Post by Dr. John Weekes on Nov 13, 2010 22:28:53 GMT -5
Indiscretion Not Racism
Over the last several weeks I have been bombarded with totally irrational and untenable comments concerning President Obama’s and the Dems with regard to their abysmal fall from popularity with the American electorate. In almost every case, racism was advanced as the main if not the only cause. What utter nonsense! Those who see race as having anything to do with the lashing the incumbent party received at the hands of the voters are either themselves hypo-racist or politically very naïve.
Any commentary on the November 2, 2010 election results must, if such comment is to have any honesty or validity, take into account:
Firstly, the voters who overwhelmingly voted the President into office were well aware two years ago that he was a black man. After all they saw him and his wife often enough on television. There was no lack of knowledge of his ethnicity. So why should race creep in two years later? Racism in this context makes no sense whatsoever.
Secondly, it cannot be argued that it was the black vote which voted him into office. I believe that the black vote is no more than eleven or twelve percent of all the votes cast in 2008. Even if he received 100% of all the black votes they would not have been enough to make any significant impact on the election.
Thirdly, it is not at all unusual for the electorate to judge harshly a government which appears to be falling short of the performance of their mandate and or of the people’s expectations. While public opinion may not be the keystone to the constitutional arch today, it is still the most lethal, if not the only weapon available to a disappointed or disenchanted electorate.
Fourthly the ruling party in general and the President in particular made a number of Administrative and Presidential errors most of which stemmed from arrogant over-confidence no doubt derived from what they and he thought was an unassailable majority in Congress. Obama, in my opinion failed and disappointed the American people not only by the things he did not do, but also by many of the things he did and said.
Things he said which were clearly politically indiscrete included:
a) His famous, “The policeman acted foolishly,” comment. That brought him under early fire. Why was it necessary to make such a comment? The question was not whether it was true or false; but whether it was necessary, expedient, or wise. I would aver that it was not.
b) The same President who campaigned a few months earlier on the promise that his administration would be concerned with the interest of every American, made or was associated with this statement, actually spoken by the Secretary of Education; “The President and I are not concerned about the 2% who drop out of school. We are only concerned about the 98%. Let the private sector take care of the 2%. Therefore we will not include in the budget any money to fund school choice.” How could a responsible government not concern itself with the needs of 2% of our children just because the former President had a heart for those children?
c) More words spoken by the President; “If I were the shareholders of BP, I would fire the President. This was said at a time when many of his detractors were calling for his own head over his handling of the BP Oil crisis. What bad timing! The American voters would have certainly taken him up on his offer and fire him if he were himself running for office. Indeed if he were the majority leader under any other constitutional system characterized by majority rule, such as the British system, he would not have been able to continue to lead the government.
d) What about this statement in the very heat and heart of the mid-term elections. “The Republicans can join us; but they will have to sit at the back of the bus.” That was no doubt a statement that was bound to really tick a lot of people off.
e) Finally, how was it necessary, prudent or politic to enter into the Mosque at ground zero controversy? A prudent Leader knows that politics is the art of the possible. And the order of the day is discretion, discretion, discretion. The point here is that a shrewd President even if he was unwise enough to see nothing wrong with the proposal, should have been politically savvy enough to avoid expressing an opinion one way or another.
And what about all those things that he did which he ought not to have done, and the things he did not do which he ought to have done?
The President and his party were given a mandate to end the recession and put people back to work. One thing he was called upon to do along the way was to reduce the deficit by eliminating government waste and out of control spending. Far from reducing the deficit, he enlarged it by trillions of dollars, while unemployment continues to rise.
What really has the President done? Yes he declared that the terrorists held in Cuba should be brought to the US and given VIP treatment. They should have a right to counsel and should not have been questioned rigorously or by using rigorous methods. People whose only aim in life is to kill Americans and all Christians every where should be given benefit of counsel and accorded the same rights as other wrong doers. And lest we forget the President’s outstanding claim to fame is that he sat down in the Oval Office with homosexuals.
What else has the President done? It was the most arrogant and irresponsible thing of all. In August when the Heath Care controversy was at its height, the electorate made it clear that it was not in a mood for healthcare legislation, at least not in the form and to the extent it was proposed. But did the President listen? He most certainly did not. In my view it was a huge tactical error and a slap in the face of the voters. So the President slapped the electorate in the face with his pen and they slapped him right back with theirs.
Democracy may not be a perfect political and or constitutional system; but I do believe that, short of benevolent despotism with all its attendant dangers, democracy is the best constitutional system around. The electorate way not be all politically astute and or perfectly informed; but politicians need to be reminded, in the words of a nineteenth century writer that, “It is the ultimate sovereignty of public opinion which is the keystone to the Constitutional Arch.” The voters may not be informed, and they may not be free save once every two years; but there may be still truth in the adage, Vox populi, vox Dei; the voice of the people is the voice of God.
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that it was indiscretion, not racism that precipitated the precipitous downfall of the Democrats and the President. It was said of James 1 that he never said a foolish thing nor ever did a wise one. That much cannot even be said of the President.
Rev. Dr John S Weekes
Over the last several weeks I have been bombarded with totally irrational and untenable comments concerning President Obama’s and the Dems with regard to their abysmal fall from popularity with the American electorate. In almost every case, racism was advanced as the main if not the only cause. What utter nonsense! Those who see race as having anything to do with the lashing the incumbent party received at the hands of the voters are either themselves hypo-racist or politically very naïve.
Any commentary on the November 2, 2010 election results must, if such comment is to have any honesty or validity, take into account:
Firstly, the voters who overwhelmingly voted the President into office were well aware two years ago that he was a black man. After all they saw him and his wife often enough on television. There was no lack of knowledge of his ethnicity. So why should race creep in two years later? Racism in this context makes no sense whatsoever.
Secondly, it cannot be argued that it was the black vote which voted him into office. I believe that the black vote is no more than eleven or twelve percent of all the votes cast in 2008. Even if he received 100% of all the black votes they would not have been enough to make any significant impact on the election.
Thirdly, it is not at all unusual for the electorate to judge harshly a government which appears to be falling short of the performance of their mandate and or of the people’s expectations. While public opinion may not be the keystone to the constitutional arch today, it is still the most lethal, if not the only weapon available to a disappointed or disenchanted electorate.
Fourthly the ruling party in general and the President in particular made a number of Administrative and Presidential errors most of which stemmed from arrogant over-confidence no doubt derived from what they and he thought was an unassailable majority in Congress. Obama, in my opinion failed and disappointed the American people not only by the things he did not do, but also by many of the things he did and said.
Things he said which were clearly politically indiscrete included:
a) His famous, “The policeman acted foolishly,” comment. That brought him under early fire. Why was it necessary to make such a comment? The question was not whether it was true or false; but whether it was necessary, expedient, or wise. I would aver that it was not.
b) The same President who campaigned a few months earlier on the promise that his administration would be concerned with the interest of every American, made or was associated with this statement, actually spoken by the Secretary of Education; “The President and I are not concerned about the 2% who drop out of school. We are only concerned about the 98%. Let the private sector take care of the 2%. Therefore we will not include in the budget any money to fund school choice.” How could a responsible government not concern itself with the needs of 2% of our children just because the former President had a heart for those children?
c) More words spoken by the President; “If I were the shareholders of BP, I would fire the President. This was said at a time when many of his detractors were calling for his own head over his handling of the BP Oil crisis. What bad timing! The American voters would have certainly taken him up on his offer and fire him if he were himself running for office. Indeed if he were the majority leader under any other constitutional system characterized by majority rule, such as the British system, he would not have been able to continue to lead the government.
d) What about this statement in the very heat and heart of the mid-term elections. “The Republicans can join us; but they will have to sit at the back of the bus.” That was no doubt a statement that was bound to really tick a lot of people off.
e) Finally, how was it necessary, prudent or politic to enter into the Mosque at ground zero controversy? A prudent Leader knows that politics is the art of the possible. And the order of the day is discretion, discretion, discretion. The point here is that a shrewd President even if he was unwise enough to see nothing wrong with the proposal, should have been politically savvy enough to avoid expressing an opinion one way or another.
And what about all those things that he did which he ought not to have done, and the things he did not do which he ought to have done?
The President and his party were given a mandate to end the recession and put people back to work. One thing he was called upon to do along the way was to reduce the deficit by eliminating government waste and out of control spending. Far from reducing the deficit, he enlarged it by trillions of dollars, while unemployment continues to rise.
What really has the President done? Yes he declared that the terrorists held in Cuba should be brought to the US and given VIP treatment. They should have a right to counsel and should not have been questioned rigorously or by using rigorous methods. People whose only aim in life is to kill Americans and all Christians every where should be given benefit of counsel and accorded the same rights as other wrong doers. And lest we forget the President’s outstanding claim to fame is that he sat down in the Oval Office with homosexuals.
What else has the President done? It was the most arrogant and irresponsible thing of all. In August when the Heath Care controversy was at its height, the electorate made it clear that it was not in a mood for healthcare legislation, at least not in the form and to the extent it was proposed. But did the President listen? He most certainly did not. In my view it was a huge tactical error and a slap in the face of the voters. So the President slapped the electorate in the face with his pen and they slapped him right back with theirs.
Democracy may not be a perfect political and or constitutional system; but I do believe that, short of benevolent despotism with all its attendant dangers, democracy is the best constitutional system around. The electorate way not be all politically astute and or perfectly informed; but politicians need to be reminded, in the words of a nineteenth century writer that, “It is the ultimate sovereignty of public opinion which is the keystone to the Constitutional Arch.” The voters may not be informed, and they may not be free save once every two years; but there may be still truth in the adage, Vox populi, vox Dei; the voice of the people is the voice of God.
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that it was indiscretion, not racism that precipitated the precipitous downfall of the Democrats and the President. It was said of James 1 that he never said a foolish thing nor ever did a wise one. That much cannot even be said of the President.
Rev. Dr John S Weekes