Talking Politics

Some days, I like to pretend that I know what's going on in the world of politics. This is one of those days.

To start things off, I happened across an article from the L.A. Times about a proposed provision in the Senate's health care bill:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,2239900.story?page=1

The long and short of it is that the provision would require health insurance companies to pay for "prayer treatments", whatever the fuck that is, as well as healing sessions and that sort of thing either in place of or in addition to actual clinical medicine. Now, if private insurance companies want to do this on their own (they never would), then that's fine. Stupid, but fine. There are, however, two conditions under which this is completely unacceptable. For one, if the government were to mandate this requirement of private insurance companies, that is ridiculously in violation of separation of church and state. I'm certainly not a supporter of insurance companies; all they've done is managed to wedge themselves between your average American and the medical treatments they ought to be entitled to as...well, as a person, and the companies profit from the misery they cause. Then, there's the second condition, which is even worse: if the government sponsors the public option, or anything like it, and this provision is allowed into the bill, that would not only be in massive violation of separation of church and state, but it would essentially require taxpayers to pay for SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAITH HEALING AND PRAYER TREATMENTS. To that, I say no. Absolutely and unequivocally. I'm all for a public option (or something much further left on the spectrum, even), but I will not give one penny that I earn to anybody's religious treatment. That would open a terrifying can of worms in this country.

The second thing I have today is in regards to President Obama, one year after his election to the nation's highest office. I caught the response to a poll on the local news last night, which asked something to the effect of, If the election were held again today, would you vote for Obama or for Senator McCain? Some 72% of respondents said they would opt for McCain. There's a decent chance that nearly that many people voted for McCain the first time around in this area; southwestern Ohio is disproportionately conservative compared to the rest of the state and much of the country. Mr. Obama's support is flagging nationwide, however, and I'm certainly aware that there is significant unrest and displeasure over the things he has failed to accomplish thus far in his presidency. It is my belief that much of this is unfair to Mr. Obama. I am not inclined to be an apologist on anyone's behalf, and at any rate, I don't find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Obama's policies at all times or anything of that sort. However, to accuse him of having done nothing in his first year in office is inaccurate at best. I think he would agree that he has not yet accomplished all that he had hoped to have done by this time, and I think he would also agree that some of the blame ought to be laid at his feet. He has been neither as assertive nor as aggressive as he was during his campaign, and he has been naive in believing that the Republican Party would play nice and actually make any effort to help him pursue his goals, and those of his party.

Naive or not, though, Mr. Obama was not incorrect in his belief that the two parties are supposed to come together after an election to work in the best interest's of the country. That was the intent of the founding fathers, but it is another of those things that is much better in theory than in practice. In their defense, however, they had no idea then that the modern incarnation of the Republican Party would not only decline to be cooperative, but would also decline even to be civil. Repeatedly, Mr. Obama and other leading members of his party have extended their hands across the aisle, only to have their palms spat in. Patience is a virtue, Mr. Obama, but at some point being patient leads you to become a pushover. If you wish to avoid that as your legacy, you're going to have to stop playing games and put your foot down. Do you want to know why your approval ratings are sinking like the Titanic? It's because you are no longer projecting the strong, confident image you put forth during your campaign, because you haven't kept your foot on the accelerator. People want you to go out there and do the things you said you would do. Your falling approval ratings do not reflect people's dissatisfaction with your positions, but rather the dissatisfaction with your unwillingness thus far to act on those positions.

But it isn't all on you, Mr. Obama. It isn't your fault that democracy is slow, while the average person in the modern world demands immediate results. That isn't fair to you. For a point of reference, I refer everyone to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He inherited a similar situation as did Mr. Obama, a reeling economy and a frightened and angry public. However, even Mr. Roosevelt, considered one of our country's greatest presidents, wasn't able to solve all of those problems overnight. He was well into his second term before his methods began to bear fruit. Mr. Obama's problems will likewise not be resolved all that quickly, and I implore everybody to stand behind the president you helped to elect and actually give him a chance to reach his goals instead of discounting him as failed after a single year in office. And remember, the alternative would be scare tactics, terror alerts, and a recession that would be deepening rather than declining.