President Obama, in a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, insisted that “every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States.” Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather hear optimism spew out of the First Vocal Cords than his recent perpetual pessimism, but how can he say this right now when the economy is anything but sound?
Remember on the campaign trail when John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong? Remember how liberals, Democrats, and everyone in the media condemned him as “out of touch” after he said these words? Remember how pundits consistently declared that this was the cause of the GOP ticket’s downfall?
On November 17, 2008, In Racism, By Andrew Schwartz
Unfortunately, I believe it was inevitable. I knew the outcome of the election, regardless of who won, would bring out the worst in some people. With an intensively publicized and polarized election, emotions on either side were bound to be displayed in an emotionally reaffirming manner.
After the winner was declared on Nov. 4th in the city of my current residence, midnight parades spontaneously sprang up. Gun shots and other forms of civil disturbance ensued. Those who supported the losers were certainly despondent, wondering what was to come over the next four years. Other Obama supporters celebrated properly, reveling in their victory in a way that did not infringe on others. Other McCain (or other) supporters have since reacted improperly, taking their frustrations out with a deliberate intent for harm.
One can not deny that this election had racial undertones to it, but it was more so from the black demographic. When 96% of the African-American community is for a certain candidate, eyebrows are sure to be raised. Blacks showed up in unprecedented numbers to the polls to support a candidate who, for all superficial purposes, was like them. To a greatly lesser proportion, the election was about race for whites as well. Some would not vote for Obama just because he was black; others felt obligated to vote for him to exonerate themselves from any historical racial injustices.
I would argue that none of the above reasons are the correct reasons to vote for a candidate. I do understand blacks wanting “one of them” to be in office. To be sure, it is a huge positive leap in symbolic racial equality, but their reasons for support only serve to perpetuate a different form of racism. The same was true for the overwhelming Catholic support of John F. Kennedy in 1960. In the long-term aspect of demographic preference, though, this will become a non-factor. Catholics have since become relatively indifferent toward a like-candidate, as evidenced by John Kerry’s and Joe Biden’s bids. Catholics tended to focus more on the issues for these two. The same will eventually be true of blacks and black candidates, so in the end this short-term form of racism was necessary for a long-term form of equality.
What is more disturbing, however, is the arise of dormant Jim Crow feelings by certain Americans. Some may not have even known they harbored these emotions. Others may feel an overwhelming conviction of their beliefs and feel the need to embark on a racial crusade. In either case, it is an unwarranted emotion, and should never be taken out on others. Americans have spoken, and the Electoral College will reaffirm that speech. It is utter hypocrisy for Americans to hate Obama for his personage while they whine about the disparagement of Sarah Palin.
In every demographic case, blacks and whites, male and female, rich and poor, it is the obligation of an educated voter to base their decision on policies, not person. Abraham Lincoln was a tall, lanky man with a high-pitched annoying voice, and was seen as too inexperienced by his peers and the media to be President. He would have never been elected in today’s system, unfortunately. His policies, however, helped to preserve the Union. And without the South, we would not have the economic benefits that have enabled our current American lifestyle.
Contradictorily, President-elect Obama’s policies have brought an ideological fissure to the surface of American politics. His radical views on social reform, economic equality and justice, and international appeasement have polarized political ideologies. But that is not racism; that is America.
On November 8, 2008, In Congress, Foreign Policy, By Andrew Schwartz
Sen. Reid is obviously bitter about Sen. Lieberman’s decision to campaign for Sen. McCain during the presidential race. Does he have a right to be? Absolutely. But what does the senate gain by removing him from his chairmanships in Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs?
This removal is purely a demonstration of power, intended to send Lieberman sulking toward the lesser republicans with his senatorial tail between his legs. If removed as predicted, Sen. Lieberman will probably continue to vote along traditional democrat party lines, and Reid probably anticipates this; so he is not losing a vote (unless it is on the War on Terror).
But the senate does lose a well-established senator who commands great respect from any administration. By publicly “punishing” him they will have inadvertently undermined their own authority: Reid put him there in the first place, but now he admits his own poor judgment…
Israel also loses a powerful advocate for them, which will undoubtedly cause national consternation and aggravate an already skeptical view of an Obama administration.
Finally, this is a slap in the face to the bipartisanship message the democrats have preached over the past two years. The “partisanship and pettiness… that has poisoned our politics” Obama so alliterively spoke of in his victory speech seems typified in these actions.
Is Sen. Ried justified if he removes Sen. Lieberman from power? Yes, but the implied “change” will be the punishment and abandonment of those who resist. Hardly a bipartisan effort.
