FIRST - My parents – Young Gifted and Black both revolutionaries, one drawn to the light, the other to the dark, but their essence was to make a change. I am reminded of the great quote by Tupac, “I may not change the world, but I will spark the mind of the one that does.” Through their energy the mind of a revolutionary was born.
My evolution was marked and sparked by events that would span a lifetime.
1959
In June of 1959 my mother felt the need to engage a game of badminton in the backyard of her parent’s home. At that time, I decided – a month early I decided to descend into human form. I was born to two brilliant people, my mother who graduated 2nd in her class from high school, and graduated from high school at age 15, and a father who was equally brilliant, but donned a revolutionary fervor. My father’s gift for writing, and chess was well documented, however he turned to crime – urban/family legend has it that he did so in support of either the Panthers the NOI or both. As a result of his crimes, my mother left him, and I had to develop my revolutionary spirit through the prism of my mother’s inherent conservatism, and belief in the American dream of me being a high flying corporate.
1968
Within a stunning, and devastating 60 days - two of the last giants of the 20th century Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were silenced. That summer was the most eventful and personally emotional year of my life. One of the things I remember was that I didn’t cry when Dr. King or Bobby was killed, but I cried that fall when the St. Louis Cardinals blew a 3-1 lead and lost the World Series to the Detroit Tigers. But more than the tears - it was the experiences.
The night King was killed, the television show The Flying Nun interrupted by the first news bulletin, the angry voices outside – almost immediately. The calm march in St. Louis after Dr. King’s assassination which was in a stark contrast to other “chocolate” cities was my first clue that the African American community in my city was quite “different”.
Two months later my mother gets her own “3 am call” the one to announce that Senator Robert Kennedy was shot. Given the importance of those two men in my psyche, it is no secret that a film on Dr. King forty years after his death (with one on RFK to follow) became one of my first films. The summer of 1968 I visited Arlington cemetery clearly over the wishes of my mother to “bless the Kennedy Brothers” my mother’s response was “who does he think he is – the Pope?” later that summer as a nine year I co-wrote my first political poem
“Humphrey Humphrey he’s our man, Nixon belongs in the trash can”.
Perhaps if America had listened to nine year olds, we would have avoided the scandal of Watergate. What was the impact of 1968? A long period of woulda, coulda, shoulda. What would happen in particular if Bobby had lived and continued the Quixotic Kennedy narrative? Did the government really kill great men – and why – for who? I didn’t realize as a nine year old that was my natural path to evolution was to ask the tough questions, say the tough things, and ultimately define myself on my terms – not by societies. But life got in the way, and my journey to evolution took many twists and turns, so that by the time I had reached 30 on June 20th, 1989 – I was oblivious to what direction I should take my life.
1973
On June 25, 1973 my eight grade teacher Elmeda Harris wrote in my class autograph book,
“Since you love history so much, go out and make it”
That summer I lost a battle of wills with my mother who first angered me by cancelling my 8th grade graduation party because I didn’t score in the first tier of the IBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skill). But more importantly, she defied my wished to matriculate to high school at Charles Sumner High School – the oldest African American high school west of the Mississippi river. Sumner High was the school of my family as well as tennis notables that included Comedian Richard “Dick” Gregory, and Tina Turner, and where Arthur Ashe honed his tennis game under the tutelage of Richard Hudlin. Instead I was shipped off to Thomas Jefferson College Prep School one of the most exclusive private boarding schools in the country, where I was introduced to Jackson Browne, Loggins and Messina, Paul McCartney, as well as Homer’s Iliad which I had to translate from Homeric Greek to English.
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus
The net result of my mother’s Pyrrhic victory was a widening of my social horizons, as well as the foundations of a thirty year struggle to define myself on my terms, not hers.
1992
I recall sitting with my grandmother as LA burned during the riots, amazed and yet – removed from “those people”. At the moment of this writing, I am not sure of the origin for my subconscious animus with so much that defined black culture, but I do understand that what I looked outward and saw elements of blackness that I viewed as a reflection of assimilation, and slave mentality, I looked at it with a sense of disdain. In addition, I viewed black displays of emotion mentally “mouthing enough already” unaware of my own slave mentality that created a natural disdain on anything that I viewed as over the top and loud. As a result for a black man to have claimed to have “been there” at the beginning of rap with the release of Rappers Delight in 1979, but by 1989 rap had become too loud too ghetto and I tuned out in favor of The Who, Jackson Browne and the Eagles. By 1980 a person emotionally bonded with the Kennedys cast their first presidential vote for a republican Ronald Wilson Reagan. By 1980 a person who prided himself on his ability to write only wrote resumes. All that changed in the early 90’s.
In 1991 my plan to climb up the banking ladder was obliterated when I was mysteriously fired from then Mercantile Bank. (of course I never mentioned that in job interviews) soon after I worked at call center and was introduced to a new world of young people in their 20’s with a POV world far different from mine. They smoked bud, listened to rap, probably never voted, some were straight “slanging and bangin.”At the same time, Spike Lee’s movie Malcolm X sparked as revived interest in the slain leader, and my reading of his autobiography was a game changer. In 1993 Dr. Dre’s The Cronic as well as the plant that the name comes from, reintroduced me to a sub culture that I had ignored and often dismissed. If that was not enough I was introduced to the music of a twenty three year old prodigy by the name of Tupac Amaru Skakur. He had me at Cradle to the Grave.
2001
By 2001 I had transformed, my nutrition had changed, I was hitting free weights, and writing poetry and I begun to see the world through my own prism. It was during that period that I begin to find my voice as a writer, it was the most prolific writing period of my life, I wrote political commentaries, poems, and screenplays. Then on September 11, 2001 the world changed.
2008
YES WE CAN! Smarting from a failed marriage, unemployed, and sinking fast I ran into a buzz saw called the campaign for change. I always rolled my eyes when many black folks doubted that they would see a black man in the white house because I believed firmly that we have been pacified to the extent that a black person could be trusted by America’s hidden king makers to steer the good ship America. I also felt it would be the “rank and file” average white American that would have issues with a black man. Not an early convert to the Obama mission, I even told my wife at the time, not to worry about putting an Obama sign in the front yard, because he would be history by Super Tuesday. I was wrong. By the summer of 2008, I was knocking on doors, making phone calls, and even ended up on Canadian television late in the campaign. The historic election of Barack Obama reconnected me back to politics, even though I remained at the core an independent political agnostic.
The writings in this book are a reflection a flawed soul on a path to personal evolution, and Liberation. The essays, commentary, and poetry, represent a mere down payment on my spiritual debt that I owe to honor my gifts, my guardian spirits, my ancestors, and the Creator.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA – HEADED FOR “ONE AND DONE?
The last time a news show begun by giving a countdown of the number of days in a particular crisis was in 1979 when what we know now as Nightline first named America Held Hostage, was spawned by the taking of American Hostages in Iran. Not many in my generation will ever forget the raw images of American impotency as Ted Koppel provided nightly commentary on an event that many viewed as something that could never happen to a country as strong as powerful as ours. I think of that crisis and its coverage, and I am reminded of the current crisis in the gulf. Today, many observers especially those whose historical or political POV is either too stunted or too slanted to have perspective, rushed in to call the crisis in the gulf - President Obama’s Katrina. In either case whether shunted or slanted, the Katrina analogy is erroneous and for Obama supporters a dangerous miss-reading of history. It was the 22nd amendment, not Hurricane Katrina that ended the reign of George Bush. Now to be sure, President Bush was unpopular in 2008, as the Obama election was ultimately a referendum of the Bush government and the images of Katrina became an unseemly albatross around John McCain’s neck. Yet the expectations for George Bush were never high as he was viewed by many as an incompetent puppet.
Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign spoke of a man of intelligence, cool under fire, brimming with confidence, and the capacity to deliver change – the Obama Administration would represent a sea change from Bush Administration on many levels, most importantly in the area of management, governance and competence. Hence, on the eve of the 2008 election General Colin Powell endorsed Candidate Obama on Meet the Press stating that Barack Obama possessed the “intellectual vigor” to lead the nation. I agreed with Colin Powell’s assessment, yet I also understood that then Senator Joe Biden was right, the next President would be tested, thus in my piece Why Obama I wrote:
“No American President will be able to inoculate themselves from the unknown and unforeseen threats whether they are foreign, domestic, or natural.”
Only time will tell if the best work of the Obama Administration will be able to inoculate him from the wrath of America which now obsesses over the gulf spill in the gulf. The vitriol stemming from this event leaves little doubt in my mind that as this crisis grows it could ultimately undermine the Obama Presidency. Already the Obama narrative of competence is threatened. The fortunes of American Presidents in times of crisis are often dependant on how America reacts in those moments. Two useful barometers to gauge the tenor and tone of our respond are our national psyche and the political climate as each crisis unfolds. For example, William Jefferson Clinton’s narrow escape from being convicted – let’s we forget he was impeached - lay in the fact Bill Clinton’s administration made us feel good as a country, the dot.com boom was in full swing, Wall Street was reaching dizzying new heights, and “Bubba” was charming, engaging - and human. Therefore we were willing to view his impeachment trial as a political witch hunt and not a “cancer” on the Presidency. Our obsession over the Lewinsky scandal was due more to our natural voyeuristic impulses than anything else.
Other Presidents have not been so fortunate. In March of 1968 after being humiliated in the New Hampshire Primary by an anti war candidate from his own party, Eugene McCarthy, and the ever present threat of a Robert Kennedy candidacy, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek his party’s nomination. The role of the media was critical in framing the debate. By the late sixties, the national media was no longer a benign political partner of the status quo, as whether by design or by accident, they became an instrument of peace. Americans were bombarded nightly as evening news continued to show images of American soldiers coming home in caskets. For young men and women to die in a far away country, in an undeclared war was too much for a proud nation to bear. And when the unimpeachable voice of them most “trusted” man in America Walter Conkrite turned on the Johnson Administration, it became clear that President Johnson’s prosecution of the Vietnam War challenged his capacity to lead so much so, that not even the domestic success of the Great Society could not save him.
While Afghanistan always has the potential to be President Obama’s Vietnam, yet, when I think of this current crisis facing the Obama Administration I am reminded not of Katrina or Vietnam but of the Iranian crisis that brought down the Carter Administration. American in 1979 was still wounded by Vietnam and Watergate. That pervasive sense of doom and gloom, coupled with yet another blow to our national ego, and our inability to resolve the issue confirmed for many that the well intended, and highly intelligent President Jimmy Carter was simply in over his head. As such three days after the Iranian Hostage crisis began Jimmy Carter, like the embattled Lyndon Johnson in 1968 faced an insurgent threat within his own party by the name of Teddy Kennedy. Jimmy Carter ultimately garnered his party’s nomination, but the damage was done, as in November of 1980, America turned to Ronald Reagan in hopes of restoring national pride.
At the beginning of the Obama Presidency there were comparisons to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. In making those comparisons, I wonder if we overlooked a more natural comparison to another outsider – James Earl Carter. Like Barack Obama, the country inherited by Jimmy Carter was still reeling from the malfeasance of prior administrations, a Middle East tinderbox and growing dependence on foreign oil. Like President Obama, Jimmy Carter brought to Washington a combination of insiders – holdovers from prior Democratic administrations, as well as many of his cronies from Georgia. Like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter’s centrist approach angered liberals hankering for a reversal of Republican policies. Like Barack Obama, President Carter, was viewed as an intelligent, thoughtful alternative to his bumbling predecessor.
Yet what should set off alarm bells within the Obama White House, is that President Carter was undone by events outside of his control, and a perception that the office was too big for him. In the summer of 1979 President Carter gave a televised speech given from the Oval Office, a national address now maligned as the “Malaise” speech. Rather than inspiring confidence, President Carter’s words exacerbated the country’s declining self confidence. If that was not bad enough, on November 4th, 1979 the events that ultimately brought down the Carter Presidency took place far away in Tehran Iran. Inspired by the Iranian Holy man Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian students stormed the American embassy, holding several Americans hostage for 444 days. Those hostages were not released until Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in January 20, 1981. The fact that the current oil spill crises draws parallels to a crisis which captivated a nation, became an incendiary national obsession, and created the impression of an impotent commander and chief should give President Barack Obama more than pause.
Like the daily images of the blindfolded hostages, that seared in the American psyche, the images of oil spewing from the gulf, and oil slicked wildlife, are creating a huge problem for Barack Obama. As in the times of President Carter, America is suffering through a major crisis of confidence. Beset by high unemployment, a shrinking middle class, the specter of the 21st century being dominated by Asia, massive debt and with a deteriorating ecosystem, fear abounds. In addition to natural fears that stem from an uncertain future, the combination of a toxic political system and unrelenting 24 hour media cycle makes it almost impossible for the Obama administration to stay ahead of the news curve and abate the negativity. Part of the tough sledding that team Obama faces is the reality that being President is worlds apart from running for it. They are learning what every President has to learn - the cheers of the campaign trail quickly give way to the tough world of real time governance. As such, the pace of governing is like the pace of campaigning on steroids. Never more so than in this new media world order, where news is dispensed at a rapid fire pace, and where rationality often gives way to paranoia. To be sure this barrage of criticism toward President Obama is in some ways unfair. Barack Obama inherited an oil regulatory system from a pro oil administration, as a result oil companies like BP were given free rein to do business with little threat of any serious government oversight. In addition, President Obama took office with a cornucopia of issues that included two wars, an economic meltdown, an automobile industry on life support, and a bevy of campaign promises to keep.
With all that realistically the best that President Obama could hope for was that his Energy and Interior Cabinets secretaries ran their shop efficiently, cleaned house from the largess of the prior administration, and by doing so – protect their principal. Now it is tragically clear the pace of change within those areas was not quick enough, and the scope of change not wide enough to prevent the BP disaster. In hindsight even a complete overhaul may not have stopped the oil spill from happening, unfortunately for President Obama the wisdom of hindsight usually comes too late to salvage damaged Presidencies.
Ironically in today’s inflamed current political climate, the country that rejected the cowboy tendencies of George Bush and John McCain seem to long for those days of shoot first and ask questions later. President Obama’s approach to many seemed tepid, and ineffective. His approach to have the “smartest guys” in the room to resolve the issue has gone over with the same impact of BP’s “top kill” strategy. The only concession that President Obama’s critics offer they don’t expect him to personally “go down there” and plug the leak. Beyond that back handed concession, the criticisms are wide and varied. First there are those who say his Administration acted to slowly, or that they trusted BP too much, or how the Obama Administration has consistently ignored assistance that was offered, or rejected advice from local gulf leaders, and finally President Obama was not mad enough. In short President Obama is failing to exercise leadership. Conversely when President Obama has acted, he was criticized for “shaking down” the oil companies, or that he is doing more harm than good with his moratorium on new deep water drilling, and when he gave his first Oval Office speech, and he was lambasted for lacking specificity. All complaints, deservedly or not, right or wrong, rational or irrational this underscores the danger that his administration faces.
President Obama has walked a political tightrope since his election in, as his centrist approach angered many on the left from the beginning – and from the right, and he has faced nothing short of obstructionism. As President Obama pushed forward with his agenda items often his change message failed to compete with the scare tactics from the right, and as the tea party movement grew, many independents begin to have second thoughts about their 2008 support for President Obama. Now comes the gulf oil crisis. In 1979 Jimmy Carter spoke to a nation looking for a confidence boost, they came away feeling more diminished, and eighteen months later he was “one and done”.
During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama worked extremely hard to combat the perception that he was unfit, too inexperienced, and too cerebral to be an effective leader. They were effective in turning that "weakness" on its head. By contrasting the "cool hand Luke persona of Barack Obama to the petulant impatient John McCain; the Obama campaign got a lot of currency on the issue of temperament. In the financial meltdown crisis that came in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse in what Colin Powell called the “final exam” candidate Obama’s nuanced approach was contrasted to what seemed to be “erratic” behavior by Senator John McCain. Now what worked in 2008, seems to be losing its appeal as the oil continues to gush. Barack Hussein Obama entered the Presidency with the winds of change at his sails, now he faces a crisis of confidence in his leadership, with unemployment numbers most certainly to be troublesome in 2012, unless Barack Obama generates a change in America’s perception of him, like James Earl Carter in 1980, Barack Hussein Obama may be headed for a “one and done” Presidency.
Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign spoke of a man of intelligence, cool under fire, brimming with confidence, and the capacity to deliver change – the Obama Administration would represent a sea change from Bush Administration on many levels, most importantly in the area of management, governance and competence. Hence, on the eve of the 2008 election General Colin Powell endorsed Candidate Obama on Meet the Press stating that Barack Obama possessed the “intellectual vigor” to lead the nation. I agreed with Colin Powell’s assessment, yet I also understood that then Senator Joe Biden was right, the next President would be tested, thus in my piece Why Obama I wrote:
“No American President will be able to inoculate themselves from the unknown and unforeseen threats whether they are foreign, domestic, or natural.”
Only time will tell if the best work of the Obama Administration will be able to inoculate him from the wrath of America which now obsesses over the gulf spill in the gulf. The vitriol stemming from this event leaves little doubt in my mind that as this crisis grows it could ultimately undermine the Obama Presidency. Already the Obama narrative of competence is threatened. The fortunes of American Presidents in times of crisis are often dependant on how America reacts in those moments. Two useful barometers to gauge the tenor and tone of our respond are our national psyche and the political climate as each crisis unfolds. For example, William Jefferson Clinton’s narrow escape from being convicted – let’s we forget he was impeached - lay in the fact Bill Clinton’s administration made us feel good as a country, the dot.com boom was in full swing, Wall Street was reaching dizzying new heights, and “Bubba” was charming, engaging - and human. Therefore we were willing to view his impeachment trial as a political witch hunt and not a “cancer” on the Presidency. Our obsession over the Lewinsky scandal was due more to our natural voyeuristic impulses than anything else.
Other Presidents have not been so fortunate. In March of 1968 after being humiliated in the New Hampshire Primary by an anti war candidate from his own party, Eugene McCarthy, and the ever present threat of a Robert Kennedy candidacy, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek his party’s nomination. The role of the media was critical in framing the debate. By the late sixties, the national media was no longer a benign political partner of the status quo, as whether by design or by accident, they became an instrument of peace. Americans were bombarded nightly as evening news continued to show images of American soldiers coming home in caskets. For young men and women to die in a far away country, in an undeclared war was too much for a proud nation to bear. And when the unimpeachable voice of them most “trusted” man in America Walter Conkrite turned on the Johnson Administration, it became clear that President Johnson’s prosecution of the Vietnam War challenged his capacity to lead so much so, that not even the domestic success of the Great Society could not save him.
While Afghanistan always has the potential to be President Obama’s Vietnam, yet, when I think of this current crisis facing the Obama Administration I am reminded not of Katrina or Vietnam but of the Iranian crisis that brought down the Carter Administration. American in 1979 was still wounded by Vietnam and Watergate. That pervasive sense of doom and gloom, coupled with yet another blow to our national ego, and our inability to resolve the issue confirmed for many that the well intended, and highly intelligent President Jimmy Carter was simply in over his head. As such three days after the Iranian Hostage crisis began Jimmy Carter, like the embattled Lyndon Johnson in 1968 faced an insurgent threat within his own party by the name of Teddy Kennedy. Jimmy Carter ultimately garnered his party’s nomination, but the damage was done, as in November of 1980, America turned to Ronald Reagan in hopes of restoring national pride.
At the beginning of the Obama Presidency there were comparisons to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. In making those comparisons, I wonder if we overlooked a more natural comparison to another outsider – James Earl Carter. Like Barack Obama, the country inherited by Jimmy Carter was still reeling from the malfeasance of prior administrations, a Middle East tinderbox and growing dependence on foreign oil. Like President Obama, Jimmy Carter brought to Washington a combination of insiders – holdovers from prior Democratic administrations, as well as many of his cronies from Georgia. Like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter’s centrist approach angered liberals hankering for a reversal of Republican policies. Like Barack Obama, President Carter, was viewed as an intelligent, thoughtful alternative to his bumbling predecessor.
Yet what should set off alarm bells within the Obama White House, is that President Carter was undone by events outside of his control, and a perception that the office was too big for him. In the summer of 1979 President Carter gave a televised speech given from the Oval Office, a national address now maligned as the “Malaise” speech. Rather than inspiring confidence, President Carter’s words exacerbated the country’s declining self confidence. If that was not bad enough, on November 4th, 1979 the events that ultimately brought down the Carter Presidency took place far away in Tehran Iran. Inspired by the Iranian Holy man Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian students stormed the American embassy, holding several Americans hostage for 444 days. Those hostages were not released until Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in January 20, 1981. The fact that the current oil spill crises draws parallels to a crisis which captivated a nation, became an incendiary national obsession, and created the impression of an impotent commander and chief should give President Barack Obama more than pause.
Like the daily images of the blindfolded hostages, that seared in the American psyche, the images of oil spewing from the gulf, and oil slicked wildlife, are creating a huge problem for Barack Obama. As in the times of President Carter, America is suffering through a major crisis of confidence. Beset by high unemployment, a shrinking middle class, the specter of the 21st century being dominated by Asia, massive debt and with a deteriorating ecosystem, fear abounds. In addition to natural fears that stem from an uncertain future, the combination of a toxic political system and unrelenting 24 hour media cycle makes it almost impossible for the Obama administration to stay ahead of the news curve and abate the negativity. Part of the tough sledding that team Obama faces is the reality that being President is worlds apart from running for it. They are learning what every President has to learn - the cheers of the campaign trail quickly give way to the tough world of real time governance. As such, the pace of governing is like the pace of campaigning on steroids. Never more so than in this new media world order, where news is dispensed at a rapid fire pace, and where rationality often gives way to paranoia. To be sure this barrage of criticism toward President Obama is in some ways unfair. Barack Obama inherited an oil regulatory system from a pro oil administration, as a result oil companies like BP were given free rein to do business with little threat of any serious government oversight. In addition, President Obama took office with a cornucopia of issues that included two wars, an economic meltdown, an automobile industry on life support, and a bevy of campaign promises to keep.
With all that realistically the best that President Obama could hope for was that his Energy and Interior Cabinets secretaries ran their shop efficiently, cleaned house from the largess of the prior administration, and by doing so – protect their principal. Now it is tragically clear the pace of change within those areas was not quick enough, and the scope of change not wide enough to prevent the BP disaster. In hindsight even a complete overhaul may not have stopped the oil spill from happening, unfortunately for President Obama the wisdom of hindsight usually comes too late to salvage damaged Presidencies.
Ironically in today’s inflamed current political climate, the country that rejected the cowboy tendencies of George Bush and John McCain seem to long for those days of shoot first and ask questions later. President Obama’s approach to many seemed tepid, and ineffective. His approach to have the “smartest guys” in the room to resolve the issue has gone over with the same impact of BP’s “top kill” strategy. The only concession that President Obama’s critics offer they don’t expect him to personally “go down there” and plug the leak. Beyond that back handed concession, the criticisms are wide and varied. First there are those who say his Administration acted to slowly, or that they trusted BP too much, or how the Obama Administration has consistently ignored assistance that was offered, or rejected advice from local gulf leaders, and finally President Obama was not mad enough. In short President Obama is failing to exercise leadership. Conversely when President Obama has acted, he was criticized for “shaking down” the oil companies, or that he is doing more harm than good with his moratorium on new deep water drilling, and when he gave his first Oval Office speech, and he was lambasted for lacking specificity. All complaints, deservedly or not, right or wrong, rational or irrational this underscores the danger that his administration faces.
President Obama has walked a political tightrope since his election in, as his centrist approach angered many on the left from the beginning – and from the right, and he has faced nothing short of obstructionism. As President Obama pushed forward with his agenda items often his change message failed to compete with the scare tactics from the right, and as the tea party movement grew, many independents begin to have second thoughts about their 2008 support for President Obama. Now comes the gulf oil crisis. In 1979 Jimmy Carter spoke to a nation looking for a confidence boost, they came away feeling more diminished, and eighteen months later he was “one and done”.
During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama worked extremely hard to combat the perception that he was unfit, too inexperienced, and too cerebral to be an effective leader. They were effective in turning that "weakness" on its head. By contrasting the "cool hand Luke persona of Barack Obama to the petulant impatient John McCain; the Obama campaign got a lot of currency on the issue of temperament. In the financial meltdown crisis that came in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse in what Colin Powell called the “final exam” candidate Obama’s nuanced approach was contrasted to what seemed to be “erratic” behavior by Senator John McCain. Now what worked in 2008, seems to be losing its appeal as the oil continues to gush. Barack Hussein Obama entered the Presidency with the winds of change at his sails, now he faces a crisis of confidence in his leadership, with unemployment numbers most certainly to be troublesome in 2012, unless Barack Obama generates a change in America’s perception of him, like James Earl Carter in 1980, Barack Hussein Obama may be headed for a “one and done” Presidency.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NEXT SPEECH
In 2008 with questions surrounding the Obama candidacy regarding the touchy issue of race, then candidate Barack Obama stirred a nation, with a defining speech in Philadelphia that for all practical purposes defused race as a potential wedge issue. The speech spoke to several audiences, but most importantly it energized his base and put to rest any thoughts that Mr. Obama would not be able to address a controversy head on. Fast forward to 2010, as President Obama’s first term has been marked with a series of crisis large and small, along with an emerging extremist “neo-neo” con movement whose vitriol is aimed at incumbent politicians, but also what they feel is a government that has grown too large. This anger predominantly from white Americans many who ironically are suffering due in large measure from the policies of the Bush Administration that many of them supported for eight years. This anger seemed to reach a boiling point late in 2008 during the closing days of the presidential campaign as Republican presidential nominee John McCain was forced to confront many angry supporters and remind them that Barack Obama a patriot and not a terrorist. Both the Republican Party, and those appalled by the prospect of a black man sitting in the oval office seemed to be chastened by President Obama’s historic election. Many commentators noted the scope of the election, which included the coalescing of coalition I labeled “Browner, Younger and Smarter”, and opined the Republican party was in the worse shape since the post Watergate days in the mid seventies.
Facing grim prospects, an aging and narrowing base, and three events would alter Republican strategy and breathe new life into the Grand Old Party. First the Obama Administration made the political risky decision to infuse billions of tax payer dollars to resuscitate the automobile industry with unprecedented tax dollars. Secondly, the Obama administration also made good on its campaign promise to provide relief via tax cuts and through the Economic Recovery Act of 2010, initiated several measures to provide relief via tax cuts, and stimulus payments aimed at assisting several states on the verge of bankruptcy. Third, in March of 2009 President Obama made good on another campaign promise as he embarked on the arduous journey to reform health care. During the summer of 2009 latent anger from the 2008 Presidential campaign found new life and a new targets, bailouts, and health care - as the opponents of health care both inside the Republican Party and within the insurance industry were more successful than the Obama Administration and the Democrats were in crafting the debate. As a result what evolved for the GOP and their right wing alter ego – The Tea Party was a strategy designed to break President Obama with their eyes on first 2010, but ultimately 2012. The foundation of that strategy was distrust for Washington, and the excessive size of government.
The irony of their position is it ignored the fact that much of the spending done by President Obama was needed to reverse the malfeasance of the prior administration - for example – they seem to ignore the dismantling of the Clinton surplus by the Bush Administration, and “born again” fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party seemed to forget their support for the Bush tax cuts and the Prescription Drug Bill that added to the debt, as well as the Bush Administration’s deception that led us into a costly war in Iraq. In addition they seem to be ignoring that much of the government’s loans have been repaid – with interest. Yet those on the right, selective amnesia notwithstanding have been successful in framing this debate which has had a deleterious effect on policy making in Washington. And as the mid-term elections got closer, the chasm between political parties have been exacerbated, fueled by the emerging Tea Party, and many moderate politicians from both parties, have been caught in the crossfire.
As this anti Washington narrative gains traction it could well pose a serious threat to the Obama re-election hopes. Assuming President Obama is able to secure his base, the key to an Obama re- election will be independent voters, who now, according to many polls have retreated toward the Republican Party. While many of those independent voters are dissatisfied to some degree with the Obama administration is not clear that a great majority of them have warmed to the Tea Party and/or those in the media on the extreme right who support them. If Barack Obama wants to win a second term, it will be those independent voters that he will need to woo. Wooing them will include changing the trajectory of the debate. Therefore, President Obama needs to have an open and frank discussion with the American public on his views with respect to the role of government in an increasingly complex world while at the same time out lining a clear vision on reducing the deficit.
But in this age where the ones who shout the loudest, gets America’s ear, Mr. Obama needs to go beyond defining the role of government; he needs to expose those in the shadows who are financially backing this anti government fervor. Since Barack Obama was sworn in he has inherited and/or been handed several major domestic crises. Yet if one traces the roots of these crises from the Wall Street meltdown, to the massive oil spill in the gulf – the common thread was lack of regulations which set in motion a series of events that have had negative implications for this country. Those who support the anti government agenda have long been in bed with major corporate interests, so it stands to reason they have a vested interest in confusing the debate. Those supporting corporate interests realize one of the implications of a smaller government is less regulations. And while President Obama probably won’t mention it publically, the fact that many news reports link the wealthy Koch Family, owners of Koch industries and long time supporter of right wing causes as major investors in the tea party should give more than pause. These allegations are not just the whisperings of left leaning bloggers, in August of 2009, The Washington Post reported those presumably “ad hoc” protests over health care were funded by big business supported coalition whose interests included thwarting health care, and banking reform. To say these many angry tea partiers are mere pawns in a chess game beyond their depth would be a colossus understatement.
The danger that the Obama Presidency faces is that for most of us perception is reality, and to allow a narrative that his Administration is fiscally irresponsible to go unchecked, may render Barack Obama a one term President. Therefore now more than ever President Obama needs to speak to the public and redirect this debate, in a manner that will serve him and his party well politically, but also serve to prepare America for a serious debate on what most certainly will be the most fundamental challenge of his next administration, and for administrations to follow. In addition, Mr. Obama needs to lay out the real hard data, for example according to the Congressional Budget Office, two thirds of the spending in the 2010 budget have the fingerprints of the Bush administration, meaning programs started by President Bush or started by President Bush and continued by President Obama, leaving only one third of the spending solely on the plate of President Obama. Yet more importantly, the pie chart of “mandatory spending” according to the Office of Management and Budget reveals most of the mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest piece of discretionary spending is on defense Mr. Obama should challenge those opposing big government by asking them is that where do they want the budget ax to start falling. In addition, in the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law many in that same anti government crowd want to blame the federal government for not developing a comprehensive immigration plan, so do they think the oversight of a complex bureaucracy tasked to do several things including managing the laws which will govern twelve million people can be done on the cheap?
The next few years will be decisive the role of government will be debated on several fronts, and the future of the next generation will be decided by the actions taken today. President Obama must lead that debate, and elevate the narrative to the plane of common sense, vision, and with clarity. To be clear, many on the far right are too far gone to embrace the truth about their cause, but for those Democrats running in the fall, President Obama’s words could become usable campaign talking points, and for those teetering independent voters, a dose of reason in a debate gone wild may be a deal maker or deal breaker for President Obama in 2012.
Facing grim prospects, an aging and narrowing base, and three events would alter Republican strategy and breathe new life into the Grand Old Party. First the Obama Administration made the political risky decision to infuse billions of tax payer dollars to resuscitate the automobile industry with unprecedented tax dollars. Secondly, the Obama administration also made good on its campaign promise to provide relief via tax cuts and through the Economic Recovery Act of 2010, initiated several measures to provide relief via tax cuts, and stimulus payments aimed at assisting several states on the verge of bankruptcy. Third, in March of 2009 President Obama made good on another campaign promise as he embarked on the arduous journey to reform health care. During the summer of 2009 latent anger from the 2008 Presidential campaign found new life and a new targets, bailouts, and health care - as the opponents of health care both inside the Republican Party and within the insurance industry were more successful than the Obama Administration and the Democrats were in crafting the debate. As a result what evolved for the GOP and their right wing alter ego – The Tea Party was a strategy designed to break President Obama with their eyes on first 2010, but ultimately 2012. The foundation of that strategy was distrust for Washington, and the excessive size of government.
The irony of their position is it ignored the fact that much of the spending done by President Obama was needed to reverse the malfeasance of the prior administration - for example – they seem to ignore the dismantling of the Clinton surplus by the Bush Administration, and “born again” fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party seemed to forget their support for the Bush tax cuts and the Prescription Drug Bill that added to the debt, as well as the Bush Administration’s deception that led us into a costly war in Iraq. In addition they seem to be ignoring that much of the government’s loans have been repaid – with interest. Yet those on the right, selective amnesia notwithstanding have been successful in framing this debate which has had a deleterious effect on policy making in Washington. And as the mid-term elections got closer, the chasm between political parties have been exacerbated, fueled by the emerging Tea Party, and many moderate politicians from both parties, have been caught in the crossfire.
As this anti Washington narrative gains traction it could well pose a serious threat to the Obama re-election hopes. Assuming President Obama is able to secure his base, the key to an Obama re- election will be independent voters, who now, according to many polls have retreated toward the Republican Party. While many of those independent voters are dissatisfied to some degree with the Obama administration is not clear that a great majority of them have warmed to the Tea Party and/or those in the media on the extreme right who support them. If Barack Obama wants to win a second term, it will be those independent voters that he will need to woo. Wooing them will include changing the trajectory of the debate. Therefore, President Obama needs to have an open and frank discussion with the American public on his views with respect to the role of government in an increasingly complex world while at the same time out lining a clear vision on reducing the deficit.
But in this age where the ones who shout the loudest, gets America’s ear, Mr. Obama needs to go beyond defining the role of government; he needs to expose those in the shadows who are financially backing this anti government fervor. Since Barack Obama was sworn in he has inherited and/or been handed several major domestic crises. Yet if one traces the roots of these crises from the Wall Street meltdown, to the massive oil spill in the gulf – the common thread was lack of regulations which set in motion a series of events that have had negative implications for this country. Those who support the anti government agenda have long been in bed with major corporate interests, so it stands to reason they have a vested interest in confusing the debate. Those supporting corporate interests realize one of the implications of a smaller government is less regulations. And while President Obama probably won’t mention it publically, the fact that many news reports link the wealthy Koch Family, owners of Koch industries and long time supporter of right wing causes as major investors in the tea party should give more than pause. These allegations are not just the whisperings of left leaning bloggers, in August of 2009, The Washington Post reported those presumably “ad hoc” protests over health care were funded by big business supported coalition whose interests included thwarting health care, and banking reform. To say these many angry tea partiers are mere pawns in a chess game beyond their depth would be a colossus understatement.
The danger that the Obama Presidency faces is that for most of us perception is reality, and to allow a narrative that his Administration is fiscally irresponsible to go unchecked, may render Barack Obama a one term President. Therefore now more than ever President Obama needs to speak to the public and redirect this debate, in a manner that will serve him and his party well politically, but also serve to prepare America for a serious debate on what most certainly will be the most fundamental challenge of his next administration, and for administrations to follow. In addition, Mr. Obama needs to lay out the real hard data, for example according to the Congressional Budget Office, two thirds of the spending in the 2010 budget have the fingerprints of the Bush administration, meaning programs started by President Bush or started by President Bush and continued by President Obama, leaving only one third of the spending solely on the plate of President Obama. Yet more importantly, the pie chart of “mandatory spending” according to the Office of Management and Budget reveals most of the mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest piece of discretionary spending is on defense Mr. Obama should challenge those opposing big government by asking them is that where do they want the budget ax to start falling. In addition, in the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law many in that same anti government crowd want to blame the federal government for not developing a comprehensive immigration plan, so do they think the oversight of a complex bureaucracy tasked to do several things including managing the laws which will govern twelve million people can be done on the cheap?
The next few years will be decisive the role of government will be debated on several fronts, and the future of the next generation will be decided by the actions taken today. President Obama must lead that debate, and elevate the narrative to the plane of common sense, vision, and with clarity. To be clear, many on the far right are too far gone to embrace the truth about their cause, but for those Democrats running in the fall, President Obama’s words could become usable campaign talking points, and for those teetering independent voters, a dose of reason in a debate gone wild may be a deal maker or deal breaker for President Obama in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
