THE STATE OF THE UNION: more than an address

We are just one day away from President Obama's first official State of the Union Address, and I am anxious. Oh, he will present it with great oratory skill, and there will be the usual applause, standing, sitting, and ceremony to which I have referred before. It's not the presentation which gives me anxiety...it is the plan which begins a minute after the speech which makes me nervous.

This President who was elected by a massive, trusting electorate, is struggling to be effective just one year later. Not only are his polls down, but even among supportive people like myself, there is a growing sense of impotence in the job. It has taken less than a year for the hope of a new democracy to fade to a disappointment level which frightens me.

A disclaimer: I have not given up on Barack Obama's ability to govern this nation. I continue to believe in him and to support him. But I would be less than honest if I didn't express a concern about his governance quotient. We're not getting where we want to be and the credentials required to get there are fading into the mist.

I want to be perfectly candid and say that I believe this is a direct result of the betrayal of Democrats. I was tempted to lengthen that sentence to add softer qualifiers, but I won't. I think it stands by itself. The Party which selected Obama, groomed him, encouraged him, fought for him, and spent an enormous amount of time and money getting him elected ran for cover at the first signs of faltering. I believe he has received bad advice from administration leaders and party leaders who then avoided blame and scurried into the mist, leaving him standing alone at difficult times. I am shocked at the intimidation I have sensed in men and women who should be strong.

There is no question that the President has pursued causes which have brought about doubt...and even anger. It is the kind of anger that has rallied his opponents and strengthened the Independents and cross-over Republicans who took a risk and supported him for election. The Massachusetts senatorial election was a barometer of that emotion.

The Health Care debacle has been poorly managed and is now almost an embarrassment. Making it the hallmark of his young presidency may have been too much, too soon. The crisis in the economy deserves greater attention, and the Health Care battle, important as it is, sticks out as a denial of urgent priorities.

There was a time in October and November when a bipartisan bill was attainable; Democratic party leaders rejected it to fight for personal agendas...and it is those personal agendas which have eaten away at the cause bringing it to a place where the whole thing could fail. Ideological footstomping and mudslinging (on both sides of the aisle) destroyed what could have been a historic victory for this President. Should he have played a different role in the debate? Probably. He trusted his leadership and they were not trustworthy.

Now I see Democratic leadership abandoning ship at a time when they are most needed. Their eyes are on their own political ambitions and not on the promise of a new way of governing which they promised a year ago. It is clear that the electorate is charged up with anger and the November elections will be difficult and risky. Those who place themselves in positions of leadership for this country should be willing to bulk up and restore faith in a new democracy instead of cowering in the mist watching Obama's credibility fade.

President Obama is not immune from criticism. This has been a year of learning for him. But the experienced leadership surrounding him has not been effective in assisting him through a difficult time.

It is not too late for President Obama to regain momentum. This is only the first of four years of his term as President. Our expectations and hopes need not disappear. But this is not a time to exercise denial and a puffy "stand fast" with the existing agenda. The State of the Union address he delivers tomorrow night and the plan he articulates must be about restoring faith in his ability to govern. In order for that to happen the people who believe in him and have agreed to serve with him must stand up and cheer...not at the speech...but at the revised agenda which is necessary and attainable.

Someone in last night's news used the phrase that President Obama needs to "lead with his heart and not his brain." I don't want him to abandon his intelligence in favor of his emotions. But a healthy combination of them would be a welcome sight at The State of the Union address.

Photo Credit:AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

PRAGMATIST: a person who is oriented toward the success or failure of a particular line of action, thought, etc

As his popularity ratings have slipped to lower levels, President Obama has been portrayed more and more as a pragmatist. Those two factors reflect each other better than one might think at first glance.

If The President were interested primarily in being popular, he would undertake a path of activity which would not rile the emotions of people. He would avoid difficult decisions and do only those things which made people feel good. There is precedent for this kind of presidency, and I'm sure it has been pointed out to President Obama numerous times by nervous party leaders. It clearly is an easier way to go, and the results...on a short-time basis...can be affirming.

But that is not the course the President Obama has chosen. Consequently, the pragmatist label has emerged. He is someone who wants to "get things done." Pragmatically, it is clear that there is a small window for a President to act within. In this case, the window is defined by the ability to garner 60 Democratic votes in the Senate. Most political commentators indicate that the likelihood of there being that block of Democratic voters in the Senate after the 2010 elections is minimal.

As a result, there is a pragmatic rush to achieve specific platform issues while the possibility of passage still exists. There have been lots of critical comments directed toward President Obama for his timetables on Health Care legislation, for instance. Some depict this as a personal trait of impatience on his part. To the contrary, President Obama can be a very patient person...sometimes to a fault. But the legislative clock is ticking and if he wants Health Care reform to take place in his administration it has to be accomplished prior to the 2010 elections. That is a practical...pragmatic...act on his part.

The emotional quotient to be assessed in this pragmatic climate is the degree to which pragmatism about transformational legislation can be tolerated by the public. It requires a prioritization of his agenda...and clearly Health Care Reform is high on that list.

There was no question that economic stability ranked even higher on that agenda, and The President acted quickly and forcefully in bringing about huge financial support for a rapidly-failing economy. There is almost no debate among credible economists that the activity he undertook was necessary...vital...to preventing a repeat of the Great Depression. The larger elements of his economic plan...undertaken within days of his inauguration...seem to have been successful in preventing that disaster.

Some of the related issues, such as job creation, have been too slow in recovering, leading many to criticism about "big government" as the solution to our problems. I think that this is a process depending heavily upon industry's taking the same kind of bold steps toward recovery, risking at the same level as he has required the government to risk. So far, I haven't seen that activity emerging from an overly-cautious private sector. Evidently pragmatism is not as forth-coming when the money has to come directly from one's own corporate pockets.

I am confident that Health Care Reform of one kind or another will be enacted soon. It still is difficult to predict what its final form will look like. And it is clear that the government will continue to be fully engaged in working to bring about economic stability.

The question before President Obama is how far his pragmatic approach to governance can go. The shuffling of his agenda may require a very pragmatic response: regain the confidence of his Party and the American people. It would appear to me that it is time for some smaller, emotionally-satisfying successes by this Administration to which they can point in the 2012 elections. That, from my perspective, is a very pragmatic plan.


Photo Credit: blackvoices.com

Éminence grise: A person who wields power behind the scenes

An eminence grise exists because there is a gap in leadership. During the George W. Bush administration, for instance, it is understood by many that Vice-President Richard Cheney was the source of policy in the absence of strong leadership by President Bush. Whether that was as true as his critics claim or not, the perception was clear. It would be difficult to eliminate that understanding.

Just thinking about this brought me to the current administration. It would be a natural thing to ask 'Who is the eminence grise, the power behind the throne of President Obama?' I don’t get the sense that anyone speaks for Barack Obama.

The President has surrounded himself with such people as Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Timothy Geitner. Just let those names roll off your tongue. They, and dozens of others like them, have huge amounts of power in the specific environments where they function. But the operative question is, does any one of these people have the ability to speak for the President or unduly influence him in the creation of policy? I think not. He is a strong, intelligent man with more than a sufficient quantity of self-determination.

That is not to say that The President cannot be influenced. I am convinced that Timothy Geitner and his finance gurus have done a huge amount of teaching and lobbying for decisions over the past year. It would be ludicrous to think that Secretary of State Clinton has not exercised some pressure on the President to develop a perspective on foreign policy which reflects her opinions. Is there anyone who believes that Rahm Emmanuel has not made known to the President some thoughts about governance of the country? And clearly, Nancy Pelosi has run the legislative process with a limited amount of restraint from the White House. But that is not the same thing as being “the power behind the throne.” Those people, whether we like them or agree with them or not, are doing what they were asked to do. And they do it well.

I suspect we might be surprised to know how much influence Vice-President Biden has on the President. He is cast by the media as a bungling, cartoonish character. But he is a wise and knowledgeable diplomat in the area of foreign policy. I suspect his influence is much greater than we might think.

I will risk a little and say that I think Michelle Obama has a significant influence on the decision-making of the President. He respects her intelligence and she certainly has access to him. Pillow talk can be powerful, and I would not begin to imagine that her engagement in pillow talk about issues facing the President has not been influential.

Overall, however, I am confident that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is a man who establishes the bottom line. I think that is why he is not prone to quick, knee-jerk reactions. He is criticized for taking time to bring forth decisions. Not by me. I suspect that this “lag time” is the opportunity for him to talk in depth with his advisors, weigh their input, and develop a decision that is clear, and that he can promote without hesitation.

I suspect also that at the present time there is no one “behind the throne” who fills the definition of eminence grise.

POLITICAL IDEALISM: the belief that election will bring an opportunity to be an unencumbered change agent

Photo: AP/Nati Harnik

There is not a politician alive (or recently deceased) who has not believed, upon agreeing to run for office, that she or he could make a difference. In spite of the cynicism of some who think that candidates have various greedy, nefarious motivations, the cost is too great, the energy required is too massive, and the pressure is too unrelenting. Without political idealism a potential candidate is too raw to be successful in getting to the first level of competition for a position.

I know personally of what I speak! Once, on a local level, I was successful in being elected only to discover that the obligations of holding a public office were too great, conflicting with the expectations of my profession. It became necessary for me to resign the elected position before the end of my term.

Another time I ran for a high risk state-wide position against a two-term Republican incumbent with deep pockets in a primarily-Republican district. I lost the election, but not without achieving a huge success in gaining cross-over votes. The margin of votes was less than 10%.

In both cases the learning curve was huge, and the disillusion I experienced was massive...more in the state-wide race than the local one. My political idealism was raging; my reality check was too late in arriving in the mail.

Political parties are in the business (and it is a business) of getting candidates elected. From the beginning, the party machine extracts promises and defines boundaries. In return for party support ($) there are expectations which are established. With raging idealism it seems as if a candidate can walk the thin line between accepting necessary support and being true to one's goals and aspirations. First Mistake! The people at the party level are professionals who have dealt with novices before...many times. They know what the potential candidate is thinking, and they know that it's only a matter of time before the candidate will cave.

The power of money in today's political scene is obscene. My race in a fairly low-profile state district cost over $250,000 and it would have been much more if we hadn't gone our separate ways at the last minute. I worked my tail off to raise a good chunk of money, but the party money effectively financed my campaign.

That meant that the party expected its own philosophy and rules to prevail. No agreement...no check in the mail. Much of what the party did for me was good and provided me with materials and opportunities I would not have experienced on my own. But there was a constant awareness of the cost of those support gifts, and it became clear that the cost was more than I was willing to expend. I became rebellious on small things, and the party became less than enthusiastic with my campaign, eventually pulling further financial support. A couple of mis-steps along the way on my part didn't help.

I think about this scenario when I watch what is happening to President Obama. He is filled with the kind of idealism a nation craves. Clearly, he is someone who has the ability to bring about great change. But to get there, there are all kinds of people out there expecting him to jump through their hoops. The power of lobbies is far greater than the public perception.

In spite of his popularity among the voting public he requires political support...and came into this presidency expecting some of that support to come from people on the other side of the aisle who share some of his idealism. The cost of following his idealism has turned out to be too great for some members of his own party who face mid-term elections later this year. And a concerted effort to destroy the potential of his re-election in 2012 has brought about a vicious campaign to discredit him by the Republican Party. Political reality has set in. Unexpected twists, like the death of Ted Kennedy, have cost him dearly.

My own idealism is still rampant with regard to President Obama. I still believe that the American people want to see his agenda achieved. But I am not so politically naive as to think that he can achieve it without the strong support of his own party. I don't see that concerted support out there. The secret for President Obama is to draw a line in the sand as to how far he is willing to concede his idealism without losing it altogether.

RESOLUTE: Firm or determined; unwavering.

In order to make a New Year’s Resolution, one has to be resolute. Firm, determined, unwavering. Otherwise, a New Year’s Resolution is just a faux promise, with no intention on the part of the maker to carry it out. If that feels harsh or judgmental, welcome to the crowd. I know just how you feel.

I tried to imagine the 5 New Year’s Resolutions that President Obama might make today. The list I created, it turns out, has more to do with what I want him to resolve, but maybe…just maybe…there is an overlap.

1. Stay focused on issues you believe in. There are all kinds of people out there trying to convert you to their beliefs, couching them in promises, threats, and bribes. You were elected to carry out promises made from your own beliefs. Stick to them.

2. Keep playing basketball. One of the endearing qualities that voters saw in you was the energy and youthful glee that you exhibited when doing something you really enjoyed. No need to duplicate the bowling episode…that didn’t have anything to do with you. And if golf is something that gives you pleasure and lowers your blood pressure, play golf. I don’t care what your critics say about it; I know that you are working hard, putting in full days and nights on the job, and fretting a lot over your responsibilities. Keep the basketball in your repertoire of required activities. You’ll live longer.

3. Don’t stop thinking. There is a huge, unbelievably strong anti-intellectual element to our population today. They would have you engage in regular knee-jerk reactions to events and ideas. They are nostalgic about the eight years before your election. Your mind is crisp, clear, informed, and it makes you articulate. I love that about you. Take all the time you need to study big issues, and when you have made decisions, spell them out in a way that shows that you understand the concepts and have developed some passion around them.

4. Keep having dinner with your family. They keep you focused on the real things about life in America. And they need you just as much as you need them.

5. Don’t forget to laugh. Laugh at Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Laugh at the birthers and the tea baggers. They are laughable. Laugh at those who think the decisions you have to make are simple and don’t require time and advice from experts. Laugh at a good movie every now and then. And laugh when Bo gets antsy.

You may notice that I made this list without mentioning health care, the economy, Guantanamo, the War in Afghanistan, or the sad state of education in our country. I don’t know enough about those things to be able to advise the President on the correct answers. He, however, has the ability to speak to each of them intelligently. If he keeps my 5 suggestions, and if he is resolute about approaching them daily, I believe the year 2010 will turn out to be just fine for Barack Obama…and for the rest of us in the USA.


Photo Credit: http://www.gettyimages.com/Editorial/Frontdoor/SportsIllustrated

Dictionary source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

PYRRHIC VICTORY: a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Item #1: This past week the President went to Copenhagen to address leaders from around the world. The topic was the environment and the continuing threat to it by industrial nations. The hope was to come away with a major agreement on limitation of release of damaging gasses into the environment. Even before he left for Copenhagen, President Obama knew that the possibilities for that agreement had disappeared.

However, during the time he spent in Copenhagen the President was able to extract a verbal agreement from the leaders of China, India and South Africa regarding a willingness to continue to participate in strategic conversations which could lead to such limitations eventually. That was seen by many as a significant step toward reducing global warming.

His detractors in Congress labelled his accomplishment as a Pyrrhic victory.

Item #2: On Saturday 60 Senate Democrats came to a consensus that the bill being shaped by Senator Reid was capable of being placed before the Senate for approval by the entire Senate. There had been a lot of give and take among the Democrats, finally focusing on a Senator from Nebraska who extracted bill-limiting concessions in return for his 60th vote. Republicans were caustic in their response, saying the process was embarrassingly flawed. A a number of liberal Democrats were angry, saying that the Nebraska senator had blackmailed Senator Reid into concessions which destroyed the central purposes of the bill.

The President breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that a limited, but historic, step was being taken, and that his administration could claim that as a victory. His detractors labelled this as a Pyrrhic victory.

I don't know about you, but I had to go to the Internet to discover the meaning of this term which had been used twice in a single weekend's media reports. I knew that I had heard the term used before, and I understood the intent of the comment. But I didn't have a clue what the word Pyrrhic victory meant. The fact that Pyrrhic was capitalized made me even more curious.

It turns out that Pyrrhus was a third century B.C. King whose forces battled the legions of Rome. The army of Pyrrhus defeated the Romans in several key battles, but each time the Romans were able to replenish their troops from the thousands of recruits waiting in Rome. Pyrrhus had no such capability, and commented something to the effect that if he continued to win such victories he would return home to celebrate alone.

Thus, the term Pyrrhic victory has come to mean a shallow victory with the possibility that such continued victories will result in a moral defeat. It is a colorful term, and one whose subtleties are not lost on anyone, especially the President.

The political climate in Congress is such that these victories by the President's supporters are hard-fought and significant. The climate is far less than Americans hoped for in the election of Barack Obama as President and the overwhelming Democratic elections in both the House and the Senate. This was to have been an historic era, during which great progressive steps could be taken toward a new system of governance in this country. However, that is not to be, at least given the current climate.

Republicans in Congress are determined to undermine and destroy the Obama administration. I'll leave it to you to articulate the reason for this phenomenon. The reasons may vary, both in their stated purposes and in their more subtle sub-texts. At the same time, Conservative Democrats have chosen this moment to exert an ideological battle within the party. The Democratic Party traditionally is known as a volatile bunch, so it's not a surprise that volatility has been demonstrated over such historic legislation. But the reality is that the current drama in Congress is a tragedy when it could have been a comedy (to use the language of drama.)

Clearly, the strategy being employed by Republicans is to affect the 2010 elections in the hope of changing the makeup of seats in Congress. They may well achieve that goal, although it is too early to be sure. But the more significant result of this strategy is that the very fabric of Congress is being weakened. The public perspective on Congress is so negative (deservedly so) that an anti-incumbent furor has been created. While the removal of some members of Congress as a result of this furor may not be all bad, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for those feeding the flames.

And the missed opportunity that the Democrats have to effect an enormous transformation of the governance of our nation is tragic. The small victories of the Conservative Democrats also will turn out to be Pyrrhic. This opportunity for effective redesign of a governance system may not occur again in the lifetimes of the current population.

Photo Credit: Flickr.com
Definition Credit: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

AFFLUENZA: extreme materialism which is the impetus for accumulating wealth and for overconsumption of goods (Dictionary.com)

Let's do a little current events review to begin:

$ Tiger Woods finds that being the first billionaire athlete isn't everything it was supposed to be.

$ Sarah Palin resigns as Governor of Alaska to go on a highly-compensated lecture tour.

$ Jason Bay rejects a Red Sox offer for $15M per year.

$ Banks pay back the US government the billions they were loaned so they can go back to paying their executives billions of dollars in bonuses.

That which these four news items have in common is affluenza, the pursuit of massive wealth. The word is a merger of two familiar words: affluence, meaning wealth; and influenza, a persistent and potentially dangerous disease. It may seem like a strange pair of words to combine, but when you get there...it works.

Affluenza is not restricted to the four news items with which I began. It is rampant in varying forms, even in our struggling economy. That is what makes it all strange. Here we are in the midst of an economy that almost tanked, in which at least 10% of our employable population is unemployed, and when people become homeless because their homes are taken away because they can't pay the mortgage. There may not be a fiscal depression in our country, but a huge number of the people of the United States are emotionally depressed.

And, in the midst of this, newsworthy people are amassing huge windfalls. That fact is not being ignored by the populace. Sports heroes are falling from grace, not only by their indiscretions, but by their images. Political wannabees are being looked at with a second look. And CEO's and bank Trustees are portrayed in the media as villains. Affluenza (many times at the expense of the general public) is the source of public anger:

$ Charities lose millions by Tiger Woods taking a sabbatical to try to repair his crumbling marriage.
$ The Republican Party shifts further and further to the right, leaving moderate Republicans behind.
$ Try to purchase a ticket to a Red Sox game. In order to pay out huge salaries, the cost of a ticket to America's Favorite Pastime is increasingly inaccessible to the average baseball fan.
$ Try to get a loan for a small business, or try to get your mortgage rate reduced.

The demonstration of affluenza is directly tied to public stress, and this is not a good time for that stress. The result is cynicism, which is not a good emotion when it is important to be about the process of rebuilding our economy.

Throughout this fiscal mess we have been experiencing, I have found myself increasingly angry with the Wall Street firms and the banks. The government has gone way, way, way out on a limb to secure them, potentially endangering the political future of the President and those in Congress. But the response of the financial industry has been tepid at the most. Clever schemes to protect its disposable wealth at a time when the nation's economy is crumbling have been nauseating. Over and over I hear commentators use the phrase "Wall Street just doesn't get it!" That's not a simplistic statement...I think it is a profound statement of reality.

At a time when the banks and Wall Street could be heroes, they have chosen instead to be scoundrels. Is it any wonder that people question the viability of capitalism? I'm not ready to give up on capitalism, but those responsible for maintaining a capitalistic equilibrium must join the effort. Their economic narcissism is offensive and potentially disastrous.

Photo Credit: newsweek.com

PEACE: President Obama's take on it

I'm going to break my normal daily posting practice to add a second post. I have just finished watching the President of the United States speak after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. My reactions are fresh, not having taken the time to refine them or temper them. I have not studied the speech; I am reacting to it.

The pageantry and the speech were wonderful. I thought the commentators on MSNBC were accurate in portraying Barack Obama as a "theologian" in this speech. His way of incorporating his faith in speeches is not to quote scripture, something anyone can do by browsing a biblical commentary. His approach to the issues of theology is to explore them deeply. His grasp of profound theological concepts is incredible. In this speech he defined the Barack Obama theological perspective on Peace and War.Rather than recounting the catch phrases of the speech, I leave that for you to research as you watch television replays and newspaper and magazine accounts. I'm sure the whole speech will be reported in detail.

Rather, I want to confess that I was saddened by the experience. I know that I was not the only one feeling sad. I saw it in the face of President Obama and in the face of his wife. What should have been a celebration of a unique and wonderful moment in his life was stolen. Those who have spent the past few weeks chipping away at the decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize have stolen that joy. In their attempts to define, redefine, prognosticate, and analyze the decision they have played roles of amateur psychologists and novice diplomats.

Something sparked the Nobel Committee to award this impressive prize to Barack Obama. It is a privilege given to this Committee and is not dependent upon the wishes, desires, opinions, or criticisms of anyone else. They saw something in Barack Obama that some people do not see. I suspect that we had a glimpse of it in his speech today.

But some people who have the media stage have not seen that characteristic...and probably never will. It is not in their makeup to recognize it. Instead, they will dwell upon their limited and immature understanding of human nature and human quality to deride and defame this man at a point at which people from throughout the world call him a man of hope, and a beacon of promise.

His humility in receiving the award required him to acknowledge his detractors, and to admit that he sees himself as far down on the list of people for whom this award could have been chosen. I think not. The irony of his role as President of a nation at war and as a recipient of the most prominent Peace Prize is not lost on him, and it is not lost on most thinking people. No one "earns" the award, or is "eligible" for it. It is awarded because a wise and carefully-chosen group of people understand the purpose of the award and the need to be prophetic from time to time in making the selection.

The President's point was that peace is something to be attained, but cannot be realized until those who reject peace have been disabled. The war in Afghanistan is necessary at this time to destabilize those who, in their flawed understanding of Islam, have waged terror on the world. Negotiations with these terrorists are not effective as they have adopted ideological stances which reject the decency, trust, and sincerity of those who seek peace. Peace is not the quality for Al Qaeda as it is for others. The Jihad they have declared has no place in it for the attaining of peace.

The President was depicted by some of the commentators on MSNBC as a pragmatist, not an idealist. They said he made that distinction himself in the speech. Pragmatically it is necessary to suffer the pangs of this war in order to attain the joy of peace. That is an Obama Doctrine, and it is not a sound bite or a narcissistic reflection. It is a theologically and diplomatically sound doctrine which embraces the yearning for peace which must come at a cost. Some will reject that notion; others will criticize it out of ignorance. But it defines this man, and it is a definition about which we can be proud.

This was one of those prophetic moments about which I spoke earlier. I'm sorry that it was such a sad occasion for the Obamas. They deserve better.

BIRTHERS: a conservative group who dispute the American birth of the President

The precipitous growth of populist organizations on the conservative side of things has spawned groups commonly recognized in the media by the supplementing of a word by the syllable "...ers."

For example, a group of conspiratorial folk have questioned the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship, claiming that he was not born in the United States. Therefore, according to law, he is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. This group has come to be known as birthers.

As with any one-issue group or organization, the birthers are known to generate more heat than light. Despite the Obama administration's repeated production of a birth certificate and accompanying announcement of Barack Obama's birth in a Honolulu newspaper, the group insists that none exists, and that the documents are false.

It is useless to attempt in this blog to present a rational argument against the birthers, as reason is not one of the tools employed by the group. Rather, I want to identify what I believe are the root factors in the very existence of the group. I believe there are three which are noteworthy:

1) I believe there is racism among some who identify themselves as birthers. The very idea of a non-Caucasian serving as President of the United States is anathema. The only thing worse would be a woman non-Caucasian.

2) The fear of change is rampant among extremely conservative voters.

3) The policies of a Democratic administration take us into uncharted territory where the fiscal, social, and diplomatic practices require a different kind of thinking.

All three of these root factors, when blended, create a frantic mindset which demonstrates itself in extreme behavior. Dealing with birthers requires patience, which only seems to further inflame them.

My concern with birthers and other anti-Obama groups is that their behavior attracts too much attention from the media which seems to revel in their gatherings and their sound bites. This distracts the viewing audience from the very difficult and urgent matters which are before the President, his administration, and the Congress. With congressional elections pending (when are they not pending?) legislators pay undue attention to the highly-vocal groups who tend to make it seem as if they are the dominant voters. Back-pedalling on necessary legislation produces milque-toast bills which fail to serve the country effectively.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights give opportunity for political discourse without restriction. I support that. But I regret the effect of irresponsible and inflammatory activity which serves only to shut down the forward progress of Congress.

RETALIATION:To return like for like, especially evil for evil.*

........

In my mind retaliation has always found its place low on the list of strategies. "Eye for an eye" seldom has been a good way of responding to an insult. The act of retaliation frequently is one of emotion rather than reason. Its results are less than satisfying for the most part, sometimes leaving a hanging guilt when there has been time for reconsideration.

But in the case of our current deployment in Afghanistan, I find myself more inclined to support the President.

#The response in Afghanistan is not at a nation; it is specifically focused on Al-Qaeda, the terrorists who attacked the United States in 2001.

#The response strategy has been thought out carefully, involving top military, diplomatic, and economic advisors.

#There is a strategy, not a knee-jerk reaction.

#There is an "end strategy."

#There seems to be international support.

The goal, as I see it, is to end the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has gone on for too long, with too few successes to which we can point. While I am not enthusiastic about the prospect that it will include the loss of more American, Allied and civilian lives, I trust that success in the President's strategy will bring an end to the killing and maiming.

I suspect, however, that this is not the end of aggression by this particular brand of terrorists. Al Qaeda is not isolated in the hills of Pakistan. There are Al Qaeda cells throughout the world. They will not disappear. But removing the leadership of Al Qaeda may destroy the effectiveness of the cells and diminish their threat.

This retaliation must be successful. The nation and the world will not tolerate on-going strategies ad infinitum. Opposition is already mounting on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Some oppose any further action, and want the troops to come home now. Others object to the benchmark the President has set for exit from the retaliation. I could find myself in either camp without a great deal of effort.

However, my trust in President Obama and his military advisors is strong. I believe in his method and I trust his judgement. I didn't vote for him because he has a pretty face or because he is good in front of a TV camera. I am confident that he will make intelligent decisions and that he will keep his strategists' toes on the mark.

Retaliation, in this case, is in the name of those men and women who lost their lives on 9/11/01. It is also important that it honor the lives of those men, women, and children who have lost their lives or suffered horrible injury in the combat over the past eight years. But it is also a necessary evil in destroying or crippling those who would continue to perpetuate aggression against the United States and the world. Is "necessary evil" an oxymoron? Probably.

Photo credit: Military.com

*American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.