personal safety coming from fanatics or from flash mobs?) to what constitutes authentic leadership and whether that even exists, anymore. Yesterday, President Obama took to the podium and proclaimed, “. . . we have always been and always will be a triple-A country,” and it sounded like empty sentimentalism from a man at a loss for words and for meaning—the kind of helpless, grasping-at-straws thing you say to a defeated friend you are trying to buck up, even as you know you lack the answers, or the resources, to offer either consolation or solutions.
A president grasping and at a loss is a president at risk in a thousand different ways. And regardless of ideology, he is a president who needs our prayers.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Underwhelming Obama
Assassination chic
The Hate is only about Power
"Bush will declare martial law, suspend elections"
Obama Suspend Elections
Growing anger from the Left
Obama: American Still AAA
Challenging Obama
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.9.2011 | 2:45am
Rick says:
For all Obama's foibles and faults, he isn't far off the mark to take S&P's downgrading of US debt with a grain of salt. Until very recently, S&P was rating Ireland's debt at AAA (that showed marvelous foresight, didn't it?), and at this writing they are giving Spain's debt a higher rating than Japan's!
8.9.2011 | 7:40am
Joe DeVet says:
Sadly, it was very clear to anyone who had eyes to see that candidate Obama was little more than an empty suit, and a hopeful emblem which could never deliver on the hopes projected onto him. A clear vision of the man and politician would have revealed that incompetence and inexperience were only the beginning of trouble--add to that the fact that, where something like policy ideas could be discerned, the policies were absolutely toxic to the Republic. As a final negative, but not necessarily the least important, he was the most pro-abortion presidential candidate available.
All of those problems, which could be clearly seen at the outset, have been borne out in the actual fact of his presidency. Alas, the one positive accomplishment attributed to him, that finally a black man could be elected president and put our racist past behind us, has failed as well. If anything, the animosity and mistrust between races has been increased by this presidency--for the reason cited in the article. Those who defend him, having no rational arguments, fall back to calling names. Many, I fear, don't realize this is simply the rhetoric of those who can't find rational arguments, and do actually believe that racism is behind the criticism.
Elizabeth displays the attitude that we should all try to adopt toward this "man-child" who sits in the Oval Office. Pray for him, for his safety and salvation. Calmly and firmly criticize what must be criticized for the good of the country.
All of those problems, which could be clearly seen at the outset, have been borne out in the actual fact of his presidency. Alas, the one positive accomplishment attributed to him, that finally a black man could be elected president and put our racist past behind us, has failed as well. If anything, the animosity and mistrust between races has been increased by this presidency--for the reason cited in the article. Those who defend him, having no rational arguments, fall back to calling names. Many, I fear, don't realize this is simply the rhetoric of those who can't find rational arguments, and do actually believe that racism is behind the criticism.
Elizabeth displays the attitude that we should all try to adopt toward this "man-child" who sits in the Oval Office. Pray for him, for his safety and salvation. Calmly and firmly criticize what must be criticized for the good of the country.
8.9.2011 | 8:25am
sd says:
Rick,
I agree. I've seen in the last 48 hours or so a strain of "conservative" punditry that defends the S&P decision against the criticisms of the Obama administration. But in this case Obama is right - the S&P decision is a farce and comes from an organization that has allowed its credibility to be shredded over the past several years. The $2 trillion math error in the S&P "analysis" is only the technical manifestation of the deep underlying confusion at the heart of the S&P report. These guys are out of their league.
I agree. I've seen in the last 48 hours or so a strain of "conservative" punditry that defends the S&P decision against the criticisms of the Obama administration. But in this case Obama is right - the S&P decision is a farce and comes from an organization that has allowed its credibility to be shredded over the past several years. The $2 trillion math error in the S&P "analysis" is only the technical manifestation of the deep underlying confusion at the heart of the S&P report. These guys are out of their league.
8.9.2011 | 8:36am
ferd says:
President Obama is doing the best he can, considering the delusions that have fed him most of his life...i.e....Keynesian economics, Leftist social engeneering, etc. He seems to be completely failing just now. Having started his presidency with a world apology tour for the "sins" and "arrogance" of the United States, look for him to exit the office with more shrill whining and blaming.
8.9.2011 | 9:26am
Tom J says:
I well remember the hate directed at President Bush and found it very disturbing. I vowed to never engage in such behavior once a President was elected with whom I disagreed. From the day of his election I have consciously prayed for Mr. Obama "and all the realm" (as Robert Bolt wrote in "A Man For All Seasons"). I hoped that the President might be able to take a message back to his base that reason, at times, required more conservative action on his part. Some of his efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to be doing so. Nevertheless, I am sorely disappointed that I disagree with every other decision or policy that he has proposed. Where are the "wise men" who I hoped would guide him? So we must pray for him and that somehow out of these bad decisions good will result. We, of course, do not know everything and politics is not everything, but from what we do see, the next election cannot come soon enough. Perhaps God will send some of those "wise men" to the President soon and spare the country from what appear to be some very difficult days ahead.
8.9.2011 | 9:57am
Randy says:
Even though I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I was proud on Inauguration Day that America--born amidst racial slavery, could finally hand the reins of power to a black man. But I also knew, there were at least five thousand black men (and women) in America who were more qualified than this man. Maybe one who at least had built or run a large business, and had to make payroll every week--a capitalist. Bill Clinton showed that a liberal can at least understand how the economy works, even if they still feel compelled to guide it with a too-heavy hand. Obama knows--thinks he knows--lots of things about the economy, but most of them aren't true. If he doesn't know why he's making small business owners nervous, he doesn't know much.
8.9.2011 | 10:21am
Mike K says:
I hope God sends us a wise new presisent in 2012. He is every bit the disaster I hoped he would not be.
8.9.2011 | 10:37am
Janice says:
I've thought many of the same things Mrs. Scalia has written about here, including wondering if our woebegone president fears for his safety or how his wife takes the constant attacks on her personality (read that "sourpuss").
The thing that rings most true to me is that Mrs. Scalia is a better Catholic than I.
I wish the man no dire ill will, but I do wish he'd find another job....
The thing that rings most true to me is that Mrs. Scalia is a better Catholic than I.
I wish the man no dire ill will, but I do wish he'd find another job....
8.9.2011 | 11:15am
David Nickol says:
Joe Nocera in today's New York Times pretty much sums up what I feel—serious disappointment with Obama, but realism about the tasks he faced and will be facing in the future. "Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damage as George W. Bush?" Nocera asks? Two wars as yet unfinished, the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit, the financial meltdown of 2008, and well over $1 trillion in stimulus spending (including $700 billion for TARP).
I am wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO? The real problem at the moment is not the deficit. That is a long term problem, and there is plenty of time to fix it. The urgent problem is the economy and unemployment. What is the Republican plan to get people back to work and to spur economic growth?
I am wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO? The real problem at the moment is not the deficit. That is a long term problem, and there is plenty of time to fix it. The urgent problem is the economy and unemployment. What is the Republican plan to get people back to work and to spur economic growth?
8.9.2011 | 12:02pm
greggo says:
as a lefty-progressive, I'm sad and disappointed that as President Obama holds out an olive branch "others" take the branch and whip him. I believe in peace, cooperation and compromise. To act like the "others" will make us like the "others." Perhaps our only option is to pray while the economy collapses then try to rebuild.
8.9.2011 | 12:17pm
Ellen says:
I'm quite conservative and, after seeing the vitrol slung at President Bush, vowed never to stoop to that level. I'm a Catholic and lately I have been meditating on the verse "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" and seriously trying to put it in action. It is wonderfully liberating to pray for those with whom you disagree and the burden simply lifts off your shoulders when you do. I still think the President and his advisors are wrong, wrong, wrong on just about everything, but I leave them to the mercy of God.
8.9.2011 | 12:18pm
Edward Alleyn says:
The prescription drug benefit and no child left behind are bipartisan programs. The late Teddy Kennedy supported the first and sponsored the second. As for the tax cuts, I'll leave it to you to find their impact on the economy. The financial meltdown of 2008 was largely due to Freddie Mac and Fanny May and the blind eye that Barney Frank and others turned to them. 1 trillion is a great deal of money, but President Oblather has raised the debt by 33%.
Believe it or not, I, too, pray for President Obama, but not for his policies.
Believe it or not, I, too, pray for President Obama, but not for his policies.
8.9.2011 | 12:27pm
Richard says:
Wasn't it George Wallace that said there wasn't a lick of spit difference between D's and R's? In response to this article, I wonder if the author has some notion that John McCain would have brought us to a much different, and better place, than we are at this moment in history? Maybe Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry can pray us out of debt and into earthly happiness.
If one reads the paper and the news carefully, this president's jagged trek as president is much more related to the obstacles of leading a people that have become increasingly ungovernable in recent decades. At least she does seem to acknowledge that Bush was not effective. And regarding debt.....at least Obama hasn't invaded any new countries!
If one reads the paper and the news carefully, this president's jagged trek as president is much more related to the obstacles of leading a people that have become increasingly ungovernable in recent decades. At least she does seem to acknowledge that Bush was not effective. And regarding debt.....at least Obama hasn't invaded any new countries!
8.9.2011 | 12:50pm
Brandon says:
Oh yes-- "people that have become increasingly ungovernable." This new talking point bothers me profoundly, because it suggests that a citizen's primary duty is to sit still and "be governed" by her betters. Interestingly, one could roughly correlate people becoming increasingly ungovernable in recent decades with the general rise of the welfare state and public education.
8.9.2011 | 1:03pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Barack Obama has incredibly made Jimmy Carter look like a statesman. The fellow has become political toast.
8.9.2011 | 1:42pm
Fred says:
@ Peter Leavitt, From your keyboard to God's ears, but I wouldn't redecorate the White House just yet. Remember 1996; the GOP has an almost magical ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's entirely possible that Bachmann voters will stay home if Romney's nominated, and it's a dead certainty that Bachmann is unelectable even against Obama.
As for hatred of Obama, I'm with the other commenters who were disgusted by Bush Derangement Syndrome and determined not to emulate it. I hate Obama's politics and policies, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't care much for the persona he projects in speeches and interviews (which strikes me as the persona of someone arrogant, condescending, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is), but it's absurd to hate someone you've never met. Having said that, though, my most fervent prayer for Obama is for a safe and speedy return to private citizenship.
As for hatred of Obama, I'm with the other commenters who were disgusted by Bush Derangement Syndrome and determined not to emulate it. I hate Obama's politics and policies, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't care much for the persona he projects in speeches and interviews (which strikes me as the persona of someone arrogant, condescending, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is), but it's absurd to hate someone you've never met. Having said that, though, my most fervent prayer for Obama is for a safe and speedy return to private citizenship.
8.9.2011 | 2:52pm
LisaB says:
From the very beginning I have prayed for Obama because I knew I was slipping into a hatred for him. Now when I look back on the past 3 years I chuckle at how God has deepened my prayer life (and not just praying for Obama) through Obama. It is more important that we pray for America now, we haven't come close to bottom, yet.
"And regarding debt.....at least Obama hasn't invaded any new countries! "
Is this satire?
"And regarding debt.....at least Obama hasn't invaded any new countries! "
Is this satire?
8.9.2011 | 3:02pm
Brian English says:
"I am wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO?"
Why don't we start with something he should not have done--force through a massive revamping of the healthcare system during a recession. How could he have possibly thought that would not cause widespread apprehension in the business community?
"The prescription drug benefit and no child left behind are bipartisan programs."
As was TARP. I believe a certain Senator from Illinois voted for that.
Why don't we start with something he should not have done--force through a massive revamping of the healthcare system during a recession. How could he have possibly thought that would not cause widespread apprehension in the business community?
"The prescription drug benefit and no child left behind are bipartisan programs."
As was TARP. I believe a certain Senator from Illinois voted for that.
8.9.2011 | 3:08pm
Ann says:
This was a very mature article. I appreciate seeing adults behave like adults. Thank you Mrs Scalia.
8.9.2011 | 4:05pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English,
No matter how much one opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and no matter how wise or unwise it may have been to pass it, it is not the cause of the current economic situation. Businesses are not refraining from hiring because of PPACA, and the Dow didn't drop 600 points yesterday because of PPACA. PPACA became law March 23, 2010.
So I am still wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO? Or, alternatively, what is the plan of the Republicans for dealing with current unemployment and a possible second recession?
No matter how much one opposes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and no matter how wise or unwise it may have been to pass it, it is not the cause of the current economic situation. Businesses are not refraining from hiring because of PPACA, and the Dow didn't drop 600 points yesterday because of PPACA. PPACA became law March 23, 2010.
So I am still wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO? Or, alternatively, what is the plan of the Republicans for dealing with current unemployment and a possible second recession?
8.9.2011 | 4:16pm
jm says:
I appreciate this article. For years, I struggle with feelings of hate toward President George W. Bush. Gifted with being born into a fine family, he was showered with superb educational opportunities. A mediocre businessman - at best - he smooth-talked his way into the governorship in a state with historically weak gubernatorial power. He squeaked by in the election, electorally, despite being a popular vote loser. His doe-eyed response to 9/11 continues to haunt me. His belated cheerleading at the WTC site gave me the same "empty suit" feeling people complain about in President Obama. The disastrous war against Iraq and his quest to privatize Social Security as the spoils of an electoral "mandate" make me cringe. The unpaid-for tax cuts, pushed through in a reconciliation bill, plus the pharmaecutical company-written Medicare D plan haunt us to this day.
It is so hard not to hate. Hating is so easy. It comes so naturally. I try and temper it with prayers for his soul, for his well-being, for his lovely wife, for his children, but it is so hard to lose the hate. I appreciate Mrs. Scalia's reflections. I rarely agree with her politically, but I continue to be impressed by her ability to honestly and sometimes painfully self-reflect. Her writing is brave in the way that is rare today.
As much as I am angry at "Obama-haters", I know what they are feeling. I've felt it and often continue to feel it for years with President Bush. Hate scars the soul.
It is so hard not to hate. Hating is so easy. It comes so naturally. I try and temper it with prayers for his soul, for his well-being, for his lovely wife, for his children, but it is so hard to lose the hate. I appreciate Mrs. Scalia's reflections. I rarely agree with her politically, but I continue to be impressed by her ability to honestly and sometimes painfully self-reflect. Her writing is brave in the way that is rare today.
As much as I am angry at "Obama-haters", I know what they are feeling. I've felt it and often continue to feel it for years with President Bush. Hate scars the soul.
8.9.2011 | 4:30pm
Brian English says:
"Businesses are not refraining from hiring because of PPACA,"
You are wrong about that. You also don't see that Obama's entire approach to leadership (or really the lack thereof) has had a chilling effect on business. Steve Wynn and Dan Loeb, two former Obama supporters, have both spoken out recently about that.
"So I am still wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO?"
How about fast-tracking the oil and natural gas drilling that could be creating jobs and producing tax revenues? No way to outsource those jobs, is there? How about trying to cut some of the regulations that drive business costs up?
"what is the plan of the Republicans for dealing with current unemployment and a possible second recession?"
Apparently you have never heard of Paul Ryan. Here is a better question --what is Obama's plan for dealing with those issues? He is the president you know. Where is the Democratic Senate's Budget?
You are wrong about that. You also don't see that Obama's entire approach to leadership (or really the lack thereof) has had a chilling effect on business. Steve Wynn and Dan Loeb, two former Obama supporters, have both spoken out recently about that.
"So I am still wondering what Obama's critics from the right think he should DO?"
How about fast-tracking the oil and natural gas drilling that could be creating jobs and producing tax revenues? No way to outsource those jobs, is there? How about trying to cut some of the regulations that drive business costs up?
"what is the plan of the Republicans for dealing with current unemployment and a possible second recession?"
Apparently you have never heard of Paul Ryan. Here is a better question --what is Obama's plan for dealing with those issues? He is the president you know. Where is the Democratic Senate's Budget?
8.9.2011 | 4:43pm
Brian English says:
Below is a link to an article by Mickey Kaus talking about what Obama can do. I have to admit Kaus is not a Republican, but I think people from across the political spectrum should be able to agree with his point:
"http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/09/obama-not-much-further-we-can-cut/
"http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/09/obama-not-much-further-we-can-cut/
8.9.2011 | 4:58pm
Bethanie Ryan says:
I share in many peoples' disillusionment with President Obama, but the options for the next election aren't looking very good, either. We need to pray for Obama and whoever the next president will be (pray twice for him if it's him again).
8.9.2011 | 6:24pm
Richard says:
Brian English: Just saying something is so doesn't make it so. That's the MO for Fox News, group therapy for losers. I suppose I would consider if you had citations for your notion that the health care law Obama fought for has something to do with the current financial meltdown. I don't think you can. Most of the law doesn't even come into effect until 2014!!! Where are you getting your information?
8.9.2011 | 6:33pm
Stephen Ashby says:
Sure, by all means, pray for the President. He needs all the help he can get. You should also remember to pray for the victims of his incompetence and arrogance. Pray for the millions of unemployed and underemployed and the dwindling American middle class who are watching their financial health drained by bad federal policy in health care, housing, and energy. Also remember to pray for the future generations who are going to are going to have pay for the feckless and corrupt governance of the Obama Administration and his cronies in the 112th Congress.
8.9.2011 | 6:41pm
Joe McCarthy says:
Wisdom comes with experience.
This President inherited the symptoms which George W Bush affected through a cut in revenues and his own Medicare part D.
We have a duty, a word seldom used in these debate to fund the programs which tens or millions will depend in years to come...3-5 years, medicare and Social Security will be drawn against.
I am a partisan, I do not believe that Grover Norquist has any legal or moral authority over elected official. The gray ghost's comment on Hobbits was pot on.
Subscribing to the notion that years of hard work and participating in a Government program, a promise of tomorrow, is the duty of those in the work force to provide,
I am insured and am retired I do not advocate for my benefit, but for those who may not have provided outside social security, especially with the uncertainty in the markets we all plied, real estate and stock.
Perhaps the inequity in Wisconsin will result in the result I wish, if this Governor by fiat, eliminate collective bargaining, what is to preclude some future President from negating Veterans Benefits as ell as social security, tell that to the men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan, and project their dismay. Look only to England to see the turmoil of our "cousins"
Sic Transit Gloria
This President inherited the symptoms which George W Bush affected through a cut in revenues and his own Medicare part D.
We have a duty, a word seldom used in these debate to fund the programs which tens or millions will depend in years to come...3-5 years, medicare and Social Security will be drawn against.
I am a partisan, I do not believe that Grover Norquist has any legal or moral authority over elected official. The gray ghost's comment on Hobbits was pot on.
Subscribing to the notion that years of hard work and participating in a Government program, a promise of tomorrow, is the duty of those in the work force to provide,
I am insured and am retired I do not advocate for my benefit, but for those who may not have provided outside social security, especially with the uncertainty in the markets we all plied, real estate and stock.
Perhaps the inequity in Wisconsin will result in the result I wish, if this Governor by fiat, eliminate collective bargaining, what is to preclude some future President from negating Veterans Benefits as ell as social security, tell that to the men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan, and project their dismay. Look only to England to see the turmoil of our "cousins"
Sic Transit Gloria
8.9.2011 | 6:54pm
Brian English says:
"I suppose I would consider if you had citations for your notion that the health care law Obama fought for has something to do with the current financial meltdown."
Why do you think all of those politically connected companies are getting waivers from the requirements of the law (about 20% happen to be in Nancy Pelosi's district)? It is going to increase costs for businesses (or cause them to drop health insurance coverage), and no reasonable person even disputes that anymore.
I am not here to do research at your request so that you can fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Do you have something to refute my statement?
Why do you think all of those politically connected companies are getting waivers from the requirements of the law (about 20% happen to be in Nancy Pelosi's district)? It is going to increase costs for businesses (or cause them to drop health insurance coverage), and no reasonable person even disputes that anymore.
I am not here to do research at your request so that you can fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Do you have something to refute my statement?
8.9.2011 | 6:56pm
Ayodele says:
Has Obama been a total failure? Absolutely. Do members of the black community understand this? Totally. Why then would they continue to support him in overwhelming numbers? Because they possess an innate understanding of his situation, and identify with him in ways that white Americans simply do not and cannot know in experience.
First of all, the problem with conservative criticism of Obama is simply that regardless of whether such criticism is justified or not, race IS always in the picture. Why? Because, being black, he is not like any other president in US history. Because the history of race relations in the US reveals time after time that racial opposition cloaked as objective criticism and detailed in such a way as to imply the inferiority of members of minorities HAS been the rule rather than the exception. Even up till the present. Therefore I have found that black people as a rule are extremely sensitive to white criticism in every realm, moreso when it has to do with public office.
Secondly, being a black man, Obama represents not just the liberal side of the political divide, but also the hopes and aspirations of every member of the black race. Thus any criticism of him will necessarily be colored by the cloudy lenses of race relations, and is often taken personally by virtually any black person. In this sense, Elizabeth Scalia's experience with her friend (whose race is unstated), is very typical. You could go out on the street of any city in America, pick out a random black person and ask him or her what they think about Obama's performance as president. In practically every instance the response will be identical.
Obama won the presidency because America needed an Obama. In this sense he is a fabrication of the liberal elite and the media. Therefore if he had not existed, it would have been necessary to create him. But now, having found that their creation is flawed, they are abandoning him to the wolves right, left and center. This is why black support of Obama is so unwavering, not that they think that he can do no wrong, but that regardless of his performance in office, he will always have the sympathy and support of most of the black race, even if he loses almost everyone else on the left.
First of all, the problem with conservative criticism of Obama is simply that regardless of whether such criticism is justified or not, race IS always in the picture. Why? Because, being black, he is not like any other president in US history. Because the history of race relations in the US reveals time after time that racial opposition cloaked as objective criticism and detailed in such a way as to imply the inferiority of members of minorities HAS been the rule rather than the exception. Even up till the present. Therefore I have found that black people as a rule are extremely sensitive to white criticism in every realm, moreso when it has to do with public office.
Secondly, being a black man, Obama represents not just the liberal side of the political divide, but also the hopes and aspirations of every member of the black race. Thus any criticism of him will necessarily be colored by the cloudy lenses of race relations, and is often taken personally by virtually any black person. In this sense, Elizabeth Scalia's experience with her friend (whose race is unstated), is very typical. You could go out on the street of any city in America, pick out a random black person and ask him or her what they think about Obama's performance as president. In practically every instance the response will be identical.
Obama won the presidency because America needed an Obama. In this sense he is a fabrication of the liberal elite and the media. Therefore if he had not existed, it would have been necessary to create him. But now, having found that their creation is flawed, they are abandoning him to the wolves right, left and center. This is why black support of Obama is so unwavering, not that they think that he can do no wrong, but that regardless of his performance in office, he will always have the sympathy and support of most of the black race, even if he loses almost everyone else on the left.
8.9.2011 | 7:14pm
Mike says:
I didn't hold high hopes for Obama when he was elected, but I did hold out some hope he could have a measure of success, to get our ship somewhat turned around.
I have been shocked at his performance to this point. He looks so out of his element it is difficult not to feel pity for the man. The presidency is miles above his capabilities (as it is most people, I would assume).
I have been shocked at his performance to this point. He looks so out of his element it is difficult not to feel pity for the man. The presidency is miles above his capabilities (as it is most people, I would assume).
8.9.2011 | 8:37pm
BA says:
I am a Republican who believes our country was founded with God as its leader. I believe without Him in it we are headed for disaster. At the same time, you are absolutely right--it is hard to hate and pray for the same person. I am a retired teacher, and over the years good teachers were often accused of being racists if we had the same expectations and/or consequences for black students. Those same students quite often appreciated our fairness and consistency and even came back and thanked us for caring. As Christian citizens it is our responsibility to pray for our country, its leaders and ourselves as we make political choices. The time to start is now!
8.9.2011 | 9:42pm
Edward Alleyn says:
@Ayodele
"First of all, the problem with conservative criticism of Obama is simply that regardless of whether such criticism is justified or not, race IS always in the picture."
That's ridiculous and just not true. Maybe some people can't get beyond race, but for the vast majority of Americans, especially younger people, race IS not an issue.
"First of all, the problem with conservative criticism of Obama is simply that regardless of whether such criticism is justified or not, race IS always in the picture."
That's ridiculous and just not true. Maybe some people can't get beyond race, but for the vast majority of Americans, especially younger people, race IS not an issue.
8.9.2011 | 11:36pm
Dan Nichols says:
your point "I know this because for all I may not understand about the mysteries of God or prayer or love or hate, I do know this: it is impossible to hate someone if you are sincerely praying to Almighty God for their sake." I understand totally, we need to pray for him and everyone else for that matter to do what is right. Forgive them father for they know not what they do.
8.10.2011 | 7:18am
Ayodele says:
@Edward Alleyn,
You make my point beautifully, albeit unintentionally. Race is not an issue to most people WHO ARE NOT BLACK. It is an issue to every black person. If you were black, you would know this without ever being told. Did you know for instance that in certain inner cities, black unemployment can be as high as 50%? Or that a white person wih a felony conviction on their record has better chances at finding a job than a black person with a pristine record, given similar qualifications? Race is an issue, my friend, just not to you.
You make my point beautifully, albeit unintentionally. Race is not an issue to most people WHO ARE NOT BLACK. It is an issue to every black person. If you were black, you would know this without ever being told. Did you know for instance that in certain inner cities, black unemployment can be as high as 50%? Or that a white person wih a felony conviction on their record has better chances at finding a job than a black person with a pristine record, given similar qualifications? Race is an issue, my friend, just not to you.
8.10.2011 | 7:38am
Brian English says:
"This President inherited the symptoms which George W Bush affected through a cut in revenues and his own Medicare part D."
Obama ran up a third of the $14.5 trillion national debt in three years, so can we please stop with the "He inherited this mess and none of this is his fault" nonsense?
"We have a duty, a word seldom used in these debate to fund the programs which tens or millions will depend in years to come...3-5 years, medicare and Social Security will be drawn against."
Why should you receive back more than you paid in?
If you are going to get more than you paid in, why shouldn't there be means testing?
Why should Medicare and Social Security kick in at 65 when the average American now lives to almost 79?
If the Baby Boomers didn't have enough children to fund these Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs, shouldn't the Baby Boomers be the ones to suffer for it? What right (there's a word you hear a lot these days) do we have to force that obligation on today's children?
Obama ran up a third of the $14.5 trillion national debt in three years, so can we please stop with the "He inherited this mess and none of this is his fault" nonsense?
"We have a duty, a word seldom used in these debate to fund the programs which tens or millions will depend in years to come...3-5 years, medicare and Social Security will be drawn against."
Why should you receive back more than you paid in?
If you are going to get more than you paid in, why shouldn't there be means testing?
Why should Medicare and Social Security kick in at 65 when the average American now lives to almost 79?
If the Baby Boomers didn't have enough children to fund these Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs, shouldn't the Baby Boomers be the ones to suffer for it? What right (there's a word you hear a lot these days) do we have to force that obligation on today's children?
8.10.2011 | 2:23pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English,
You say: "Obama ran up a third of the $14.5 trillion national debt in three years, so can we please stop with the 'He inherited this mess and none of this is his fault' nonsense?"
Aren't you forgetting that what Obama inherited from Bush was not just the debt, but two wars and a financial crisis that Bush only had to deal with for his last few months in office? How many other presidents in the history of the United States began in office with two ongoing wars? (None.) And of course Bush policies like his tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit help run the debt and under all future presidents who don't repeal them. Also, Obama took office about a third of the way through a fiscal year for which the Bush administration created the budget.
Check out this graph from the New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/3vpp77b
Whatever one thinks of Obama's tenure in office so far, it is indisputable that he inherited two wars, a financial crisis, and spending policies that even Republicans now claim to look back on with regret.
You say: "Why should Medicare and Social Security kick in at 65 when the average American now lives to almost 79?"
First, the full-retirement age for Social Security has already been raised above 65. It is gradually increasing and will be 67 for people born after 1959. A higher retirement age for someone who has an office job might make sense, but what about workers who have physically demanding jobs? It is estimated that raising the retirement age will cause workers who could have retired on Social Security to go on disability, which is paid out of Social Security funds.
You say: "Obama ran up a third of the $14.5 trillion national debt in three years, so can we please stop with the 'He inherited this mess and none of this is his fault' nonsense?"
Aren't you forgetting that what Obama inherited from Bush was not just the debt, but two wars and a financial crisis that Bush only had to deal with for his last few months in office? How many other presidents in the history of the United States began in office with two ongoing wars? (None.) And of course Bush policies like his tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit help run the debt and under all future presidents who don't repeal them. Also, Obama took office about a third of the way through a fiscal year for which the Bush administration created the budget.
Check out this graph from the New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/3vpp77b
Whatever one thinks of Obama's tenure in office so far, it is indisputable that he inherited two wars, a financial crisis, and spending policies that even Republicans now claim to look back on with regret.
You say: "Why should Medicare and Social Security kick in at 65 when the average American now lives to almost 79?"
First, the full-retirement age for Social Security has already been raised above 65. It is gradually increasing and will be 67 for people born after 1959. A higher retirement age for someone who has an office job might make sense, but what about workers who have physically demanding jobs? It is estimated that raising the retirement age will cause workers who could have retired on Social Security to go on disability, which is paid out of Social Security funds.
8.10.2011 | 4:07pm
Brian English says:
"Whatever one thinks of Obama's tenure in office so far, it is indisputable that he inherited two wars, a financial crisis, and spending policies that even Republicans now claim to look back on with regret."
What does any of that have to do with Obama increasing the debt by a third in only three years? And by the way, the two wars have cost a little over 1 trillion dollars over 10 years, so the costs are not even 10% of the deficit.
"First, the full-retirement age for Social Security has already been raised above 65. It is gradually increasing and will be 67 for people born after 1959."
Not even close to good enough. The age increase is not enough, and by placing the cut-off after 1959, you only get the very tail-end of the Baby Boomers.
It should be 70 for everyone born after 1950, and 72 for everyone born after 1959.
"A higher retirement age for someone who has an office job might make sense, but what about workers who have physically demanding jobs?"
How many Americans have physically demanding jobs? Do we have any steel mills left? I suppose we still have some coal miners, at least for now, but that is about it.
What does any of that have to do with Obama increasing the debt by a third in only three years? And by the way, the two wars have cost a little over 1 trillion dollars over 10 years, so the costs are not even 10% of the deficit.
"First, the full-retirement age for Social Security has already been raised above 65. It is gradually increasing and will be 67 for people born after 1959."
Not even close to good enough. The age increase is not enough, and by placing the cut-off after 1959, you only get the very tail-end of the Baby Boomers.
It should be 70 for everyone born after 1950, and 72 for everyone born after 1959.
"A higher retirement age for someone who has an office job might make sense, but what about workers who have physically demanding jobs?"
How many Americans have physically demanding jobs? Do we have any steel mills left? I suppose we still have some coal miners, at least for now, but that is about it.
8.10.2011 | 8:58pm
David Nickol says:
Brian English:
You say: "How many Americans have physically demanding jobs? Do we have any steel mills left? I suppose we still have some coal miners, at least for now, but that is about it."
According to what I have been able to find, there are 23 steel mills in the United States, and we import about 20% to 25% of our steel.
As for other physically demanding jobs, from a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America we have: commercial fisherman, logger, farmer/rancher, roofer, structural iron/steel worker, garbage collector.
Others that I can come up with: fireman, policeman, merchant marine, oil rig worker, freight handler (cargo, loading dock, trucks, aircraft, trucks), construction/demolition, carpenter, itinerant farm worker.
Some jobs have mandatory retirement ages that are far short of 72. Airline pilots must retire at 65 (it used to be 60). FBI agents must retire at 57. I am sure most (if not all) police departments and fire departments have mandatory retirement ages less than 72. Only the top people in the military can stay on beyond about 60.
Also, workers in some jobs (miners, firemen) have their health affected by their working conditions and don't generally expect to work until the age of 72.
I would have to say that the two guys who installed my last air conditioner did an amazing job of heavy lifting that I wouldn't expect from anything but young to early middle-aged men.
I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable having a group of 65-year-old firemen putting out a burning warehouse, or 70-year-old cops on the beat in bad neighborhoods.
Also, you may have noticed that we have very serious unemployment at the moment. Imagine how many people would be looking for jobs if the retirement age were 72.
You say: "How many Americans have physically demanding jobs? Do we have any steel mills left? I suppose we still have some coal miners, at least for now, but that is about it."
According to what I have been able to find, there are 23 steel mills in the United States, and we import about 20% to 25% of our steel.
As for other physically demanding jobs, from a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America we have: commercial fisherman, logger, farmer/rancher, roofer, structural iron/steel worker, garbage collector.
Others that I can come up with: fireman, policeman, merchant marine, oil rig worker, freight handler (cargo, loading dock, trucks, aircraft, trucks), construction/demolition, carpenter, itinerant farm worker.
Some jobs have mandatory retirement ages that are far short of 72. Airline pilots must retire at 65 (it used to be 60). FBI agents must retire at 57. I am sure most (if not all) police departments and fire departments have mandatory retirement ages less than 72. Only the top people in the military can stay on beyond about 60.
Also, workers in some jobs (miners, firemen) have their health affected by their working conditions and don't generally expect to work until the age of 72.
I would have to say that the two guys who installed my last air conditioner did an amazing job of heavy lifting that I wouldn't expect from anything but young to early middle-aged men.
I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable having a group of 65-year-old firemen putting out a burning warehouse, or 70-year-old cops on the beat in bad neighborhoods.
Also, you may have noticed that we have very serious unemployment at the moment. Imagine how many people would be looking for jobs if the retirement age were 72.
8.11.2011 | 3:04am
TeaPot562 says:
The Baby Boomers - those born from 1946 to 1964 - were in the first generation to employ contraceptives widely to avoid having children at all, rather than limiting the number of children to 2 or 3.
Brian English is correct that the young adults and those entering the work force in the next decades are TOO FEW to support the retirees by the time - say 2020 - that half of the Baby Boomers have passed age 65. Moving the age for full retirement benefits to 71 or 72 would bring this program much closer into Actuarial Balance.
Note that the Obama administration's suspending the payroll taxes (two percent reduction for active workers) for a couple of years increases the stress on the Social Security program, bringing that much closer the year that they REALLY (not artificially, as a result of debt limit crises) will run out of funds to pay benefits to retirees.
Also, adopting programs that spur inflation tend to wipe out the retired members of the middle class by turning their savings accounts into junk. (See the Weimar Republic for examples of inflation.)
TeaPot562
Brian English is correct that the young adults and those entering the work force in the next decades are TOO FEW to support the retirees by the time - say 2020 - that half of the Baby Boomers have passed age 65. Moving the age for full retirement benefits to 71 or 72 would bring this program much closer into Actuarial Balance.
Note that the Obama administration's suspending the payroll taxes (two percent reduction for active workers) for a couple of years increases the stress on the Social Security program, bringing that much closer the year that they REALLY (not artificially, as a result of debt limit crises) will run out of funds to pay benefits to retirees.
Also, adopting programs that spur inflation tend to wipe out the retired members of the middle class by turning their savings accounts into junk. (See the Weimar Republic for examples of inflation.)
TeaPot562
8.11.2011 | 10:16am
Brian English says:
"As for other physically demanding jobs, from a list of the 10 most dangerous jobs in America we have:" and "Others that I can come up with:"
(1) Physically demanding and dangerous are not necessarily the same thing.
(2) With modern hydraulic equipment, how many of these jobs that we traditionally think of as physically demanding have ceased to be so?
(3) What percentage of the population actually works at these types of jobs?
(4) Most importantly, don't most of these people have pensions?
"Some jobs have mandatory retirement ages that are far short of 72. Airline pilots must retire at 65 (it used to be 60). FBI agents must retire at 57. I am sure most (if not all) police departments and fire departments have mandatory retirement ages less than 72. Only the top people in the military can stay on beyond about 60."
I know all of these have pensions. Social Security and Medicare should be for the truly needy elderly, who do not have pensions. If someone really cannot do their job until they are 70 or 72, then they can claim disability. Treating all people of a certain age the same, regardless of what type of job they have, makes no sense.
And why do FBI agents have to retire at 57? That is ridiculous.
"I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable having a group of 65-year-old firemen putting out a burning warehouse, or 70-year-old cops on the beat in bad neighborhoods.
Fire and police departments don't have any desk jobs? Beyond that, those are jobs that have strong pension and disability programs.
"Also, you may have noticed that we have very serious unemployment at the moment. Imagine how many people would be looking for jobs if the retirement age were 72."
Since my proposal above would not kick in for four years, it wouldn't affect the current unemployment rate.
(1) Physically demanding and dangerous are not necessarily the same thing.
(2) With modern hydraulic equipment, how many of these jobs that we traditionally think of as physically demanding have ceased to be so?
(3) What percentage of the population actually works at these types of jobs?
(4) Most importantly, don't most of these people have pensions?
"Some jobs have mandatory retirement ages that are far short of 72. Airline pilots must retire at 65 (it used to be 60). FBI agents must retire at 57. I am sure most (if not all) police departments and fire departments have mandatory retirement ages less than 72. Only the top people in the military can stay on beyond about 60."
I know all of these have pensions. Social Security and Medicare should be for the truly needy elderly, who do not have pensions. If someone really cannot do their job until they are 70 or 72, then they can claim disability. Treating all people of a certain age the same, regardless of what type of job they have, makes no sense.
And why do FBI agents have to retire at 57? That is ridiculous.
"I don't know about you, but I would not be comfortable having a group of 65-year-old firemen putting out a burning warehouse, or 70-year-old cops on the beat in bad neighborhoods.
Fire and police departments don't have any desk jobs? Beyond that, those are jobs that have strong pension and disability programs.
"Also, you may have noticed that we have very serious unemployment at the moment. Imagine how many people would be looking for jobs if the retirement age were 72."
Since my proposal above would not kick in for four years, it wouldn't affect the current unemployment rate.
9.12.2011 | 3:38am
Mounger Danica says:
You are wrong about that. You also don't see that Obama's entire approach to leadership (or really the lack thereof) has had a chilling effect on business. Steve Wynn and Dan Loeb, two former Obama supporters, have both spoken out recently about that. Obama won the presidency because America needed an Obama. In this sense he is a fabrication of the liberal elite and the media. Therefore if he had not existed, it would have been necessary to create him. But now, having found that their creation is flawed, they are abandoning him to the wolves right, left and center. This is why black support of Obama is so unwavering, not that they think that he can do no wrong, but that regardless of his performance in office, he will always have the sympathy and support of most of the black race, even if he loses almost everyone else on the left.
