From theGrio:
It is hard to believe that anyone would use the tragic earthquake in Haiti as an opportunity to spew racist hate speech. In light of the devastation in that island nation, who would exploit the victims' suffering for political points, make fun of them, and blame them for their plight? Certainly, if anyone is capable of such behavior, it would be Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.
Following the 7.0 earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and claimed countless lives, perhaps thousands, radio host Rush Limbaugh said the following: "This will play right into Obama's hands. Humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to, to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in, in this country. It's made-to-order for him. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there."
Meanwhile, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson reacted to the disaster by asserting that Haiti has been "cursed by one thing after another" since they "swore a pact to the devil." "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about," Robertson said. He added: "They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
Unfortunately, racial hatred, disrespect and disregard for Haiti is not a new phenomenon. The poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, Haiti was also the world's first postcolonial black nation. And it was the only country to gain independence through a slave rebellion. Although Haiti became independent in 1804, the United States did not recognize the nation until 1862, after the Southern states seceded from the Union.
The Dominican Republic, controlled for a time by Haiti in the 1800s, has harbored racial animosity towards its neighbor for years--even though both populations are predominantly of African descent. Although the Dominican Republic was the first nation to provide aid to Haiti, relations have been marred by DR immigration policies and the mass deportation of Haitians, the exploitation of Haitian labor in the DR, and a history of persecuting and executing Haitians living in the DR.
America has a long history of exploiting Haiti-- occupying the country, propping up ruthless puppet dictators and supporting its death squads. France and the U.S. meddled in the Caribbean nation's affairs, and allegedly forced out President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during a coup in 2004. And the U.S. has maintained racist deportation policies which allow fleeing Cubans to seek asylum in America, but require the interdiction of Haitian refugees that make it to the Florida coast.
The recent remarks made by Limbaugh and Robertson reflect the racist attitudes harbored by many Americans towards Haiti--as a poor, black voodoo nation. And the hateful comments made by these two men, however offensive and cruel, are no surprise. Rather, they are part of a pattern of hateful speech.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pat Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that God allowed the attacks to occur because of America's moral decay. After Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, he suggested God was angry over abortion. That year, he also called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In 2006 Robertson claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he tried to make peace with the Palestinians. And Robertson once said that gay marriage would lead to child molestation.
Moreover, Rush Limbaugh has made numerous racist comments over the years. Once he told a black caller on his radio show to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." On another occasion he asked his audience: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" Of civil rights groups, he said that "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." Limbaugh-- who was dropped from a group bidding for the St. Louis Rams football franchise-- referred to the NFL as "a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons." He also called basketball "the favorite sport of gangs." And in recent years, he has enjoyed playing the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on the air.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but people must act responsibly. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Limbaugh and Robertson are fanning the flames of racial hatred. The public must hold them accountable for the damage they have caused, as they mock the damage created by that deadly earthquake.
January 18, 2010
Is Negro the new black?
From theGrio:
It looks like the word "Negro" is back in style these days, for better or for worse. And it appears that white Americans are most eager to blow off the dust and put the term to use.
It all started in 2007 when Rush Limbaugh began playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show. More recently, the U.S. Census decided to reintroduce the category of Negro on the new 2010 census forms. A decade earlier, 56,175 people wrote in the response "Negro" on the census form for their racial identity.
In Game Change, a new book about the 2008 presidential campaign, Senate majority leader Harry Reid referred to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." And Rush Limbaugh recently said, "It was Negroes that brought Ted Kennedy his booze."
Is Negro the new black? If America has decided to resurrect the word and reintroduce it into daily life, it is worth looking at the pros and cons of such a decision.
The Pros
1) The word Negro hearkens back to a time of black self-sufficiency and pride. Some black elders still refer to themselves as Negroes. The word bears a positive connotation for them. It reminds an older generation of a time when African-Americans, facing racism and limited opportunity, had no choice but to band together and help each other. This was a time when black-owned businesses flourished, a strong sense of community existed, and civil rights organizations fought the good fight.
2) People can use the word Negro instead of the other N-word, guilt free. Black people who like to use the so-called "N-word" among their peers but are reluctant to do so due to the social stigma have an alternative that sounds similar but with less baggage. The same holds for racist whites.
The Cons
1) Negro reminds people of slavery. The word Negro can conjure up images of slave ships, whips and chains, human chattel and the miniseries "Roots." I am reminded of the old slave auction notices that always featured the word "Negroes" in large, boldface type. Surely, that grabbed the attention of the prospective slave owner. One such advertisement from the late eighteenth century in Charleston, South Carolina read: "To be sold...A Cargo of Ninety-Four prime, healthy NEGROES, consisting of Thirty-nine Men, Fifteen Boys, Twenty-four Women, and Sixteen Girls." An 1860 slave auction poster from Columbia County, Georgia read "Sale of NEGROES, Mills, Mules, Hogs, Farming & Mining Tools, Wagons and Carts."
Another notice from Charleston read: "To be sold on board the Ship Bance Island...a choice cargo of about 250 fine healthy NEGROES, just arrived from the Windward and Rice Coast. The utmost care has already been taken, and shall be continued, to keep them free from the least danger of being infected with the SMALL-POX.... Full one Half of the above Negroes have had the SMALL-POX."
Maybe we just don't want to go there.
2) The word is associated with Jim Crow segregation and white paternalism. In the continuum of changing racial labels, "Negro" may be more dignified than "Colored" or "boy", but not as empowering or forward-thinking as "black" or "African-American". In the minds of some, the term Negro is part of an era when blacks did not enjoy full citizenship. After all, Negroes endured billy clubs, police dogs and water hoses. They drank from separate water fountains. Negroes could not sit at lunch counters, were made to sit in the back of the bus, and faced lynching if they stepped out of line. Consider this 1963 quote from Malcolm X: "The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals, by the Government itself. But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God."
3) People should be able to name and define themselves. We've already been there. There is no evidence of a groundswell of support in black America for a return to the word "Negro." A group of people has the right to decide what it will answer to, regardless of what Glenn Beck thinks.
So, when you consider whether we should bring back the word Negro, please consider the pros and cons. Negro please, that is.
It looks like the word "Negro" is back in style these days, for better or for worse. And it appears that white Americans are most eager to blow off the dust and put the term to use.
It all started in 2007 when Rush Limbaugh began playing a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show. More recently, the U.S. Census decided to reintroduce the category of Negro on the new 2010 census forms. A decade earlier, 56,175 people wrote in the response "Negro" on the census form for their racial identity.
In Game Change, a new book about the 2008 presidential campaign, Senate majority leader Harry Reid referred to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." And Rush Limbaugh recently said, "It was Negroes that brought Ted Kennedy his booze."
Is Negro the new black? If America has decided to resurrect the word and reintroduce it into daily life, it is worth looking at the pros and cons of such a decision.
The Pros
1) The word Negro hearkens back to a time of black self-sufficiency and pride. Some black elders still refer to themselves as Negroes. The word bears a positive connotation for them. It reminds an older generation of a time when African-Americans, facing racism and limited opportunity, had no choice but to band together and help each other. This was a time when black-owned businesses flourished, a strong sense of community existed, and civil rights organizations fought the good fight.
2) People can use the word Negro instead of the other N-word, guilt free. Black people who like to use the so-called "N-word" among their peers but are reluctant to do so due to the social stigma have an alternative that sounds similar but with less baggage. The same holds for racist whites.
The Cons
1) Negro reminds people of slavery. The word Negro can conjure up images of slave ships, whips and chains, human chattel and the miniseries "Roots." I am reminded of the old slave auction notices that always featured the word "Negroes" in large, boldface type. Surely, that grabbed the attention of the prospective slave owner. One such advertisement from the late eighteenth century in Charleston, South Carolina read: "To be sold...A Cargo of Ninety-Four prime, healthy NEGROES, consisting of Thirty-nine Men, Fifteen Boys, Twenty-four Women, and Sixteen Girls." An 1860 slave auction poster from Columbia County, Georgia read "Sale of NEGROES, Mills, Mules, Hogs, Farming & Mining Tools, Wagons and Carts."
Another notice from Charleston read: "To be sold on board the Ship Bance Island...a choice cargo of about 250 fine healthy NEGROES, just arrived from the Windward and Rice Coast. The utmost care has already been taken, and shall be continued, to keep them free from the least danger of being infected with the SMALL-POX.... Full one Half of the above Negroes have had the SMALL-POX."
Maybe we just don't want to go there.
2) The word is associated with Jim Crow segregation and white paternalism. In the continuum of changing racial labels, "Negro" may be more dignified than "Colored" or "boy", but not as empowering or forward-thinking as "black" or "African-American". In the minds of some, the term Negro is part of an era when blacks did not enjoy full citizenship. After all, Negroes endured billy clubs, police dogs and water hoses. They drank from separate water fountains. Negroes could not sit at lunch counters, were made to sit in the back of the bus, and faced lynching if they stepped out of line. Consider this 1963 quote from Malcolm X: "The Negro revolution is controlled by foxy white liberals, by the Government itself. But the Black Revolution is controlled only by God."
3) People should be able to name and define themselves. We've already been there. There is no evidence of a groundswell of support in black America for a return to the word "Negro." A group of people has the right to decide what it will answer to, regardless of what Glenn Beck thinks.
So, when you consider whether we should bring back the word Negro, please consider the pros and cons. Negro please, that is.
California chooses education over prisons
From theGrio:
With California a fiscal basket case, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently unveiled a draconian 2010-2011 budget for his state. He hopes to close a shortfall of nearly $20 billion through $6.9 billion in federal funds and $8.5 billion in budget cuts. On the chopping block are state aid to public transportation, schools, services for immigrants, in-home care and prisoner health care. Plus more than 200,000 children will no longer be eligible for health insurance.
Part of the problem is that prison spending is too costly, unsustainable, and indefensible. In California, prisons eat up over 10 percent of the state budget, while the state's public universities are only 7 percent. And California spends $18,000 more per prisoner than the ten largest states, according to the Governor's office.
Schwarzenegger recently proposed changing the state constitution so that no less than 10 percent of the budget would be allocated for higher education, and no more than 7 percent would be spent on prisons. California has the right idea when it comes to ending its prison boom and investing more in its future. But other states should follow suit as well.
"Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future," Schwarzenegger said in his January 6 State of the State speech. "What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy. I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education."
For the Golden State-- the largest economy in America, crippled by high unemployment and the housing crisis--harsh fiscal realities are forcing lawmakers to seriously question the ways in which taxpayer funds are allocated. In many ways, California's prison problem is a profoundly American story, the culmination of years of misplaced priorities and failed policies.
Politicians, eager to please voters with a tough-on-crime stance, passed draconian laws that were popular yet made no sense. These unfair laws--with catchy names such as "Three Strikes"-- led to a swelling of the prison population, with more people behind bars and with longer sentences. Special interest groups such as the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) have donated millions of dollars to political campaigns and successfully lobbied for stiff drug laws and longer prison terms. Prison overcrowding has become such a problem that a federal court found the conditions unconstitutional, and ordered California to cut its prison population by as many as 55,000 inmates.
The poor, African Americans and Latinos have been disproportionately affected by the prison boom. Three-quarters of incarcerated men in California are of color.
Meanwhile, California's students cannot afford to go to college. The state's public university system has suffered from budget cuts and a recent 32 percent tuition hike, which has sparked student protests.
Throughout the country, state governments are faced with a cash shortage and expensive, burgeoning prison populations. Unfortunately, desperation often serves as a factory for bad ideas. For example, Arizona is considering privatizing its 40,000 inmate prison system, including its death row. And Pennsylvania has decided to ship 2,000 prisoners to cash-needy Michigan and Virginia in February to address overcrowding issues.
But ultimately, states cannot outsource, privatize or ship all of their problems away. The answer is to develop thoughtful and effective alternatives to incarceration, decriminalize nonviolent drug offenses, and broaden opportunities for educational and economic advancement. And Black and Latino youth should have a future filled with something better than prison bars. Spending more on prisons than colleges is a recipe for disaster.
With California a fiscal basket case, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently unveiled a draconian 2010-2011 budget for his state. He hopes to close a shortfall of nearly $20 billion through $6.9 billion in federal funds and $8.5 billion in budget cuts. On the chopping block are state aid to public transportation, schools, services for immigrants, in-home care and prisoner health care. Plus more than 200,000 children will no longer be eligible for health insurance.
Part of the problem is that prison spending is too costly, unsustainable, and indefensible. In California, prisons eat up over 10 percent of the state budget, while the state's public universities are only 7 percent. And California spends $18,000 more per prisoner than the ten largest states, according to the Governor's office.
Schwarzenegger recently proposed changing the state constitution so that no less than 10 percent of the budget would be allocated for higher education, and no more than 7 percent would be spent on prisons. California has the right idea when it comes to ending its prison boom and investing more in its future. But other states should follow suit as well.
"Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future," Schwarzenegger said in his January 6 State of the State speech. "What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy. I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education."
For the Golden State-- the largest economy in America, crippled by high unemployment and the housing crisis--harsh fiscal realities are forcing lawmakers to seriously question the ways in which taxpayer funds are allocated. In many ways, California's prison problem is a profoundly American story, the culmination of years of misplaced priorities and failed policies.
Politicians, eager to please voters with a tough-on-crime stance, passed draconian laws that were popular yet made no sense. These unfair laws--with catchy names such as "Three Strikes"-- led to a swelling of the prison population, with more people behind bars and with longer sentences. Special interest groups such as the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) have donated millions of dollars to political campaigns and successfully lobbied for stiff drug laws and longer prison terms. Prison overcrowding has become such a problem that a federal court found the conditions unconstitutional, and ordered California to cut its prison population by as many as 55,000 inmates.
The poor, African Americans and Latinos have been disproportionately affected by the prison boom. Three-quarters of incarcerated men in California are of color.
Meanwhile, California's students cannot afford to go to college. The state's public university system has suffered from budget cuts and a recent 32 percent tuition hike, which has sparked student protests.
Throughout the country, state governments are faced with a cash shortage and expensive, burgeoning prison populations. Unfortunately, desperation often serves as a factory for bad ideas. For example, Arizona is considering privatizing its 40,000 inmate prison system, including its death row. And Pennsylvania has decided to ship 2,000 prisoners to cash-needy Michigan and Virginia in February to address overcrowding issues.
But ultimately, states cannot outsource, privatize or ship all of their problems away. The answer is to develop thoughtful and effective alternatives to incarceration, decriminalize nonviolent drug offenses, and broaden opportunities for educational and economic advancement. And Black and Latino youth should have a future filled with something better than prison bars. Spending more on prisons than colleges is a recipe for disaster.
January 15, 2010
A State of Perpetual War
In the George Orwell classic 1984, there is a state of perpetual war between the nations of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. The enemy in the conflict is ambiguous, and the battlefield exists in an elusive and distant land. The enemy could be Eurasia one day, and Eastasia the next, but that location is really insignificant.
The mission of perpetual war for these superpowers is to justify psychological and physical control over their populations, to keep their people busy, fearful and hateful towards the enemy. The perpetual war also serves as an excuse for a nation's failings and shortcomings. The economy, the labor force and industry are all centered around war rather than consumer goods. People live a miserable existence with poverty and no hope of improving their standard of living.
War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! That is what soul singer Edwin Starr said, but it is also what Major General Smedley D. Butler, a two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, believed as well. In fact, he called war a racket. "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people," he said. "Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." The answer to ending war, Butler concluded, is not through disarmament conferences or peace talks, but by taking the profit out of war.
And upon his departure from office, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former general, warned of the military-industrial complex and its threat to democracy and liberty. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist," he said.
America is in a state of perpetual war. Before it was the Cold War, and now it is the War on Terror. And the boogeyman du jour is Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism rather than Communism. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the government is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. This is the nature of the beast. There were wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, and these wars have not abated under Obama. Add to that Pakistan, perhaps Yemen, who knows, and any other nation that comes up in the future. Things were supposed to be different under an Obama presidency, as people did not vote for more war when they voted for "change" in November. After all, the huge, costly, senseless and deadly mess called the Iraq war made people yearn for a better way. But in all fairness, Obama had pledged in the presidential campaign to step things up in Afghanistan.
We are told that the real threat to the United States comes from foreign terrorism, with the latest example brought to us in the form of a B-list al Qaeda groupie from Nigeria, with explosive airline undergarments no less. He follows in the footsteps of another misguided soul, a Jamaican-British terrorist wannabe who tried to blow up his shoes on an airplane several years ago. Such incidents have resulted in reactionary security measures by the government that are ostensibly designed to make us safer, such as the ban on liquids on the plane, or pat downs, or taking off your shoes at the airport. In the end, these measures only make us neurotic and fearful, fail to make us safer, and render air travel an impractical and unpleasant prison-like experience. Meanwhile, while it seems impossible to prevent every potential act of terrorism, the systems that should keep such undesirables off the plane in the first place are not working.
My goal is not to make light of terrorism and the threat it may or may not pose. At the same time, there are many domestic threats that seem to pose a greater risk to national security, including the U.S. economic system itself. Consider, for example, the massive loss of wealth precipitated by the housing crisis, disproportionately felt in the black and Latino communities. Or, take a look at the jobless numbers, and the deplorable 20 percent unemployment rate for working-age men. A nation that claims to be a superpower, yet has one out of every four of its children dependent on food stamps, has far larger issues than a Nigerian with combustible drawers.
And should we not concern ourselves with the daily acts or terror committed in this violent society, the proliferation of firearms, the mass shootings and the school shootings? Every year, on average, more than 100,000 people are shot with a gun in America, and over 30,000 of them die. This level of violence and killing is not tolerated in a truly free and democratic society.
If we are to have a perpetual war, it must be a war against injustice and deprivation at home and abroad. We need to get our own house in order, rather than demolish and rebuild other nations that did not invite us there. And as far as the so-called terrorism problem is concerned, maybe we should stay out of other folks' backyards and it will go away.
January 5, 2010
Five New Year's resolutions for President Obama
From theGrio.com:
With the first calendar year of the Obama presidency at a close, the White House should reflect on its successes and failures over the past year - and gear up for 2010. There's nothing like a new year to set things right; an opportunity to double your efforts in some areas, or to refocus and completely change course in others areas.
President Obama should be pleased with his accomplishments to date. He has brought competence, intelligence and sensitivity back to the Oval Office. Further, he is able to juggle various balls at the same time, which is important, given the huge mess his predecessor left for him. And the United States is once again a respected member of the world community. But the next 12 months are crucial. This historic and potentially great presidency will become a one-termer unless some drastic changes are made for the coming year. So, President Obama should make the following New Year's resolutions:
1) Create a jobs program in America, not Afghanistan
With massive unemployment and an epidemic of home foreclosures, the economy is foremost in the public's mind. People need jobs. They witnessed how the government coddled Wall Street, and rewarded wealthy bankers for wrecking the economy. Now they wonder if and when they will receive their own personal bailout.
Job creation must be a top priority on the White House agenda. As the economy will not repair itself, the government must step in with a massive jobs program, New Deal-style. But with the nation hemorrhaging precious billions of dollars to fight unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is less able to tackle its domestic crises.
2) Throw Rahm Emanuel under the bus
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, has not served the President well. And he is the target of progressive groups because of it. They hold him responsible for the administration's abandonment of a government-run, public health insurance option, and the industry giveaway masquerading as health care reform that has emerged from Congress.
Emanuel reportedly told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal on health care with renegade Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a troublemaking thorn in the side of reform-minded Democrats. In addition, Emanuel was instrumental in cutting a deal with the pharmaceutical industry, in which the drug companies agreed to cut prescription drug costs to seniors by $80 billion. In return, the White House agreed to oppose the importation of cheaper drugs into the country, and a reform measure allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
President Obama came to Washington in the image of a change agent who would upset entrenched interests. Concerned more about Machiavellian expediency than what is right, Emanuel wants to accommodate those entrenched interests. This tactic threatens the legitimacy of the Obama administration, which is why he must go.
3) Abandon this bipartisanship folly
From the outset, Obama made overtures to conservative Republicans in an effort to bridge the ideological divide. Working together in a spirit of bipartisanship is a worthy and noble goal, provided you have a willing partner.
Although Obama placed some Republicans in cabinet positions, the GOP as a whole has had nothing on their minds other than the destruction of this presidency. This sentiment was reflected by Senators Jim DeMint and Joe Wilson of South Carolina. DeMint called health care Obama's Waterloo, and said that if Republicans could stop healthcare reform, it would break the president. Wilson interrupted the president's September address before Congress by shouting "You lie!" Meanwhile, Obama has wasted precious time trying to court the support of a few Republicans, with little to show for it. Therefore, he must ignore the national sideshow that the Republican Party represents, and concentrate of what the people elected him to accomplish.
4) Grow a backbone and stand up for campaign promises
During the campaign, Obama was a symbol of change who represented bold, new leadership. Now with the reins of power in his grasp, the president has lost some of his luster. Unfortunately, he seems reluctant to stick out his neck on the issues for which he so eloquently advocated during the election. Refusing to weigh in on important legislation - and opting to allow a dysfunctional Congress to carve out the details - the president apparently is willing to accept whatever he is given. Obama must take true ownership of the government, and use the bully pulpit to shape policy in his image. How does he plan to win battles in the future if he refuses to fight for his signature issues, like health care?
5) Don't forget who brought you to the dance
President Obama's supporters, particularly the progressive base, had a great deal riding on his election. Now, their enthusiasm has dampened because they have been taken for granted. Moreover, if the administration continues to disappoint liberals by failing to deliver on their issues, low turnout from the base will damage the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. We won't even discuss Obama's 2012 reelection bid. The White House must come correct on a host of issues, including financial regulation, green jobs, and the environment. The base was there for Obama in 2008, but now he must show that he will stand by them.
It isn't too late yet, but much time has been wasted already. The new year can be a fresh start for President Obama, should he choose to take advantage of it.
With the first calendar year of the Obama presidency at a close, the White House should reflect on its successes and failures over the past year - and gear up for 2010. There's nothing like a new year to set things right; an opportunity to double your efforts in some areas, or to refocus and completely change course in others areas.
President Obama should be pleased with his accomplishments to date. He has brought competence, intelligence and sensitivity back to the Oval Office. Further, he is able to juggle various balls at the same time, which is important, given the huge mess his predecessor left for him. And the United States is once again a respected member of the world community. But the next 12 months are crucial. This historic and potentially great presidency will become a one-termer unless some drastic changes are made for the coming year. So, President Obama should make the following New Year's resolutions:
1) Create a jobs program in America, not Afghanistan
With massive unemployment and an epidemic of home foreclosures, the economy is foremost in the public's mind. People need jobs. They witnessed how the government coddled Wall Street, and rewarded wealthy bankers for wrecking the economy. Now they wonder if and when they will receive their own personal bailout.
Job creation must be a top priority on the White House agenda. As the economy will not repair itself, the government must step in with a massive jobs program, New Deal-style. But with the nation hemorrhaging precious billions of dollars to fight unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is less able to tackle its domestic crises.
2) Throw Rahm Emanuel under the bus
Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, has not served the President well. And he is the target of progressive groups because of it. They hold him responsible for the administration's abandonment of a government-run, public health insurance option, and the industry giveaway masquerading as health care reform that has emerged from Congress.
Emanuel reportedly told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal on health care with renegade Senator Joe Lieberman, who is a troublemaking thorn in the side of reform-minded Democrats. In addition, Emanuel was instrumental in cutting a deal with the pharmaceutical industry, in which the drug companies agreed to cut prescription drug costs to seniors by $80 billion. In return, the White House agreed to oppose the importation of cheaper drugs into the country, and a reform measure allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
President Obama came to Washington in the image of a change agent who would upset entrenched interests. Concerned more about Machiavellian expediency than what is right, Emanuel wants to accommodate those entrenched interests. This tactic threatens the legitimacy of the Obama administration, which is why he must go.
3) Abandon this bipartisanship folly
From the outset, Obama made overtures to conservative Republicans in an effort to bridge the ideological divide. Working together in a spirit of bipartisanship is a worthy and noble goal, provided you have a willing partner.
Although Obama placed some Republicans in cabinet positions, the GOP as a whole has had nothing on their minds other than the destruction of this presidency. This sentiment was reflected by Senators Jim DeMint and Joe Wilson of South Carolina. DeMint called health care Obama's Waterloo, and said that if Republicans could stop healthcare reform, it would break the president. Wilson interrupted the president's September address before Congress by shouting "You lie!" Meanwhile, Obama has wasted precious time trying to court the support of a few Republicans, with little to show for it. Therefore, he must ignore the national sideshow that the Republican Party represents, and concentrate of what the people elected him to accomplish.
4) Grow a backbone and stand up for campaign promises
During the campaign, Obama was a symbol of change who represented bold, new leadership. Now with the reins of power in his grasp, the president has lost some of his luster. Unfortunately, he seems reluctant to stick out his neck on the issues for which he so eloquently advocated during the election. Refusing to weigh in on important legislation - and opting to allow a dysfunctional Congress to carve out the details - the president apparently is willing to accept whatever he is given. Obama must take true ownership of the government, and use the bully pulpit to shape policy in his image. How does he plan to win battles in the future if he refuses to fight for his signature issues, like health care?
5) Don't forget who brought you to the dance
President Obama's supporters, particularly the progressive base, had a great deal riding on his election. Now, their enthusiasm has dampened because they have been taken for granted. Moreover, if the administration continues to disappoint liberals by failing to deliver on their issues, low turnout from the base will damage the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. We won't even discuss Obama's 2012 reelection bid. The White House must come correct on a host of issues, including financial regulation, green jobs, and the environment. The base was there for Obama in 2008, but now he must show that he will stand by them.
It isn't too late yet, but much time has been wasted already. The new year can be a fresh start for President Obama, should he choose to take advantage of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)