This Is A Mess
I was asked by a staunch conservative I know, “What about him makes you so happy?”
When I watched President Obama's campaign gather the momentum it did two years ago, like most of the Left, I was elated for what I believed were all the right reasons. Obama was going to be the first black President, he was going to renew funding for ground-breaking scientific research, he extolled eloquent anti-war rhetoric... he was able to construct a lucid and cogent sentence. But for me there was an underlying and more invigorating variable.
I answered, “Because America is finally becoming less selfish.”
Health Care reform was so exciting for me. The prospect of a friend of mine not having to worry about receiving his dialysis treatment, the idea of an epileptic knowing he will have access to the required medication, struggling families sleeping a little easier and a security net for someone who lost their job gave me the impression that the United States finally recognized itself as a single nation. I imagined that individuals finally realized they were part of a greater entity. Someone in Florida knew they had a compatriot in South Dakota.
It looks like I was wrong. Bush bringing us to war was infuriating, removing our civil liberties abhorrent and reducing stem-cell research disappointing, and I'm not naïve enough to think all these emotions won't resurface. But this, the refusal to recognize something as simple as the existence of another human being and the delicate sanctity of that life, the seemingly purposeful ignorance of the helpless in this nation is so crushingly depressing for me, I can't find the adequate words.
I want to know how this is possible. Are we so disconnected from each other that this can be a reality? I refuse as well. I refuse to believe anyone can be that callous, and can only rationalize it as partisan bickering. But then I see the rancor in the eyes of the disgusting embarrassment that is the 'Tea Party'.
When I think of how we appear to the rest of the world, I am more ashamed of the populist reaction to the proposed Healthcare bill than I am of our actions in the Middle East... sincerely. One of the wealthiest nations in the world can't provide something as simple as effective Healthcare because a few cowards in Washington will pander to the socially retarded, to a demographic who base their campaign on absurd misinformation, who think it is their duty as Americans to vehemently fight higher taxes handed down from the ever encroaching Federal Government and neglect their real duty to their fellow man.
Don't think that the world isn't watching. It is - intently.
When I watched President Obama's campaign gather the momentum it did two years ago, like most of the Left, I was elated for what I believed were all the right reasons. Obama was going to be the first black President, he was going to renew funding for ground-breaking scientific research, he extolled eloquent anti-war rhetoric... he was able to construct a lucid and cogent sentence. But for me there was an underlying and more invigorating variable.
I answered, “Because America is finally becoming less selfish.”
Health Care reform was so exciting for me. The prospect of a friend of mine not having to worry about receiving his dialysis treatment, the idea of an epileptic knowing he will have access to the required medication, struggling families sleeping a little easier and a security net for someone who lost their job gave me the impression that the United States finally recognized itself as a single nation. I imagined that individuals finally realized they were part of a greater entity. Someone in Florida knew they had a compatriot in South Dakota.
It looks like I was wrong. Bush bringing us to war was infuriating, removing our civil liberties abhorrent and reducing stem-cell research disappointing, and I'm not naïve enough to think all these emotions won't resurface. But this, the refusal to recognize something as simple as the existence of another human being and the delicate sanctity of that life, the seemingly purposeful ignorance of the helpless in this nation is so crushingly depressing for me, I can't find the adequate words.
I want to know how this is possible. Are we so disconnected from each other that this can be a reality? I refuse as well. I refuse to believe anyone can be that callous, and can only rationalize it as partisan bickering. But then I see the rancor in the eyes of the disgusting embarrassment that is the 'Tea Party'.
When I think of how we appear to the rest of the world, I am more ashamed of the populist reaction to the proposed Healthcare bill than I am of our actions in the Middle East... sincerely. One of the wealthiest nations in the world can't provide something as simple as effective Healthcare because a few cowards in Washington will pander to the socially retarded, to a demographic who base their campaign on absurd misinformation, who think it is their duty as Americans to vehemently fight higher taxes handed down from the ever encroaching Federal Government and neglect their real duty to their fellow man.
Don't think that the world isn't watching. It is - intently.
posted by Paul O'Sullivan at 12:27 PM
10 Comments:
This was a good read, it took a few of my thoughts and put them into words. Thanks Ed.
Really well written Ed, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I have a couple of wrinkles in that narrative.
Obama was against one war (Iraq) and for one war (Afghanistan). Nevertheless US policy under Obama remains the same as under Bush.
Bush did not reduce stem cell research--he limited it. Bush was the first president to allow stem cell research of any kind. Stem cell research has been extended to additional lines and with less restrictions to universities but it is still limited.
Without knowing what civil liberties you are referring to allow me to speculate that these include the Patriot Act. Civil liberties groups did protest, but they've been repeatedly re-enacted with bi-partisan support. In September of last year Obama sought extensions to 3 controversial items he previously had spoken against.
A study of generosity recently found that US citizens were more generous than Canadians, the poor more generous than the rich, conservatives more so than other ideological groups, and the religious more than secular.
Your first point: True, but in my defense, I was listing the things that led to my elation. Also, one broken leg is better than two. I hope that doesn’t sound defeatist. Great point though. Thanks.
Your second point: ‘Reduce’ may have been the wrong word, but ‘limit’ may be too: he vetoed it. I want to keep this response short, so feel free to go through these links.
"I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research."
Bush was not the first to allow stem cell research of any kind: “Under the Clinton administration, the department's general counsel, Harriet Rabb, ruled that federal funds could be used to do research on the cells, but not to derive them. It is this ruling that is under review.”
Your third: You do concede that Bush championed the Patriot Act, and it’s unfair to say that Obama hasn’t taken steps towards the reversal of infringements on civil liberties.
Your forth: Where did you read that study? I’d like to myself. Either way, the point I was making was that there was a growing sense of Social Cohesion. The lack of selfishness isn’t necessarily an implication of a stronger sense of generosity, but it does implicate the acknowledgement of others.
I'm sorry to clutter the comments page guys, but it's acting weird on this computer. I want to thank you so much for all your input.
Robert, I hope my post doesn't sound confrontational or dismissive, I just had to edit/chop it up because Blogger kept cutting out paragraphs and links. I really like this discourse, and I hope it continues. I also hope that the links adequately explain my logic/back up my claims - after reviewing it, they look disjointed.
Sorry to give you those wrinkles...
Paul,
Thanks for your response. I'm not bothered by any sense of confrontation on this. We should all want the facts to drive the discussion.
Government funding is significant the the money really started flowing towards stem cell research after Bush's restrictions. California alone allocated $3 billion.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/01/19/the-rise-of-stem-cell-research
Although restrictions to stem cell funding were removed during the Clinton administration, no action to fund any of it until Bush took office.
You're free to disagree with the Patriot Act. My only point is that it had broad support in both parties. And it seems to be gaining some additional support from President Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/obama-patriot-act-surveil_n_295194.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Prof. Arthur C. Brooks at Syracuse Univ. wrote about charitable giving in 'Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism'
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Hey Robert,
Thanks for that link. I'm definitely going to read through it. I'm curious as to how much of that charity is compulsory/religious.
What I was hoping was conveyed in my highlight/link was that the tests weren't really ideal... umbilical cords and animal stem cells.
Do you have any ideas on Social Cohesion? How much do you think our identity (or lack of) has an effect on something like the healthcare bill?
I contend that we do have social cohesion. There are no riots in the streets, and the populous is reasonably engaged in the process of governing. What we don't have is a compliant population that will accept anything our leaders throw at us. This is as it should be, but I understand that it will disappoint some no matter what course is chosen. Because of advances in communication the electorate is able to quickly learn what is happening and respond with the same speed. Adjusting to this reality will be difficult for our leaders.
Interesting. Before I go further I want to remind anyone reading this thread, that this is Paul O'Sullivan, not Ed Kashi.
Absolutely: it's paramount that there is dissent among a population, but I do not think we have our act together by any means, and I think the reasons for it go beyond a simple identity crisis.
There have been riots, plenty of them. Seattle's WTO protests in 1999 were pretty rough (to put it lightly), and there have been many since of the same ilk. The race riots in the late 60s were far worse, and exemplified the fact that there were, at that time, two different nations. One could argue that such a pervasive gang culture in America has carried that torch. Also, sometimes I think we forget how many assassinations (successful and attempted) there have been in our recent history.
But you're right, we do have a populous that is reasonably engaged in the process of governing, and we do have a standing military. And advances in tech. and communication will only strengthen cohesiveness.
But can you really say that there isn't an exceptional bitterness between different camps? Beyond exceptional, beyond burdening. Our process of governing is so inefficient because of what appears to me to be an abnormally large rift. Even things that are inarguably beneficial for our citizens, like the healthcare bill (or just reform), are halted by what looks like childish stubbornness. This is why I don't believe we have a sense of social cohesion, and with advances in communication I can't excuse it with our geography anymore.
The Tea Party movement looks like a giant temper tantrum to me, and it's embarrassing that that can have so much influence on our government.
The Tea Party Movement officially stands for three things: fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. To the extent that those in that movement feel their government is moving away from those goals you'd expect at least minimal pushback. It isn't exactly a revolutionary idea to use the first amendment to support the tenth amendment of the constitution. I seem to remember a rather large and angry group voicing opposition to the last president without people being too concerned about the anger issue. It's evidence of a functioning democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home