There is nothing like adversity to not only test one’s mettle but demands one to take stock of his/her life and the choices made and
This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
5 Responses to “Obama and Adversity”
Toots
When you’re surrounded by people who’d rather take their gun to church than tithes anything can happen. He may well be held hostage by a threat to his family or some such situation. Seems like something he can’t even share with his Democratic party colleagues.
Trevor Dawes
@ Toots, I don’t buy into your argument. With the exception of episodes involving the Somali pirates and Osama bin-Laden, Pres. Obama has not shown enough backbone in his dealings with the GOP in the US Congress and in his leadership of the US. He did not come into the presidency blind in terms of the problems with the economy he was inheriting and it seemed to me he should have made some clear-cut decisions as to what he wanted to get done from the get-go and define the narrative. Thus far he has failed to do so. Americans are looking for confidence from their president in these times and right now they’re not getting it from Pres. Obama and the rest of the Democrats in the Congress and they’re getting nonsense from the GOP/Tea Party. Americans.
Richard G. Williams
Trevor – The US presidency is not allowed to be operate as a dictatorship or autocracy as a president of a non-union company could. As head of the Executive branch, President Obama has done all within his authorized power – including making deep cuts to the Federal budget that only Congress can increase.
You must remember that the core principles in the US’ representative democracy model are separation of powers of the branches of government (and State’s rights), and checks and balances to avoid tyrannical rule, as much as possible.
The three branches of government (Executive, Congress, and Judiciary) were deliberately pitted against each other to avoid one dominating each other.
In the design of Congress, the House and Senate were made independently elected bodies representing local and regional interest, respectively.
Along with their self-interest for power and re-election, Congresspersons do not have to side with the President much less their party on anything, but become branches within a branch.
Hence, critical, long lasting decisions require achieving consensus (mutual agreement) or making compromises (trading interests). As designed, Congress can change every two years, therefore consensus or compromise is necessary for stable and progressive government.
Although President Obama pushed his agenda very early, a DNC dominated Congress failed to execute his agenda before the mid-term election. Now a mixed Congress has to seek unity for the US to move forward. That is how it was designed (see the Federalist Papers).
Trevor Dawes
Richard, I’m not implying that Pres. Obama needs to act like a dictator to try and get his way and I know about the separation of powers between the three main branches of the USG. It does not mean, however, that he cannot try and make his case to the American public for why creating more jobs now is more important than worrying about America’s long-term debt/deficit. He’s getting very little in the way of any cooperation from the GOP/Tea Party and he is, depending on who you want to believe, alienating his base so he needs to make a cogent and coherent case to the wider American public to help effect the changes he wants. FDR did this back in the 30s and no one ever accused him of being anything remotely akin to acting like a dictator. Also, if you read the article you’d clearly see where I say that not much can be achieved in the US Congress without cross-party consensus.
Richard G. Williams
The problem with the consensus/compromise approach is that the experienced negotiator have either died or moved on (e.g. Ted Kennedy). It is true that FDR’s persistent optimism and activism contributed to a renewal of the national spirit. Obama approach could have had the same effect had it not been for the emergence of the Tea Partiers that now clash with fellow moderate Republicans. FDR’s tenure spanned WWI relief, recovery, and reform to WWII unilateral action and war. Behind the scenes FDR was as ruthless as a dictator in pushing thru the DNC agenda, and Democrats controlled of both Houses of Congress. To be fair to Obama, he did not say he would make change; he inspired change. Obama made his case to the US public many times, but that alone cannot alleviate the current condition. The key to creating more US jobs lies in the actions of the Federal Reserve. Also, Obama has to make deeper cuts in ineffective/inefficient areas, and then invest in major infrastructure development.
5 Responses to “Obama and Adversity”
When you’re surrounded by people who’d rather take their gun to church than tithes anything can happen. He may well be held hostage by a threat to his family or some such situation. Seems like something he can’t even share with his Democratic party colleagues.
@ Toots, I don’t buy into your argument. With the exception of episodes involving the Somali pirates and Osama bin-Laden, Pres. Obama has not shown enough backbone in his dealings with the GOP in the US Congress and in his leadership of the US. He did not come into the presidency blind in terms of the problems with the economy he was inheriting and it seemed to me he should have made some clear-cut decisions as to what he wanted to get done from the get-go and define the narrative. Thus far he has failed to do so. Americans are looking for confidence from their president in these times and right now they’re not getting it from Pres. Obama and the rest of the Democrats in the Congress and they’re getting nonsense from the GOP/Tea Party. Americans.
Trevor – The US presidency is not allowed to be operate as a dictatorship or autocracy as a president of a non-union company could. As head of the Executive branch, President Obama has done all within his authorized power – including making deep cuts to the Federal budget that only Congress can increase.
You must remember that the core principles in the US’ representative democracy model are separation of powers of the branches of government (and State’s rights), and checks and balances to avoid tyrannical rule, as much as possible.
The three branches of government (Executive, Congress, and Judiciary) were deliberately pitted against each other to avoid one dominating each other.
In the design of Congress, the House and Senate were made independently elected bodies representing local and regional interest, respectively.
Along with their self-interest for power and re-election, Congresspersons do not have to side with the President much less their party on anything, but become branches within a branch.
Hence, critical, long lasting decisions require achieving consensus (mutual agreement) or making compromises (trading interests). As designed, Congress can change every two years, therefore consensus or compromise is necessary for stable and progressive government.
Although President Obama pushed his agenda very early, a DNC dominated Congress failed to execute his agenda before the mid-term election. Now a mixed Congress has to seek unity for the US to move forward. That is how it was designed (see the Federalist Papers).
Richard, I’m not implying that Pres. Obama needs to act like a dictator to try and get his way and I know about the separation of powers between the three main branches of the USG. It does not mean, however, that he cannot try and make his case to the American public for why creating more jobs now is more important than worrying about America’s long-term debt/deficit. He’s getting very little in the way of any cooperation from the GOP/Tea Party and he is, depending on who you want to believe, alienating his base so he needs to make a cogent and coherent case to the wider American public to help effect the changes he wants. FDR did this back in the 30s and no one ever accused him of being anything remotely akin to acting like a dictator. Also, if you read the article you’d clearly see where I say that not much can be achieved in the US Congress without cross-party consensus.
The problem with the consensus/compromise approach is that the experienced negotiator have either died or moved on (e.g. Ted Kennedy). It is true that FDR’s persistent optimism and activism contributed to a renewal of the national spirit. Obama approach could have had the same effect had it not been for the emergence of the Tea Partiers that now clash with fellow moderate Republicans. FDR’s tenure spanned WWI relief, recovery, and reform to WWII unilateral action and war. Behind the scenes FDR was as ruthless as a dictator in pushing thru the DNC agenda, and Democrats controlled of both Houses of Congress. To be fair to Obama, he did not say he would make change; he inspired change. Obama made his case to the US public many times, but that alone cannot alleviate the current condition. The key to creating more US jobs lies in the actions of the Federal Reserve. Also, Obama has to make deeper cuts in ineffective/inefficient areas, and then invest in major infrastructure development.