RSS
Home
The more things change, the more they remain the same
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
President Obama AP photograph
Throughout the seemingly endless months of 2008 presidential campaigning, it was rather perplexing to figure out just what exactly it was about the phrase “yes we can” and the word “change” which had such an enchanting power over the cult-like hive of Obama supporters. Clearly, our current president outshines our former one, yet this is hardly a difficult feat to accomplish. Meanwhile, during his time as leader, one still strains to find meaning beneath the hollow and vague promises of some great change. It seems that President Obama’s alterations are only skin deep.
Take for example, President Obama’s recent trip to Europe. He managed quite successfully to start out strong. He said all the right things. Then again, a vast majority of Americans could tell you that the reason most Europeans dislike them is due to the arrogance and self-serving attitude our former administration displayed towards them. The minute Bush stepped down from Air force One, each time it landed across the pond, the air of superiority and dismissal of other countries was so strong that he might as well have been wearing a giant foam finger and shouting “We’re Number One!” It follows then, that Obama, certainly a skilled public speaker and observer of human nature, told Europeans that he wanted to work with them and be on hand to advise them should they need his input, rather than dictate what they should and shouldn’t do. This seemed to please people. However, the longer President Obama remained abroad, the more apparent it became that while he may have a superficial conception as to what words may make the people cheer, there is no real experience or wisdom present to back up these grand claims. This ignorance unfortunately shown through when he made the tragic error of suggesting that Turkey should be allowed into the EU. Perhaps President Obama was not aware of Turkey’s human rights violations, perhaps he was not familiar with their long history of not solving such problems in order to gain acceptance by the EU, and their refusal to meet the ultimatums for change that the rest of Europe asked of them. Perhaps one cannot blame Obama for this lack of knowledge; after all he has no foreign policy experience.
He also has no military experience. So perhaps we can forgive him for the recent Somali Pirate incident, in which his desire for “diplomacy” could have cost a man his life, and cost the military their reputation abroad. However, when those skilled in the area, i.e. the navy personnel on site, acted for him, he of course took the credit. President Obama's order that they could only act if the man's life was in imminent danger meant that when the navy was fired upon they could not return fire, and when the brave man jumped ship to give the navy a clear shot, they were unable to take it. Finally, the men on site decided that the gun pointed towards the man by a pirate constituted enough "imminent danger" and acted. When they did nothing under orders from the President, the navy was blamed. When they acted, going around the President's non-specific orders, the President took credit. So we know he’s a skilled politician. We can forgive him for these lackings, however, because he never claimed to have experience with foreign policy or the military. Essentially we got the man we voted for. Considering the fact that we are a country ensconced in a war abroad, he would need to offer something truly outstanding to make up for his lack of awareness in such areas. He did. President Obama offered “hope” and “change”. One would assume that by this he meant a stark contrast to the secretive, Patriot Act enacting, torture accepting, civil rights violating Bush administration. As long as he brings such change, we can forgive his short-comings. And he has, hasn’t he?
Not really. His administration supported the controversial G.I.V.E Act, which would require all students from middle school and up to perform mandatory federal service hours. Should they not do so, their schools would lose federal funding. This sounds quite bad for our rights when it is coupled with the comments of Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, his Chief of Staff, in an interview stating; “Citizenship is not an entitlement program, it comes with responsibilities, everyone somewhere between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will serve three months of basic training”. Emmanuel carefully pointed out that this was not a draft, and avoided any questions about whether or not it was compulsory (though he said it would be mandatory) and called it “universal service” instead. He then went on to talk about how this “universal” service would “unite” the country, and casually mentioned that the civil rights movement followed the drafts in WWII and Vietnam. This suggests that a new constitutional amendment may be under fire at some point during the Obama administration. The thirteenth amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The thirteenth amendment is not the only one under fire either. The Obama administration has already began using familiar language from the Brady campaign, including "automatic weapons" and "common sense gun control". At present, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009 was introduced to congress January of this year. This legislation would make it illegal to own a firearm (any rifle or pistol) which is not registered by having given your fingerprints, I.D., social security number, and a physical and mental evaluation conducted at a time of the government’s choosing. It also requires you alert them to any change of address, which costs you $25. Should you not follow these new guidelines you can be punished by up to a year in prison. If you have children, the government would reserve the right to come to your home and inspect your guns to ensure that they are safely locked up. A gun is very effective in saving the lives of your children from an intruder when you have no access to it. This bill was obviously created for the superficial appearance of being tough on crime, despite the fact that it is eerily similar to changes implemented in London and DC BEFORE their crime rates rose. Despite also, the fact that this will not deter criminals from purchasing weapons, as they do so illegally and therefore have no need to jump through any such hoops. It will succeed at further disarming the bill of rights however. All past evidence has shown us that gun control is counterproductive; therefore gun control legislation is just a false sense of security so that those who do not know any better can sleep well at night, until they are victimized themselves.
Still, President Obama is against the Patriot Act, so at least he wants to give us our first, third, fourth and fifth amendment rights back. If this is true, then why on earth did he vote to renew the Patriot Act? He has made no noticeable attempt to give us any of these rights back. Based on recent events, such as the beating of a Baptist Minister at an internal border checkpoint between California and Arizona, for not allowing police to unlawfully search his vehicle, not to mention the Obama administration asking the Supreme Court to overturn our right to not be questioned without a lawyer present, it does not seem that we have any such rights. As long as the state is able to lock people up without access to an attorney, violate our rights to search and seize what they like, and beat or taze those who do not comply with little to no repercussions, these rights do not exist.
What about torture? He is closing down Guantanamo Bay. Well, that, like all Obama’s campaign promises, is easier said than done. Surprisingly, other countries do not want to accept the prisoners we kept locked up as terrorists. Obama has moved some prisoners to foreign prisons, like Syria, where torture just happens to occur. I suppose that is change, back to the way we did things before Bush at least. Well, that does provide some distance, so we can tell ourselves that America no longer tortures.
I was hoping that after President Obama’s first 100 days in office, I would finally come to understand all the fuss over the seemingly empty promise of change. Yet, it is becoming ever more apparent that we elected a man with no experience, but one who possesses a silver tongue to make up for it. And that is different. President Bush was unable to string two words together without appearing a fool. Aside from the content and style of their speeches, I do not see many other discerning differences between the two. In fact, I find it slightly alarming that President Obama is able to continue the shredding of the constitution which Bush and Clinton began, all the while still having the broad support of the people whose rights he is removing. Maybe in America, it really does boil down tohow things look on the outside. Superficiality has seeped out of our pop culture and celebrity obsessed media for so long it has infiltrated our politics. We should just throw in the towel and vote for the next president on American Idol: Politics Edition. There will be a far higher voter turnout and perhaps a more honest election for our next figurehead.
Related Articles:
Comments
