PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

Yesterday I recovered from my computer's trash bin--I have no idea why it was sent there in the first place--a forward from a friend with whom I agree on most political fronts, but disagree on the Obama presidency. It's two weeks since my friend sent these two articles from New York magazine. They were initially published on November 20th, but they so nearly, and so cogently express my own feelings about the two political parties and the president that I wanted to offer others the opportunity to read them, if they have not already done so.

The first is an article by the conservative Republican, David Frum, When Did the GOP Lose Tough With Reality? The second by the liberal-leaning commentator, Jonathan Chait, When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable? Frum's piece is a thinking man's repudiation of the extremism that has driven conservatism to the point of its current insanity. Chait's is a fascinating historical study of the way the Democrats have treated their presidents--a pattern of disenchantment and rejection that repeats itself and has reached its counter-productive climax with Obama.

These are both substantial articles; they require a little time and attention. But I found them to be absorbing, well-considered, thoughtfully critical and refreshingly intelligent. I hope that you might want to read them, too.

Osawatomie Speech

Great speech yesterday, Mr. President! Good press all around--well, at least in liberal circles. Even Robert Reich offered a grudging Amen! I believe that this Osawatomie, Kansas speech lays the groundwork for more than the current political campaign. A second term will allow the President to work towards the fulfillment of other promises. All the more reason to support him NOW.

Soldiering On

I'm content, today, to allow Nicholas D. Kristof to speak for me, in his column from yesterday's New York Times. I think he has it right when he writes of the "President as Pinata." We have been treating all our presidents badly in our recent history. And I'm sure it goes back much further than I'm accounting for. There's always discontent from the other side. It's sad, I think, that in the case of our current president, the discontent from both sides is vitriolic. Much that he has managed to accomplish gets discounted in the rage that he has failed to accomplish everything he promised, and everything we expected of him that he did not promise. Despite which, the man soldiers on.

BLAME

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I made this mistake, this morning, of glancing at the New York Times headline before sitting down to meditate--which pretty much ensured a prolonged battle with futile thoughts before I managed to get the mind settled down. The headline read: "Lawmakers Trade Blame As Deficit Talks Crumble." That this was the predictable outcome was obvious from the start. No surprise there. But what bothers me is the implication of blame on either side.

Our current economic slump, as I understand it, has two proximate causes: the huge tax cuts in the early days of the Bush administration, and two protracted, unfunded wars. Reaching further back, it is the result of several decades of blind adherence to a trickle-down theory of economics which should have been long ago discredited by anyone with a fair and rational mind, but has been adopted as an article of faith by Republican loyalists; and by a program of deregulation that has given increasing responsibility for the fox to guard the financial hen house.

To attribute equal blame for this mess is to ignore history. These are right-wing actions and policies that have brought us to this pitch. It is right-wing intransigence that denies us a fair and rational solution. To address the clearly non-functional tax code is not the only part of the solution, but to refuse adamantly to consider it is to ignore reality in favor of a demonstrably misguided ideology. Yet this is what Republicans are doing. From what I have read and heard, I have reason to believe that Democrats have been prepared to yield ground on matters of profound importance to them--perhaps too readily. But their willingness to compromise has not been matched on the other side.

Blame, then, in my view, is not equally distributed. Both historically and in the present context, it lies heavily on the shoulders of Republicans. Yet one of their apparently successful strategies, mimic'ed in knee-jerk fashion by the media, is to purvey to the American public that there is equal blame on either side.

The Democrats are not faultless, obviously. They participate in an electoral system that requires them, if they wish to retain their seat, to pay heed to the corporate masters and their lobbyists. In the course of these past decades, they have surrendered more and more of the democratic principle for which they are supposed to stand. They have trembled in their boots before their Republican opponents and the moneyed interests they represent, and have yielded mile after mile of the territory they were supposed to occupy on our behalf. The name of the "Occupy" movement is no accident.

So yes, in the long perspective, there is perhaps shared blame for the current impasse. But don't try telling me that the blame is "equal." It's not. The anger and frustration that such thinking inspires is hard to shake when I sit down to meditate. Both reason and emotion get engaged in this internal battle that I know to be unwinnable but find hard to resist. I keep reminding myself to pay attention to the breath, but my rebellious brain is having such great time that it is reluctant to surrender to the wiser mind.

There was a striking difference, on last night's 60 Minutes, between the interviews with Grover Norquist, gatekeeper of the absurd Republican loyalty oath on taxes, and Christine Lagarde, the new head of the International Monetary Fund. Norquist impressed me as small-minded, smug, tendentious, self-important; Lagarde was modest, thoughtful, open-minded, with a broad view not only of the financial crisis but of humanity in general. At the end of her interview she reminded us, gently, that our seemingly great problems recede into insignificance when seen in the greater perspective of life, and death, and love...

New website

Excellent new website inaugurated by the Obama campaign. It's informative, easy to use, upbeat in tone and appearance. "I'm In."

On another note, it's worth taking a look at this article on Newt Gingrich by Jonathan Alter. This man's recent "surge" in the polls reflects the bankruptcy of Republican values and policies. The New York Times chimed in, with an editorial. No doubt this will give Gingrich an opening to rail at the "liberal media."

Vote Obama 2012. Or else!

The Exploding Pipe Dream

I defer today to Charles M. Blow on the New York Times op-ed page. Be sure to take a look at Bottom of the Heap, the chart he links to at the end of his piece. It's a shameful state of affairs that reflects (I'm making a wild guess here) a four-decade long decline in this country's social justice--and the rise in the power and influence of America's wealthiest few. It also reflects our country's increasingly conservative attitudes and the stubborn, wrong-headed belief in an economic system that demonstrably led us into our current crisis and keeps us there. Republicans have shown themselves to be blindly loyal to these false beliefs. All the more reason to vote for Obama in the next election.

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE...

... to help me with this blog? It needs entries from voices other than my own, and I'm open to any suggestions as to how that might be achieved. I grabbed the URL a few months ago, noticing that it was as yet untaken and thinking that it might become another rallying point for those of us who continue to support the President. Watching the ill-informed, self-serving madness of the current Republican slate of candidates and their absurdly irrelevant and pusillanimous debates, I feel more strongly than ever that the election of any one of them would be a disaster for the country. And yet... I have little faith in the wisdom and discrimination of a significant number of voters, who seem entirely willing to be led by the nose to vote against their own interests. This President needs our support. I respond as I can to appeals for donations, not only from the President but for all Democratic races and causes. But I still feel that's not enough. I'm no millionaire; nor am I a corporation. VO2012 is a way for me to do what I can to support what I believe to be right. I know there are many who agree with me, good writers, who could contribute to this effort. I'd be grateful to hear from them.

Good Marks, Bad Marks.

I take issue this morning with Matt Lauer, of NBC's "Today" show. Not only does he choose to interview that great sage, Donald Trump, about his view on the current Republican candidates for the presidency, he allows to pass without comment Trump's assertion that the Obama presidency has been "a disaster." You would think that an interviewer, confronted with such a blanket condemnation, would pause to ask what he meant by that description. Lauer, however, did not so much as blink, let alone challenge the remark. It was as though the point was inarguable. His meek acceptance of Trump's absurd charge allowed his millions of (equally meek?) viewers to pass over it as an accepted truth. Bad marks for Matt Lauer.

Switching channels, I found myself watching Michelle Obama doing a great job with a military audience, announcing a new program which she and Dr. Jill Biden have spearheaded. Called "Joining Forces," it has brought together American companies, large and small, in the effort to provide employment for returning veterans and their spouses. Following his wife, Obama took the opportunity to once again slam the Republican-led Congress for inaction on his jobs bill. The couple spoke with intelligence, grace, and not a little humor, and with genuine concern for the most severe and pressing of issues the nation faces today. Good marks for them.

BACK TO WORK

Okay, it's time to get back to this blog. It has lain idle for a couple of months, in the doldrums of the summer. Fall, I note, resurfacing, is pretty much doldrums too. In Washington, the same fractious inaction in the US Congress, the same bickering, the same obstinate refusal to even consider or debate what's needed for the country. In the media, an obsession with what's going to happen a year from now.

Meanwhile, President Obama has produced a credible plan for addressing the country's direst problem: not the deficit, but jobs. Nothing will happen to solve the economic crisis without them. I credit him for persisting, despite all obstacles. I'm glad to see him focusing on the problem with appropriate intensity and unsparing criticism of those who seem to embrace inaction as a political strategy. The single issue worthy of Republican attention, it now seems, is to defeat Obama next November.

I watched with incredulity as candidate Rick Perry's wife whined to the media about the ill-treatment of her husband, even while happily joining the chorus of those heaping scornful blame on the President. It would take, she lamented, forty years to undo the damage that Obama has wrought. As I see it, he has only just begun to work on undoing the damage Ronald Reagan wrought--and that was quite a number of years ago. It's my belief that a second term would allow him to continue that work; and, if given at the same time a more powerfully Democratic Congress, to set the country back on the right course.

ANIMOSITY

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

In the daily metta practice with which I start my meditation, I reiterate the wish to be free from animosity. It's easy enough when it comes to those I like, and with whom I generally agree; the hard part is with the people I dislike, and those with whom I disagree. They include, most recently, the politicians who have in my own view seemed bent on destroying this country. The dharma teaches me, wisely and I think correctly, that the animosity that arises serves only to introduce toxin into my own veins. It certainly does nothing to change those against whom it is directed.

These thoughts were stirred in part by the comment to my entry in The Buddha Diaries yesterday. I was writing about gratitude, concluding with a note about the surprise and plucky appearance of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to cast her vote on the debt ceiling bill in the House of Representatives, and my gratitude to her for reminding me of the importance of the vote. Not a word about Obama. But my entry somehow triggered the response you'll find if you check inthe comments section, filled with anger directed at "Obama the Eunuch."

I was aware of my own distress as I read and re-read the comment. Some of it came from that part of me that is uncomfortably close to agreement with the content of the writer's argument. It's clear that Obama has been weakened by the unmitigated hostility and adamant rejection with which every part of the agenda on which he was elected has been opposed. It has been relentless and unappeasable, from his first day in office. In my view--perhaps incorrectly--there are many of his supporters who have allowed themselves to be swept up in that hostility, too readily co-opted by the powerful tide of rejectionist action and propaganda. With the erosion of support on his own side, he becomes still more exposed and vulnerable. As I've written before, we on the left, who have learned to distrust authority whatever its source, are prone to the heady delights of king-killing.

That's my view. I find that I hold on to it even more tightly when I myself feel the beginnings of mistrust in it; or, particularly, when I feel it under attack. I pull back in, defensive. Intended or not as such, my correspondent's initial sarcasm and subsequent anger felt like personal animosity, and I withdrew into my shell to mull over its implications. This morning, as I suggested, I paid more than usual attention to my own animosities. I did my best to observe them and then let them go, along with the anger that accompanies them.

I was wondering aloud, at the Buddhist Geeks conference just a few days ago, whether anger ever serves a useful purpose. I believe it can, when it is directed with clear intention and used skillfully; to do so, I must understand what part of the anger is about me, and what part is genuinely about the injustice or malpractice that aroused it. Warrior energy is a necessary part of political action--see Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"--but used indiscriminately and tainted by personal animosity, it can be counter-productive.

The image of a solitary Obama signing a bill which clearly fell far short of his objectives--and equally short of my own sense of what is needed in our current economic crisis--filled me with sadness for both the man and the country that he seeks to serve. He is the target of so many millions of deeply divisive projections that he can scarcely hope to live up to more than a handful of them. There are those, of course, many, who wish him nothing but ill. And there are those, many, who feel that he has let them down; that he is not the man they took him for. I'm only surprised that he manages to tolerate with a semblance of grace the generous heapings of scorn that are dumped on him from both left and right.

I personally think that this would be a good time for us all to take a thoughtful look at our projections: if we think of Obama as the mirror, what is it that we see about ourselves when we look at him? The projection of blame is too easy an answer for our troubles. We have our own share of responsibility for the dreadful mess in which the country finds itself. As another correspondent wrote to me in an email today, "I'm highly disgusted with what's going on in Congress right now, [but] I have to keep reminding myself that we DO live in a democracy, don't we?"

We do. Well, I sometimes think rather that we live in an oligarchy that survives by successfully disguising itself as a democracy (I first typed "demoncracy"!) But, yes, we do. So we do not further our cause by trying to wish away or ignore the existence of the deep and powerful strain of conservatism that has been changing the balance of the American political system, not just in Obama's time but, with increasing power, these past several decades. Like it or not (I don't!), it's impossible to move in any direction without taking it into account. All very well to stand by and jeer at Obama's perceived lack of leadership from the sidelines. He's trying to quarterback a team that plays by the rules of human decency and fairness against bunch of steroid-powered thugs who don't care what tactics they use--or how many injuries are incurred--so long as they dominate the game. (Is this animosity? Or simple realism?)

I know that I'm in a growing minority in a cacophony of voices noisier and I'm sure far more effective than my own. I suspect, though, in a less demonstrable way, that I may be a part of a new "silent majority" that continues to support the President despite the ferocity of the attack. I will not yet surrender the "I Back Barack" bumper sticker on my car. Nor will I cease sending daily wishes of good will to both him and his opponents. And the same to my "anonymous" correspondent, whom I thank for challenging me to think again, again. I send out metta in full consciousness of the adverse circumstance, if only to preserve my own health, and sanity, and self-respect! May all beings be free from animosity...

ADDENDUM

( … to the letter I posted yesterday)

You remember that Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell pronouncement, at the very start of the Obama presidency, to the effect that the top priority of Republicans must be to get rid of him?

It seemed like an outrageous statement at the time, only hours into the new President's tenure, but his party has remained faithful to the literal word of that injunction. Since then, they have proved adamantly obstructive to every initiative and every nomination that the President has made. They have embraced every procedural trick in the Congressional rule book to thwart his legislative agenda. They have voted virtually unanimously, as a bloc, against his every proposal, no matter how inconsequential. They have perverted the political process. They have not hesitated to stoop to personal insult, loudly and in public. They have not been ashamed to accept the chilling embrace of hatred or the fanaticism of extremists when it served their cause in diminishing his power and rendering him vulnerable to attack. They have maligned his every idea with distortions and lies. They have been openly rude, un-generous to a fault, and intolerant. They have gone out of their way to ridicule him personally—and have not even spared his wife. They have been relentless in their attacks on his character as well as on the policies and goals for which he was elected.

In their eagerness to get rid of him, they have maliciously misrepresented him to voters. They won the mid-term elections with promises they have not attempted to fulfill, relying instead on their ability to foment still greater dissatisfaction and distrust among their followers. They have on multiple occasions arrogantly spurned the genuinely friendly hand held out to them, preferring instead to humble with their disdain the man who generously held it out.

In all this, Obama has managed to retain his dignity and poise. He has been consistently statesman-like in both speech and action. He has declined all opportunities to descend to the level of those attacking him, and has been unfailingly respectful of even the hostile and opinionated views of others. He has invited the opinion of opponents and has been willing—some would say too willing—to find grounds for compromise. He has for the most part brushed aside insult with quiet humor and politeness. Accused of weakness, he has shown strength, decisiveness, and remarkable courage. Accused of remaining silent on important issues, he has wisely demonstrated the value of biding his time and speaking forcefully at the right moment. He has shown infinite patience with detractors to left and right. He frankly admits to his mistakes and acknowledges—indeed, shares—the disappointments and frustration of many of those who supported him.

Given his ability to negotiate obstacles placed in his way, I am astounded that he has managed to achieve as much as he has done thus far. I support his re-election not out of resignation that the other side only offers worse, but because I believe that he still has the vision that most nearly reflects my own, along with the determination to do everything in his power to make it happen. I am encouraged by yesterday’s news about the extraordinarily successful initial fund-raising for his campaign—a success that will undoubtedly be used to denigrate him further, and sadly by both political opponents and many of my friends on the left. I am hearted to know, in view of dire predictions that he has alienated his political base, that his campaign has managed to attract hundreds of thousands of new supporters, and that the modesty of the majority of donations suggests a groundswell of grass roots support that will confound accepted political wisdom.

I believe, in short, that there is a new "silent majority" of Americans who share my view of Obama and who will come out to vote for him. Republicans may believe that they can fool enough of the people enough of the time to achieve McConnell's goal. I myself believe that they are only just now beginning to reap the bitter harvest that is ripening from the rotten seeds they have sown.

A Note to a Friend

Here's an email I sent this morning to a friend, following a heated exchange last evening at a group meeting that we both attended. My friend was clearly deeply disappointed with Obama, as were several others on hand, and her disappointment found expression in scathing anger. I did not offer much in the way of a response at the time, partly because I believe that heat trumps reason in such circumstances--and we need reason more than heat. I dropped her this line this morning:

Dear .....

My apologies for not having had the energy to enter into the debate last night, but I believe that your anger at Obama is misdirected. You are in danger, as I see it, of being manipulated by a clever Republican/corporate strategy to have their way and blame the president for the results. The Republican Senate leader's latest solution to the debt ceiling crisis is a perfect example: pass a bill allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling over the objections of the Congress!

I myself believe that the president is doing what he can to abide by his own principles--those he was perfectly clear and honest about when he ran for election. As Maya Angelou observed, it is not so much a matter of Obama abandoning his supporters as they abandoning him.

Though I understand the frustration in today's poisonous political scene, it distresses me greatly to see my fellow progressive/democratic/socialist thinkers lash out against the man who comes closest to representing our vision of a better country. It only adds to the toxicity, and serves the interests of those who seek to control and profit from the inaction you identify. Could it be that, unwittingly, your anger is being stoked and manipulated by the very interests you oppose?

Best, Peter

The Value of Nuance... Another Voice

I put in a note the other day about the value of nuance. On the same topic, here's the great pianist, Emmanuel Ax, in a letter in today's New York Times. It's a response to last week's snarky column by Maureen Dowd. I trust the President knows there are many of us out here in the "reality-based world" who do value nuance, and understand it to be essential to good government. It is not, as some take it to be, a sign of weakness (read The Art of War!) but rather one of intelligence and respect, both qualities in which a large number of our politicians are noticeably lacking.

A PHOTO I LIKE

Here's a photo I like. There's eloquence in the gesture, and such pleasure in the police constable's face.

A GOOD LETTER

From the New York Times, 6/15/2011

To the Editor:

Re “Politicians Behaving Well” (column, June 10):

Why does David Brooks feel the need to refer back to Edmund Burke and Anthony Trollope to find an exemplary politician? We have one in the White House.

President Obama has been excoriated by both the left and the right with the most extreme and unrealistic invective used against any president in my lifetime, yet has never responded in kind. He has treated his opponents with respect, even when their opposition was beyond disrespectful.

He has taken the time to reflect and seek the counsel of the wise and learned, even when he was being accused of inaction, yet has acted decisively when necessary. And he has taken the opportunity to instruct us in our highest concerns, even when the throng was calling for soaring rhetoric.

In short, he has personified precisely the standards of political excellence Burke set forth. If only the American electorate cared.

DAVID BERMAN
New York, June 10, 2011

The Value of Nuance

I did not watch the debate of the Republican candidates for president last night, but from the excerpts I saw and what I read in the newspaper this morning it would appear that all seven devoted the better part of their time to bashing President Obama for his supposed failures. They did not, I gather, mention, that the President has failed mostly thus far in attempting to fix the damage their own policies caused. Even today, the economic policy they propose seems to advocate mainly a return to those failed policies, with the conviction that what failed before will succeed the next time around. Their tired--and tiresome--mantra: lower taxes for all, most especially for the rich and for record profit-making businesses; and smaller government.

I did watch the Ann Curry interview with President Obama this morning, and was impressed, as always, by his fair, thoughtful, balanced responses to her questions. The response on whether Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign was pure Obama--fair, carefully nuanced, rational. Unlike those who have been busy throwing stones at Weiner in their own glass House of Representatives, the President first, and correctly, answered that this was a matter between Weiner and those who elected him. The "If it were me..." addition concentrated less on the moral issues than on the question of public service. If his ability to serve were compromised, he said--of himself--he would choose to step down.

I like the absence of the "should." The President's answer left the responsibility where it properly belongs: with the Congressman and his constituents. He did not, notably, in any way excuse Weiner's actions, but neither did use his own moral condemnation as the righteous standard for another man to follow. Instead, he made it unequivocally clear how he himself would handle that responsibility, upholding his own ethical standards while not imposing them on others. The subtlety of this distinction may well be where he gets into trouble with those whose ears are desensitized to nuance: to them, perhaps, it sounds more like an abdication of responsibility. It's not. It's a respect for the freedom and responsibility of others, including Weiner--and, more importantly, the people the congressman was elected to serve.

"Vote Obama 2012" continues to solicit opinions from others. I know that there are many voters out there who think, as I do, that this President has done a remarkable job in starting to address the mess that he was left with. As he himself concedes in every possible occasion, it's not good enough; there is still much work to do. To return to the demonstrably warped and counter-productive policies of the past is not a serious option. Please consider adding your voice to mine if you agree.

LOYALTY

(From today's entry in "The Buddha Diaries")

What are the limits of loyalty?

It’s a vexing question, and one that troubles me particularly in the light of everything that’s happening in our political life today. On one side of the spectrum, I see an excess of loyalty to right-wing ideology and those who are attempting to implement it; on the other, an absence of loyalty that make progress toward goals I believe in difficult if not impossible. On the one side, intransigence; on the other, a contentiousness and a lack of solidarity that makes progress difficult, if not impossible.

I was reminded by this excellent op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times about the Democratic disarray which opened the door to Reaganism and the rise of right-wing power.The prime concerns of Hubert H. Humphrey (the centennial of whose birth is celebrated in the article) were social justice and a fair economic playing field. Had the party honored his leadership at the time, we might be living in a different America at the start of the 21^st century.Instead, fired by a well-justified but narrowly-focused rage against the Vietnam war, the party fled from Humphrey in droves, and stood by as Nixon trounced the anti-war McGovern. (I was, I confess, amongst them. Remember, "Dump the Hump"?)

We find ourselves today in a situation with Barack Obama that is in some ways a similar. There are those on the left who are willing to make the war(s) their primary, if not single issue. I, too, am deeply troubled by these endless, quite possibly irresolvable conflicts. And there are those with genuine, multiple, principled disagreements with the President's leadership on the economy and other fronts. I am personally just as greatly troubled, though, by the resultant, dangerous absence of solidarity and support among liberals and progressives, which leaves our side at once enfeebled and demonstrably vulnerable to the lock-step loyalty of Republicans. In our seemingly unshakable insistence on our individual rectitude on any given issue, we risk losing sight of the greater goals.

So what are the proper limits of loyalty? At what point are we compelled to stand on our own principles and mutiny against our leadership—at the risk of causing our ship to founder on the rocks? This is something that we did with extraordinary success last November, withdrawing our support from Democratic candidates in anger or disappointment, or simply abstaining because of our deflated enthusiasm.

We all have beliefs and principles at stake. Should we be prepared to sacrifice any of them—or none?

My thinking is that beliefs and principles are all very fine and may feel very good, but they don’t get us very far. I’m much aware that for every belief that I hold dear, there is someone who holds an opposite, quite possibly incompatible belief. (I may even have a few contradictions in my own thinking!) And rigid adherence to my principles—that is, ideology—can be as destructive as willingness to compromise them. The question is, when does it serve me better to bend, like the proverbial willow in the wind, rather than risk being blasted into oblivion like the oak?

Loyalty, it seems to me, must be a matter for negotiation—between me and my conscience as well as between me and my opponent. Blind loyalty is no better than its absence, and can be very much worse. We saw the effects of it in Nazi Germany. We also, sadly, see the results of intransigence in the never-ending (never-starting!) “peace talks” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No matter how much “right” there is on either side, there can be no resolution before both sides are ready for some serious give-and-take. Mindless loyalty to the cause on either side will not lead to the peace from which both would surely benefit.

Still, a leader should not be called upon to do constant, paralyzing battle with those on his own side. The useful yardstick, for me, is the greater or the lesser harm: will his efforts lead to a better or worse result? Which might be different from, and lesser than what I myself deem to be the optimum result.

If by loyalty we mean being able to count on backing and support in tough circumstances, it seems to me that we on the left would do more to further our cause by lending that support than angrily withdrawing it when the optimal goal is not more immediately in sight, or when we happen to disagree. Barack Obama is not—at least in my view—the great betrayer of all principle and breaker of promises that he’s made out to be by those who are disappointed in the slow—they might say, non-existent—pace of change. I say rather that he has his eyes on the same prize as myself: social and economic justice, an end to oppression of all kinds, peace in the world and shared prosperity, a proper balance between humankind and nature. But these results do not come easy in today’s contentious political environment, and I personally don’t have the responsibility, nor the skills--as he does, with our support and that of his political allies--to make those things happen.

My own contention is that Obama is (in what has become a tritely popular construction in the political rhetoric of the day) on "the right side of history"; that he has both the vision and the patience to persist; and that he deserves the solid backing of our support. He has mine. I hope he has yours.

Intimidation?

My friend Stuart sent me a link to this cartoon by Chuck Asay...

... with the following question: How does Vote Obama 2012 handle this perception?

It's a legitimate question, and one that's frequently raised on the left. Do Obama and the Democrats capitulate too easily to ideologically-drive right-wing notions? Do they too easily sacrifice their principles? I wrote back to Stuart as follows:

I think VO 2012 addresses this perception with the argument that Obama is indeed open to--even solicits--alternative ideas, alternative solutions from the opposition; but not bad ones. In this instance, an immediate blanket ban on all drilling is probably impracticable, given our deeply ingrained national addiction. But it needs to be done with strict government regulation and safety supervision. So it's not capitulation to a Republican idea, but appropriate attention and modification. Would that work for you? Cheers, P

NY 26th

(Cross-posted on The Buddha Diaries)

The stunning reversal in New York's 26th Congressional District yesterday, while a hopeful sign for the Democrats, suggests some rather depressing things about the American electorate. Personalities aside--and I'm guessing that the winner was a more... well, winning personality than the woman she defeated--one would want to assume that voters were persuaded as much by promises and policies when they elected a Republican just a half year or so ago, and by a vast majority. One might also, fairly, assume that yesterday's result was in good part an utter repudiation of what the Republicans have done, and what they have proposed to do, since gaining control of the House of Representatives.

My own conclusion is that voters were not listening last November. It's not that Republicans failed to make their intentions clear. True, they dressed those intentions up in fancy rhetoric about jobs and tax cuts, and sold them aggressively to easily seduced buyers. But really, who could be surprised by their continuing, stubborn, irrational opposition to everything the President presented--even when, at times, his proposals met with or surpassed their own requirements? Who could be surprised by their draconian budget proposal, their attack on Medicare, their inalterable opposition to putting an end to the Bush tax cuts? All these were perfectly predictable, to anyone who cared to listen to their message.

The point is, people listened to what they wanted to hear. They listened to the fear and the greed in their own gut, not to the unconcealed ideology or its predictable consequences. There was no exercise of judgment, no critical discernment. I have to add, ruefully, that something similar can be said about Democratic voters in 2008. They projected all their desires and all their hopes on candidate Obama. He became some kind of messiah, rather than the politician that he was, and is, necessarily, in order to reach the Oval Office. He could never have fulfilled all the expectations that built up around him. (I hear you say, "But he promised!" Don't you listen to a politician's promises with an ounce of realistic skepticism?)

If it were in my power to endow American voters with a gift--excuse, for a moment, the presumption!--it would be the gift of that skepticism. And I'm not talking about the cynical form that discounts all hope and aspiration with a smirk; nor the kind that belittles every effort to progress. I'm talking about the kind of skepticism that simply asks reasonable questions and insists on reasonable answers; the kind of skepticism that requires the careful examination of conscience and the weighing of likely outcomes; the kind of skepticism that is as skeptical of itself and its own self-interest as it is of others.

So the wild pendulum swing in New York's 26th District is less a cause for celebration among Democrats than for some sober self-questioning. Where were all those voters in November, 2010, who so miraculously saw the light in May, 2011? What does it mean, that the pendulum swung so far, so fast? What dangers does the swing suggest, and how must they be addressed? The success of a democracy depends on the educational maturity of the demos. No nation can be run on the basis of purely emotional self-interest. It must be governed by rational choices and well-thought decisions. But alas, given the history of the past couple of years, I'm compelled to wonder if this is what people find so objectionable about Obama? I remain, um, skeptical.

THE PEACE PROCESS

Here's the Baltimore Sun's editorial response to Obama's Sunday speech to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington. I watched a part of the speech myself and, based on what I saw, agree with the editorial. I note that the speech was generally well received, and that even Prime Minister Netanyahu modified the hard-line position he took just a couple of days earlier.

I found myself in yet another argument this morning on a familiar topic: the complaint, from the left, that Obama has not fulfilled his promises, that he has failed to stand up to the right, that he has capitulated to the capitalist oligarchy, that he lacks leadership skills and so on. As I have said many times, and repeat again here, I myself am not in agreement with Obama on all matters, nor do I believe that he has yet lived up to his full potential. But I do take issue with those on the left who, on the basis of ideals with which I do not disagree, either withdraw their support from the president or shower him noisily with blame.

As I see it, both the "hold you nose and vote" and the "lesser of two evils" approach risk doing more harm than good as we move toward the next election. With irrational anger and, yes, sheer, blind hatred directed at him from the right, Obama needs the continued, active support of those of us who voted for him and want him to do more than he has been able to do to date. If his erstwhile supporters add their raised voices to the right-wing attacks, he cannot hope to achieve any part of that change he envisioned--and that we endorsed. The obstacles are just too immense. And outraged rhetoric serves nothing other than the egos of those already convinced of their own rectitude.

It's not my intention to stand as a mere apologist for the president--he has no need of those. I think we need instead to respect what he has in fact demonstrably managed to achieve in the most difficult and politically charged of circumstances, and refrain from allowing our legitimate, necessary criticism to become the angry and destructive rhetoric I hear from friends and read in ideological left-wing blogs. We have enough toxins in our political dialogue as it is.

I am not a Reagan fan, far from it. But his famous eleventh commandment--that "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"--has resulted to our dismay in a depressingly effective party unity. I do not believe that we should refrain from reasoned criticism of the president; but I do believe that it would strengthen our cause to refrain from speaking ill. A peace process would not be unwelcome among Democrats, whether "liberal" or "progressive"--or even middle of the road.

Middle East Speech

I just listened to the President's Middle East speech from the State Department. I suspect he will be faulted on all sides, as usual--particularly because it's such an incredibly fraught and tricky situation that there are no ready, one-size-fits-all answers; and because this country can no longer step in and solve other people's problems. Obama rightly defers to the people of each country to resolve their own issues. He did, however, in this speech, come up with a clear statement of what America does, and does not support, and of the values our policy should be guided by. I was particularly glad that he made a point of insisting on the rights of women, and that he addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with both forthrightness and sympathy, and with an emphasis on the need for proactive compromise on both sides.

We can now expect the pundits to carry on interminably, until they find something else to argue about.

iMatterMarch

I heard about iMatterMarch.org while listening to MSNBC over lunch today. This is the most heartening thing I have heard about on the political scene for an awful long time, an effort by teenagers to assert their right to inherit a habitable planet. They march, they protest and, on the practical level, they are bringing lawsuits in the attempt to compel the federal and state governments to take action to protect the environment. Here's what these young people say, and ask for:

Top climate scientists have determined what is needed to get our atmosphere balanced again at 350 ppm within a century.

• peak emissions in 2011
• least a 6% reduction in global CO2 emissions every year
• 100 gigaton reforestation (especially in the tropics)

These youngsters deserve our support. They have taken it upon themselves to do what their elders lack the guts to do, with an intelligence and foresight sadly lacking in their seniors. It's their future, and they are right to challenge those who would wish to deprive them of it.

I'm planning to make a contribution to their cause. I hope that readers of these words might do the same.

And, President Obama, pay attention to this opportunity to lend these smart young people the support of your office.

A STEADY HAND

Not much time to spare, today. Still, as I wrote this morning on The Buddha Diaries, I could not let the moment pass without a word of praise for the President's interview on last night's 60 minutes. He was calm, clear, concise in his answers to Steve Kroft's questions. He avoided boasting or self-aggrandizement--though not coy about taking credit where it was appropriate--and came off, I thought, as a steady and reliable "Commander-in-Chief." He stands comfortably head and shoulders--and more!--above the craven contenders for his office, and is remarkable for the ease and comfort with which he handles himself in the most trying of circumstances. I get the sense, watching him, that he has the context of a much larger perspective in mind in all that he says and does, and that he is not easily swayed into rash decisions and actions by the pressures of the moment. I think we are wise to have elected this clear-headed man at a time when our country and the world are rushing toward the precipice. I trust that he will prevail in the 2012 election. I need to believe we have placed the reins in steady, thoughtful hands.

BELIEFS

Today, on The Buddha Diaries, I have some thoughts about the destructive role of "beliefs" in our political process.

Bin Laden: Corpus Delicti

(cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I'm astounded... no, why should I be astounded by this familiar pattern of events. After a few hours of faint praise for Obama, the second-guessing starts.

There is, as I see it, a legitimate moral question as to whether the Osama bin Laden assassination (call it by its name) should have been undertaken in the first place. Had we elected a Buddhist abbott to the White House, he might not have approved it. We didn't. We elected a hard-headed pragmatist with the expectation that he would take responsibility for the nation's business both at home and abroad. World leaders are required to make decisions most of us would shrink from making--including, alas, in a world inhabited by wicked humans as well as by the well-intentioned, decisions about war and peace. Violence is sometimes, for such people, not an option. My own personal qualms about taking a life, in this case, are easy enough to debate because they have no real-life implications or consequences. They are, in a sense, a luxury. And even with those qualms, my thinking is balanced in this case by a sense of justice accomplished.

Once we're past that debate, however, we risk descending into small-minded contention and absurdity. There are thus far four fronts of attack. The first was opened up by the revelation that bin Laden did not have a gun in his hands at the moment of his demise--as though this were some 1950s Hollywood oater whose conventions require the bad guy to draw first. No, this was an assassination, pure and simple. Clearly, from reports I have heard, had the man come forward with his hands in the air in an act of overt surrender, he would not have been gunned down. He did not. A fire fight was in progress. He was, as it were, commander of the fort that was under assault and providing fierce resistance. I'm no expert on the rules of war, but once I'm past my Buddhist qualms, I have no problem with this one.

Next, of course, is the burial at sea. Was it Muslim enough? And why dispose of the corpus delicti? Who will now believe that he is actually dead? We should have preserved the body as evidence... I actually thought this was a rather brilliant solution. No place of burial, no martyr's shrine. A Muslim ceremony to show respect for the religion, not the man. And slip the corpse into the ocean, an anonymous presence in an anonymous location, and hopefully lost to the world's consciousness.

And then the photos. The hunger for evidence, in part perhaps, but also for sensation. Obama's choice was a wise one, in my view. He reminds us frequently to ask ourselves, what kind of a country do we want to be? Do we want, in this instance, to be the kind of country that makes public exhibition of its violence? To produce the bloody pictures would be the equivalent of that gruesome medieval practice of impaling the victim's head on a pike and raising it above the castle walls. It would be an open taunting of those to whom we wish to show our humanity, a further provocation and incitement to violence among those to whom we wish to preach the values of peace and tolerance.

And finally, Geronimo. I confess that I was taken aback at first by the code name that seemed to have been assigned to Osama bin Laden. But then I read, in the exhaustive New York Times report, I think, that it was the operation that was code-named Geronimo; bin Laden's code name was "Jackpot"--a far more appropriate association. I'm hoping/assuming that this was a confusion promulgated by the media. It would have been insensitive, to say the least, to have honored this mass-murderer with the name of a brave man who had the courage and audacity put his life on the line in the service of his people--in much the same way as those intrepid Navy Seals who conducted the operation. If I have it right, it would seem entirely fitting and in no way disrespectful to the history of our native Americans, but rather a fine way of honoring their hero.

I have yet to see this last point clarified. I hope I'm right. On all other points, I support the President's decisions and remain in awe of the cool-headed, meticulous planning and execution of this unpleasant but historically necessary operation.

STRENGTH & DETERMINATION

I defer today to the New York Times editorial, The Myth of Mr. Obama's Weakness. I agree with the concluding hope, that we can now leave the pusillanimous and opportunistic personal attacks on Obama's character behind, and get on with a discussion of the real issues that we face.

OBAMA/OSAMA

(From today's entry in The Buddha Diaries...)

So what's a Buddhist to say about last night's news? The death of Osama bin Laden came as a huge surprise, with the President interrupting our evening with his announcement. Do we condemn the taking of life, or celebrate the demise of a man whose past actions and future intentions are equally and unquestionably evil? In an ideal world, retribution is hardly a noble, less still a Buddhist practice. It can be said to merely perpetuate the cycle of violence and to generate unwished-for karmic response. On the other hand, in the real world, I'll confess to a certain satisfaction, and a sense of justice fulfilled.

Will the careful preparation and apparently impeccable execution of this operation do anything to silence--or even quiet--those critics who complain about Obama's equanimity and patience, his insistence on examining a situation from all sides, with an eye to the eventual outcome? Probably not. And yet the story, insofar as it is known to date, suggests that he brought all those qualities to bear, along with a great deal of courage. The action was surely fraught with risks. It could have very easily ended up like Jimmy Carter's disastrous--and widely ridiculed--attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Its success was just as surely due to the several months that were devoted, since last August, to the verification of intelligence and the meticulous planning. It was, from all I hear, a faultless operation, for which we have not only the skills of the special forces involved, but also the rigor of their commander to thank.

The statement announcing the event was also classical Obama. He carefully avoided boasting, claimed an appropriate amount of credit for himself and was generous with the credit he assigned to others--including his predecessor, whose rash abandonment of the hunt for Osama in favor of a dubious and unrelated war proved a grave setback to his promise for justice. In reminding the American people that this was not a part of some war against Islam, he wisely and generously recalled the same assertion made by George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. His tone was measured, calm, authoritative, and he projected a quiet, confident strength--beside which his current critics and opponents look like a bunch of ill-informed and mean-spirited hysterics. Chalk a big one up for Obama in the political sphere.

And then... retribution is one thing. Prevention is another. Being of a generation who remember such things, here's a question I ask myself: knowing what we now know about 20th century history--and had we been able--could we, should we have assassinated Adolf Hitler in the later 1930s, before he unleashed his madness on the world? Should we, if we could, assassinate Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi today? Where there's a deadly snake that threatens whole populations and that could be clearly and cleanly rendered harmless by decapitation, are we right to cut off its head? My head and heart say one thing; my gut says something else entirely.

Any thoughts?

An American President

The New York Times editorial this morning called it "sardonic resignation." That hits it about right. I was thinking about disbelief, calm rationality in the face of what the President, kindly, called "silliness," and a determined dignity.

One question that comes to mind is this one: how could such huge numbers of Americans (nearly 75 percent, reportedly, of Republicans) be led to believe the "birther" absurdity, all factual evidence to the contrary? The only explanation that could seem to account for it is the familiar, ugly one: racism. Those riding their political ambitions on the notion that Obama was not born in this country were quite clearly playing on the fear and hatred of otherness, the scurrilous intimation that he is not, and was never "one of us." A curious irony, since he has proved himself time and again to be one of the best of us: smart, clear-headed, generous to a fault, patient, calm in adversity, good-humored, loyal, the father of a wonderful family.

Shame on those who have fomented hatred for their political goals. Shame on Republican leaders who have rejected countless opportunities to speak out forcefully and defuse this non-issue. Shame on those in the United States Congress and in the state houses of shamefully numerous states to legislate this issue into something it has never been--legitimate.

Will it now be put to rest? Clearly not. Those impervious to facts or rational argument before the President's unveiling of the "long form" of his birth certificate are unlikely to be persuaded by any further facts of rational argument. The whispers--no longer whispers, thanks in part to the loud and ugly voice of Donald Trump--will persist, questioning the authenticity of the document and the reasons for what such voices consider to be too tardy a response to their impertinent demands.

And meanwhile, we trust, Obama will continue, despite all the roadblocks, to work with what others consider to be excessive patience on the issues that really matter to this country.

A START-UP

We're still a start-up operation here at "Vote Obama 2012." We're not quite sure what we're going to look like or sound like, but it's our full intention to be around until November, 2012, when we see Barack Obama safely re-elected to a second term in office.

And we're looking for volunteers. We welcome people who can write with passion and conviction. We need people more skilled than myself in gathering useful material from the Internet and reposting it. Above all, we need people who share the vision of a country defined by the qualities we purport to value: equality of opportunity, justice, freedom of religion, tolerance, peaceful cooperation with other nations ...

Our support for Obama is not uncritical or merely worshipful. We understand that there are promises unkept, that there is much left to do. Our intention in promoting his re-election with strong national support is to allow him the opportunity to be the best that he can be--better than he has been able to be in the poisonously partisan political environment he has had to contend with in the course of his first term.

With a strong national show of support for a democratic vision and a second term in which to work, this President is capable of bringing about the change he envisioned--and that we envisioned along with him.

"Vote Obama 2012" is about helping to generate that strong democratic support.

TAXES

I much liked this New York Times op-ed piece by David Stockman, and today's column by Paul Krugman. I believe, with them, that we need to restore the rates that were in force before the Bush tax cuts--not just for the wealthy, but for the rest of us, too. It's all very well to talk about the need for deficit reduction, but no amount of magic will make that happen until we can agree to our fair share of sacrifice.

The President is fighting an uphill battle on this one. The economic plan he put out reflects the political reality of an electorate that has been persuaded to believe that black is white and up is down, and that free lunches abound. To get anything achieved, he needs to count on good, solid support from his own base. It's time to let him hear that he has the support he needs.

HERE'S A FINE REASON...

... to vote for the President.

This First Lady has done a terrific job. Engaged, a sane perspective on family and health, a leader in her own right. Compassionate. Smart. Glad she landed safely yesterday!

INTENTION

In response to some doubts, questions and misapprehensions, please note that I started this blog with no cut-and-dried intention other than to support the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.

That said, I do want to avoid the harsh polemics that I find on other left-leaning blogs: this one is not about airing disappointments and frustrations--many of which I share to a greater or lesser degree, but find unproductive. As I see it, there are many excellent reasons to support Obama, along with many terrible reasons to desert him. It's the former that I'd prefer to put out in these pages, as we move toward the 2012 election, in well-reasoned, readable prose.

There is a huge difference between Obama's vision and that of his political opponents, whose current, obstructive power we have good reason to deplore. I'd like this blog to give voice to those many people I talk to--and hear from--who think the President is fighting the good fight in the best way possible in today's poisonously, even hatefully, negative political arena.

AND I'm hoping for help from anyone who gets what I'm trying to do.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

My post today on "Making a Difference" is here, at The Buddha Diaries. It's about the right to a basic education. It seems to me that the issues I raise are basic Democratic values. Please click on over. Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm still looking for writing partners on this blog. I don't want to be its only voice. Please contact me if you'd be interested in writing an occasional piece in support of Obama's re-election.

AT DINNER

I was sitting at dinner in a college cafeteria yesterday evening in the company of two smart women who take the time to inform themselves about our national problems and priorities. Like most others with whom I sit down and talk, they were as dismayed as I by the venom directed at Obama from both left and right. I say "venom," because that's how disagreement seem most frequently expressed these days. What I see on television and read online bears little resemblance to what I hear when I sit down and talk with people. There are so many who share my view that anger and impatience to little to serve the causes we support; and who marvel at the level-headedness and quiet perseverance of the man in the Oval Office.

I conclude from my personal, anecdotal experience that there is a strong groundswell of support for the President that does not get heard in the cacophony of opinionated rant. I choose to believe that, come election time, good sense and fairness will win out over irrationality and greed.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

I was cheered by the President's speech on the economy yesterday. I do not have the knowledge to provide my own analysis of the economic policies he sketched out, but his critics on the left can no longer complain about a lack of clarity on the social issues. Obama's unambiguous dismissal of the Ryan budget plan made clear his differences with Republican ideologues, who make no bones about their intention to dismantle virtually every government program that serves the poor, the elderly, the sick and the disabled--and shift the savings over into the hands of the already rich and comfortable.

Two commitments stood out in the speech: that the President will not allow Medicare to be converted into a voucher program that will enrich the insurance companies on the backs of the elderly; and that he will not permit any further extension of the disastrous Bush Tax cuts.

The Republican redistribution of wealth into the hands of the already wealthy must be halted. I see--and hear--not a single voice on the right that strays from the cut-the-spending AND cut-taxes party line. Decades of experience have now made it abundantly clear that cutting taxes does not raise revenues; and that spending cuts serve only to threaten recovery from recession. Obama succeeded in quietly eviscerating these tired Republican mantras. I thought his speech was a superb and persuasive reminder that our greatness, as a nation, is not the result of small-mindedness and parsimony, but rather of our breadth of vision, our expansive view of an always better future, and our generosity.

RIGHT TO BE HARD

Paul Krugman is right to be hard on Obama in his column this morning. I, too, want to hear stronger opposition from the White House and the Democrats to the current Republican push to the far right on the economy. Because I want more from him, however, does not mean that I must withdraw my support. All the more reason, indeed, to redouble it.

THE BUDGET DEAL

I personally deplore the concessions made by Democrats and the President in yesterday's budget deal. While I applaud the retention of funding for important programs like Planned Parenthood and the EPA, I deplore the cuts in other vital areas affecting, mostly, the most vulnerable in our society. I deplore the fact that the revenue side of the equation was not even part of the discussion, while the very wealthy and the corporations continue to be spared the burden of a proportionate share of taxes. I am persuaded by the arguments of economists like Paul Krugman of the New York Times that drastic cuts like those conceded in yesterday's agreement will serve only to further slow the already sluggish economic recovery.

And yet... it is the American electorate that is responsible for having naively handed so much power to the far right-wing zealots who apparently hold their own party and the US Congress hostage to their implacable and unreasonable demands. It required the ultimate threat of a government shutdown and its dire economic consequences to persuade these people to relinquish their demand that not one hundred but one hundred and fifty percent (and growing) of their radically right-wing policy and economic goals be met--that is, if the agreement survives the waiting period.

What will it take to awaken the vast middle class conservative part of the electorate to their own interests? Will the Paul Ryan "budget plan" gain traction and support amongst these people, when it so clearly benefits the already wealthy and further deprives the poor and needy? The Republicans are quick to rail against what they call a "redistribution of wealth" from the top down, but they're perfectly happy to redistribute it from the bottom up.

Obama is nowhere near achieving the results on the economic front that I had hoped for when I voted for him in 2008. He has, however, succeeded in turning the economy around, be it ever so slowly, against the powerful tide of financial industry and Republican political resistance. Would he have done better to have chosen a different administrative team? He has been roundly criticized from the left for choosing advisors from the same industry that brought us close to ruin. Again, I myself would have opted for more radical choices, and more radical policies.

But would a more radical ("socialist"?) approach have made for greater, speedier headway, given the political and historical circumstance? This is America, after all. This is America post-tax revolt, post-Reagan, post-trickle down economics. People have been willingly deceived for decades by the "fairy dust" that Krugman writes about; we believe we can enjoy a perpetual free lunch, that we can have all the services to which we have become accustomed without paying for them with our taxes. It's a mind-set that has proved resistant to reason and argument.

Oh, and then there are the trillions owed to pay for George W. Bush's unfunded wars and his simultaneous tax cuts for the wealthy.

That's the circumstance. You'd think America would be ready for significant change. Not so. Despite Obama's milder and more gradualist approach, conservatives successfully used the "socialist" slur to arouse old, knee-jerk fears among the voters in last year's elections. Had he applied some truly socialist mojo, might he not have put even slow progress at risk? I don't know. But I still plan to vote for him in 2012. Even distressingly slow progress, as I see it, is a whole lot better than regression.

Obamacare!

We need to reframe that word. Opponents have succeeded in giving it a negative spin, but I see it as a major achievement that deserves celebrating.

Okay, I wanted the "public option." I wanted "Medicare for all." I did not get what I wanted. Still, Obama succeeded where there has been nothing but failure for the past half century. Where the Clintons failed. We have a much needed national health care system. Of course it needs improving. Of course it needs to cover the needs of all Americans, and there are those who are still left out in the cold.

To those who say it was not skillfully handled, that the process could have been a smoother one, that better communication would have made it so, I say: perhaps. There were ugly bumps along the way. But the opposition was implacable, and well-funded. And the thing got done.

I write this, of course, in the context of yesterday's unveiling of the Republican alternative, a thinly disguised and deeply misguided plan to kill not only the Obama health care plan but even Medicare itself--a system that enjoys the enthusiastic support of countless millions who reap its benefits, and many more who still count on it being there for them. Instead, we are offered the prospect of a plan that envisions the health care of Americans as a profit-making industry, a cash cow for the insurance companies at the expense of the rest of us.

To which I say, Long live Obamacare!

When I hear Obama's opponents speak, I hear nothing but concern for their small base of political supporters and their own political hides. It's my belief that this man really does care about the well-being of his fellow-citizens, and works his tail off for us.

Yes!

We have grabbed this url and blog title with the intention of supporting the Barack Obama campaign for re-election to the Oval Office in 2012. We do this with the conviction that he is not simply better than the alternatives, but that he is the right man to lead us toward a viable future for the country.

It is now our responsibility t0 create an alternative to the deluded belief in American exceptionalism which has led us into a misguided foreign policy and disastrous wars; to the misplaced faith in the infallibility of the market economy and deregulation; and to the long period of neglect of education and other vital social services. The bankruptcy of these beliefs and the policies they justify is now apparent in the multiple crises the country now faces. The stubborn, bipartisan impasse that has stalled all progress toward solutions is further evidence that we need a man in the Oval Office who has a demonstrated capacity to listen, to make decisions without haste and in view of all available facts, and to persist calmly despite all obstacles.

We do not agree with every action and pronouncement of Obama or his administration. We have, indeed, many disagreements. But we can disagree on issues without immediately throwing support and trust to the winds. Nor do we wish to idolize the man. He needs our thoughtful criticism. But we see in Obama a man who is clear in his perceptions and fair in judgment. We see in him a man who understands the use of power in a way that allows for changing forces in the world; he shares the strength of the proverbial reed, whose nature is to prevail over shifting winds by responding to them, rather than the proverbial oak, uprooted by its own unbending stubbornness.

We also see in Obama a man who sees beyond current contingencies, beyond the chattering marketplace of bias and opinion, beyond the press of immediate necessities. If we want the change we voted for when we elected him, we'll vote for him again in 2012. Given the chaos in which we have embroiled ourselves as a nation, it will take a lot longer than a single four-year term to get there. We need Obama for a second term.