January 29, 2008

• Commentary
  
  
  Calling for Change: Is it enough to get elected?

  I don't usually do commentaries like this since that isn't the thrust
  of this blog but some dialog between Bee and others have brought the
  matter to my attention that Barak Obama seems to be gaining on the
  title of heir apparent for the Democrats with Senator Ted Kennedy
  endorsing him.

  Honestly I couldn't care a whit about this. However,
  there was something that caught my eye that applies not only to Barak
  Obama but also to the rest of the candidates out there. So while it
  might appear that I'm picking on Obama here, please remember that my
  current opinion is that we should reset the process and start with a
  whole new set of folks since I haven't seen anyone, at this point, who
  seems to have the "right stuff" for the highest office of the land. I
  could only hope that someone will rise to the occasion and demonstrate
  real leadership that can be respected by all. Anyway, I will use
  Obama's South Carolina victory speech to illustrate a point that
  applies to the whole lot of these folks.

  I have found it quite interesting that many people have been reported
  to be responding to Barak Obama's call for "change we can believe in".
  On the surface, this would seem to be a good thing so it would call for
  a closer look.

  After viewing Obama's victory speech in South Carolina, it was curious
  to note that MSNBC only dedicated one camera to the coverage and the
  crowd was rather small. This speaks volumes and we should not dismiss
  it. Having been taught video production techniques, one chooses a small
  building (and it seemed to be so) to do such things rather than a larger one and take lower
  camera angles to make the scene look full to the viewers and give the
  appearance of more people than there really were. This is pretty common
  for news reporters to do to give the appearance of there being bigger
  news than actually happens. It also could be that MSNBC did not really
  believe enough in Obama to devote more resources to the event and
  responded accordingly however this might be tempered by the fact
  that other news services would be present as well restricting the
  amount of equipment present. At any rate, enough techniques were used
  to make a bigger event of it than it was.  However, I will concede the
  media is only doing its job.

  In reviewing the content of the speech, there were few, if any, new
  points to Obama's message that haven't been heard before from any
  non-descript candidate who carries the liberal banner. They were the
  typical offers of free money from the government and this was repeated
  in various ways however even these were rather vague. He subtly
  repudiated the responsibility of the government to protect our
  nation, one of the very reasons for our constitution. He was
  essentially claiming that 9-11 meant nothing to our nation and the
  subsequent work necessary to untangle the web in the Middle East of radical Islamic elements that have publicly threatened our land to reduce the future threats of similar disasters. This
  showed his lack of wisdom in understanding the wider issues that
  underlie the problem. With an eager willingness to abandon the process
  before the job was done also tells us that he will probably talk a lot
  about doing things and actually accomplish little because he will give
  up before the job is finished.

  He made long appeals to draw in all those who feel "left out" to join
  him (the "disenfranchised" is the more recent term for this) for a
  principle called "change we can believe in". Not only was he dividing
  people on the basis of "haves & have nots" in the name of uniting
  them,  he made "Washington" the boogey-man that he was opposed to and
  wanted to change. Given that his party is now pretty much in power in Washington,
  just what is he saying?  Are these loose words or is he conspiring to
  overthrown his own party? The man appears to be quite persuasive but
  somehow those who might be a little more on the ball may look at him and consider him having low credibility and may not be adept at foreign
  policy. Of course there will be those who are saying that he means
  ousting Bush from office but in truth he did not say that directly so
  what he meant is really up for grabs.  The truth is that Bush will
  leave office anyway for someone else to take the nation's reins simply
  by due process of law so there will be change happening anyway. So what's the point of saying it?

  Now the most damaging thing that was noted was while he was espousing
  change, it was not at all clear what he was going to change or how he
  might propose to do it. It was just "change" perhaps for "change's
  sake".  It would be interesting to see if he ever revealed what he
  wanted to do whether his following would stick with him after that.
  Anyway, it seemed clear that Obama did not want to reveal anything
  about any plan or idea at this point.

  Also, in several instances, Obama clearly distanced himself from the
  very change that he espouses by claiming that changes will be hard and
  several times laid the responsibility for the change he promised on the
  rest of the crowd and from the response, the crowd did not miss the shot directed at them. Once he were in office, we
  should expect the same lack of character if and when he gets in. I
  don't think the nation wants an "its not my fault" president. 

  In addition, Obama makes sure we understand that his message hasn't
  changed from the beginning of the campaign. Finally, he makes sure that
  his listeners understand that they are somehow the "underdogs" and that
  they should tell the "unbelievers" a simple three word message "yes, we
  can", effectively saying to ignore anything to the contrary. It sounds
  almost like a cult.  It is curious though, based on the news reports,
  one would have thought there was the fervor of a religious revival. Yet
  in viewing the participants, this wasn't as apparent.  It really seemed
  like a political rally and indeed it was. One wonders what the purpose
  is in putting such a gathering in much more glowing terms in writing
  and seeing something different than it was reported to be. It is this
  sort of thing that the news media needs to correct if they hope to have
  any credibility but I've strayed from the topic.

  So perhaps its best to just analyze the essence of the message and move
  on to something much more basic such as the question, do we really want
  "change"?  Obama's message presupposes this. In reality, very few
  people really want change even if they are experiencing things that
  press them forward to receive the benefits of it. So why is "change" a
  rallying cry for this group?  We might simply recall that for most of
  the last 8 years, we have been hearing of folks intensely dissatisfied
  with the current administration, practically to the point of
  irrationality, saying and doing things that simply were news fodder for
  conservative news services, making themselves ridiculous and destroying
  their credibility.

  The fact is that Bush will leave office in January 2009 no matter what.
  Change will happen whether Obama (or anyone else) is voted in or not.
  Where will all this hate energy go at that point? It doesn't just
  dissipate after the elections are over as was clearly seen in the close
  presidential races of 2000 and 2004.  If this energy is not expended on
  the government, it will certainly show up elsewhere perhaps even in our
  private lives.

  So what sort of change is this junior senator (since 2004) from
  Illinois envisioning? So far he hasn't told us and it may be that he
  doesn't know himself. That in itself is a concern since just wanting
  the job to be president is not the qualifications for it.  The fact
  that people believe a person has the answers doesn't mean that they
  have them. Here's a man who's only been in office a short time and he's
  considering a position well over his current experience level. Perhaps
  this is the reason for being elusive about his plans for change. 
  Something just doesn't add up with Obama.  Perhaps he really needed the
  support of Ted Kennedy to mentor him through the rough waters of the
  presidential race. But who will mentor Obama once he is in office. He
  will be on his own. If he cannot understand now what his job will be,
  what sort of change will there be and will it even last if he did?

  We must always remember that change, while sometimes good, is not
  always controllable and can cause devastating effects if not carefully
  executed. Often well-intentioned plans, if we actually have them,
  overlook critical consequences and very undesirable results can happen
  and unfortunately, they often do.

  I would have to respond to the slogan "Change we can believe in" in the
  following manner. Change must represent something tangible and not be a
  nebulous idea out there left up to the hearer to interpret for
  themselves where politicians can later say, "I didn't say that.".
  Change declared without any substance is a dangerous proposition
  because it can and does unleash terrible things that leaves destruction
  in its path much like an avalanche coming down a mountainside. An
  avalanche is unfeeling and unaware of the potential destruction within
  itself but in it is powerful forces and starts with only a small
  movement and grows until it destroys everything in its path. Yes, an
  avalanche is change and an apt description of change without substance.

  Yet curiously enough, we find the real intent in Ted Kennedy's remarks. The intent here for them is getting a Democratic aligned president in office no matter what it takes... not the wonderful utopia that
  everyone else in the crowd seems to envision. Kennedy slipped and
  exposed the real intent. The magic in the word "change" vaporized at that instant.

  Is Democratic rulership and liberal philosophy
  in our government able to deliver on the promises which its
  constituents dream for and conjure up in their minds,? While there have been earnest hopes to the contrary, it never has and
  never will. That's because it never had substance to begin with. It has
  been empty promises from the beginning but politics and governments
  tends to be that way all the way around. It is idealism without an
  engine (except taxes) and without the inherent desire to accomplish all the wonderful
  promises for the populace except in small measure to gain votes to
  maintain their position in government. It is idealistic thought
  presented by these individuals knowing that they cannot deliver. It is
  the politics of payoffs for votes.  No, Obama, I don't believe you and
  you shouldn't even believe yourself. So many of us have heard this song before and it
  isn't change by any stretch of the imagination. 

  Is calling for change enough to get elected? Perhaps if people don't think too much. Whether we'll like it or not remains to be seen. There is strong doubt that there will be anything new or changed from what we already know with this line of thinking.  Mr.Vee

  • 5:57 pm
  • 5 Comments