I have received some email from people who are rather irate over the selection of Rick Warren to speak/pray at the inauguration and I would like to ask these folks to reconsider their position.
While I am not in favor of Rick Warren -- or any religious observances in our government’s affairs, for that matter -- I think it is important to hold a broader perspective. First, we supported Obama because "he could reach across the aisle." I find that it is easy to be bipartisanship as long as that means "the other side agrees with us" but it' something else when we’re the ones making compromises.
Obama has been very open about being a religious person. Much of America sees itself as religious, if not Christian and there has been a rather vocal religious faction that remained outside Obama's tent. In my mind, picking Warren is a symbolic gesture to prove to "those who [he] has yet to earn their support" that he will be their leader too.
For me, too much is at stake to throw the agenda baby out with the ceremonial bath water. In fact, I'm hoping that this is the first attempt to bring these people into Obama's tent and convince them that he isn't so threatening. Our country is too divided for him to immediately tack to the left -- it would only serve to galvanize the electorate around the poles. In fact, I think Obama is moving very prudently in his selections and, in general, the bulk of America is becoming more comfortable with him, not less. Unlike Bush and Cheney, he is not a radical and this can only help his agenda. (Yes, I think Bush and Cheney were radical in how their political philosophies -- they were just well hidden.)
Regarding Obama’s agenda, he has not deviated from the broad policy goals that we all supported during the campaign and with a broader base of support, he will be more able to enact that agenda.
I think the worst thing we can do at this point is to abandon our support over this symbolic but mostly meaningless, in my opinion, decision. I don't care who prays or not at the inauguration as long as we get the laws of this country reformed and have a just government again. America is, generally speaking, a right-of-center country as much as I wish it were otherwise. However with time and exposure, I think America can learn that the left side of the spectrum is not such a scary place.
Our supporters were so instrumental during the campaign that I would hate for our movement to lose this support. I hope we can all find the will and space to work within our communities to build the support so Obama can govern and enact the legislation that we hope to see.
Please don't give up the hope so soon.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
Independent vs. Democrat in the Era of Obama
I received a couple of questions in a comment to a recent post that I thought deserved a thorough response.
The first question was:
As with Obama, I chose the Democratic party not so much because of a specific platform but because of a general set of principles that governed its practices. I saw those principles being ones of diversity, empowerment, inclusion, dialogue and respect for the individual that is often balanced with the needs of the community.
When I looked at the two parties, like you, I found myself identifying most often with the Democratic party.
The second question was:
As I said, becoming a member of the Democratic party was not so much accepting some pre-determined set of beliefs or issues but deciding to become part of the equation. At any time, the party may have positions in its platform with which I will not agree and I’m OK with that. I believe that is integral to living in a democracy. However, by becoming part of the party, I believe I can add my voice to a collective effort to govern our country.
Over the last several years, I have seen trends in the Republican party -- like the blurring of the boundaries between church and state -- that worry me. In comparison to the principles that I perceived inside the Democratic party, I felt it was important for me to become part of the party that most embodied my world view.
I’ve quoted this line before but when I was a boy the rock band Rush had a song called ”Freewill“ with the lyric, ”"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.“ Ultimately, I felt that ”choosing not to decide“ was abdicating power to a set of principles I did not support so I ”made a choice.”
Now it’s up to me to make of it what I will.
The first question was:
I want to ask about your evolution to a commitment to the Democratic party. I sometimes wonder if the two party structure we've evolved is counter-productive to the examination of multiple viewpoints. Even though I've generally leaned Democratic, I still resist identifying myself as a Democrat, preferring to be "independent".I have shared this view for a long time and it is the principal reason why I was a non-aligned voter for 25 years. However, I tend not to be a “black and white” thinker which is what particularly pushed me away from the Republican party and the Bush administration.
As with Obama, I chose the Democratic party not so much because of a specific platform but because of a general set of principles that governed its practices. I saw those principles being ones of diversity, empowerment, inclusion, dialogue and respect for the individual that is often balanced with the needs of the community.
When I looked at the two parties, like you, I found myself identifying most often with the Democratic party.
The second question was:
I'd be interested in what is now your clear alignment with the Democratic party. How would you define the party as opposed to the Republican party (which right now seems like an unlikely marriage of two very different groups). Of course, what the parties were historically and what they represent now may be quite different. In either case, I'd be interested in your thinking. What has inspired you to have that identification?That is a rather difficult question to answer. As frustrating as it may seem, I see people, groups, issues and events as collection of interests or attributes each measured along its own axis or continuum. So, when I think of the Democratic Party, I see a collection of diverse people each with his or he own set and measure of interests. For me that makes it challenging to pin down just exactly what the Democratic Party is and if you ask any two people, “what is XYZ party“, you’ll get differing answers.
As I said, becoming a member of the Democratic party was not so much accepting some pre-determined set of beliefs or issues but deciding to become part of the equation. At any time, the party may have positions in its platform with which I will not agree and I’m OK with that. I believe that is integral to living in a democracy. However, by becoming part of the party, I believe I can add my voice to a collective effort to govern our country.
Over the last several years, I have seen trends in the Republican party -- like the blurring of the boundaries between church and state -- that worry me. In comparison to the principles that I perceived inside the Democratic party, I felt it was important for me to become part of the party that most embodied my world view.
I’ve quoted this line before but when I was a boy the rock band Rush had a song called ”Freewill“ with the lyric, ”"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.“ Ultimately, I felt that ”choosing not to decide“ was abdicating power to a set of principles I did not support so I ”made a choice.”
Now it’s up to me to make of it what I will.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Avoiding Irrational Exuberance
The last decade has proven that when America loves something, it really loves it. First we had the DotCom bubble, then it was a Housing bubble surrounded by a Credit bubble made. Now, it seems we are crazy about President-Elect Obama. Gallop just released a poll showing President-Elect Obama has a 70% favorability rating (compared to President Bush’s 27% job approval rating).
As the election approached and it looked like Senator Obama might become President Obama, I began to wonder, would Obama’s popularity become a burden? While President George W. Bush had the luxury of low expectations, will President Barack Obama have the burden of high expectations?
At 70%, there isn’t much “head room” for Obama to go up but there is plenty of room for him to go down. Granted, many presidents have had higher ratings, G.W. Bush hit 92% after 9/11, Clinton hit 73%, Johnson and Kennedy both hit 80% while FDR and Truman hit 84% and 87% respectively. However, the swing in these approval ratings can be quite brutal: GWB dropped to a low of 19%, Clinton 36%, Johnson 35% and Truman 22%. Of those previously listed, only Kennedy and FDR managed to avoid similar depths with ratings at 56% and 48%, respectively. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating]
At some point, the bloom is going to come off the rose and we need to be prepared for it. As I traveled around the 8 counties in my region during the presidential campaign, I heard people voice a wide array of hopes and expectations for an Obama Administration. Some were reasonable and some were not. Those people in the latter category are certain to be disappointed.
I supported Barack Obama for President for some fundamental reasons:
1) His pledge not to take PAC and corporate money would give him a freer hand to bring about reform;
2) He understands the constitution at a level deeper than any president in my 45 years;
3) He is deliberate in his decision making and has shown an ability incorporate divergent opinion to build consensus.
4) He expressed a view of foreign policy that represents an appreciation for nuance.
What I think is important here is that my support is based more on general principles rather than specific agenda items. I know that President Obama is going to disappoint me -- it’s inevitable. There is just no way that another person can do everything I want him or her to do. Even I disappoint myself from time to time.
I think those of us who worked so hard to get Barack Obama elected have to find a way to mange our expectations while at the same time working to hold our new Administration accountable. That is our duty as citizens.
Ironically enough, I think Candidate Obama’s own words best reflect the best approach: “No Drama” and “Slow and steady wins the race.”
As the election approached and it looked like Senator Obama might become President Obama, I began to wonder, would Obama’s popularity become a burden? While President George W. Bush had the luxury of low expectations, will President Barack Obama have the burden of high expectations?
At 70%, there isn’t much “head room” for Obama to go up but there is plenty of room for him to go down. Granted, many presidents have had higher ratings, G.W. Bush hit 92% after 9/11, Clinton hit 73%, Johnson and Kennedy both hit 80% while FDR and Truman hit 84% and 87% respectively. However, the swing in these approval ratings can be quite brutal: GWB dropped to a low of 19%, Clinton 36%, Johnson 35% and Truman 22%. Of those previously listed, only Kennedy and FDR managed to avoid similar depths with ratings at 56% and 48%, respectively. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating]
At some point, the bloom is going to come off the rose and we need to be prepared for it. As I traveled around the 8 counties in my region during the presidential campaign, I heard people voice a wide array of hopes and expectations for an Obama Administration. Some were reasonable and some were not. Those people in the latter category are certain to be disappointed.
I supported Barack Obama for President for some fundamental reasons:
1) His pledge not to take PAC and corporate money would give him a freer hand to bring about reform;
2) He understands the constitution at a level deeper than any president in my 45 years;
3) He is deliberate in his decision making and has shown an ability incorporate divergent opinion to build consensus.
4) He expressed a view of foreign policy that represents an appreciation for nuance.
What I think is important here is that my support is based more on general principles rather than specific agenda items. I know that President Obama is going to disappoint me -- it’s inevitable. There is just no way that another person can do everything I want him or her to do. Even I disappoint myself from time to time.
I think those of us who worked so hard to get Barack Obama elected have to find a way to mange our expectations while at the same time working to hold our new Administration accountable. That is our duty as citizens.
Ironically enough, I think Candidate Obama’s own words best reflect the best approach: “No Drama” and “Slow and steady wins the race.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
If our economy were a casino
I haven’t written much on this blog since I got involved with the Obama for America campaign at the beginning of the year. Most of my posts have been over at MyBO (http://my.BarackObama.com) but now that the campaign is close to over, perhaps I will find more time to make the occasional post.
This morning, while discussing the unregulated hedge fund and credit-default swaps (CDS) markets, a conservative-leaning friend came up with the perfect analogy: The US government choosing not to regulate these industries is like a casino allowing any croupier to come in, set up a game and put the house at risk.
Any well-run casino is certain to manage the risk to “the house”; why didn’t our government feel compelled to do the same with “our economy?” As with the players in the finance industry who played the game, making bets without moral hazard, was there no moral hazard to our country’s leadership for failing to protect “our house”? Is that part of what this election is about? But after the election, then what?
Granted, like most people, I am still trying to figure out these complicated financial instruments and markets but when the total market for these swaps -- estimates range from 52 to 63 trillion dollars -- is roughly equal to the total world GDP for one year, I have to wonder, what kind of web have we woven? Shakespeare said a “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. To that I add, “insurance by any other name (e.g. a swap) is still insurance” and the necessary reserves should have been required.
I’m not a fan of heavy-handed regulation for I understand how onerous it can be and I would argue that we need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. However, allow me to revisit the issue of “insurance” but this time as an example.
I look at market regulation as similar to an insurance policy. Each month, paying insurance puts a drag on my disposable income but it remains a relatively small fraction in the broader scope of my total expenses. I am willing to pay that cost because I am not willing to suffer greater risk. Why didn’t our leaders look at our financial markets in the same way? Were they blinded by “Market Fundamentalism”?
As my blog is titled -- I’m “moderately inclined”.
This morning, while discussing the unregulated hedge fund and credit-default swaps (CDS) markets, a conservative-leaning friend came up with the perfect analogy: The US government choosing not to regulate these industries is like a casino allowing any croupier to come in, set up a game and put the house at risk.
Any well-run casino is certain to manage the risk to “the house”; why didn’t our government feel compelled to do the same with “our economy?” As with the players in the finance industry who played the game, making bets without moral hazard, was there no moral hazard to our country’s leadership for failing to protect “our house”? Is that part of what this election is about? But after the election, then what?
Granted, like most people, I am still trying to figure out these complicated financial instruments and markets but when the total market for these swaps -- estimates range from 52 to 63 trillion dollars -- is roughly equal to the total world GDP for one year, I have to wonder, what kind of web have we woven? Shakespeare said a “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. To that I add, “insurance by any other name (e.g. a swap) is still insurance” and the necessary reserves should have been required.
I’m not a fan of heavy-handed regulation for I understand how onerous it can be and I would argue that we need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. However, allow me to revisit the issue of “insurance” but this time as an example.
I look at market regulation as similar to an insurance policy. Each month, paying insurance puts a drag on my disposable income but it remains a relatively small fraction in the broader scope of my total expenses. I am willing to pay that cost because I am not willing to suffer greater risk. Why didn’t our leaders look at our financial markets in the same way? Were they blinded by “Market Fundamentalism”?
As my blog is titled -- I’m “moderately inclined”.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Delegate in Denver
I was elected as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. While attending the convention, I was blogging for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Here are the links to my blog posts:
Sunday Evening, Aug 24, 2008:
A newcomer braces for frenzy to come
Monday Morning, Aug 25, 2008:
"Illuminating" message from Denver
Tuesday Morning, Aug 26, 2008:
Putting party before candidate
Tuesday Evening, Aug 27, 2008
Not much wackiness or drama to be found
Wednesday Morning, Aug 28, 2008:
Unified, energized and embracing a new start
Wednesday Evening, Aug 28, 2008:
A "Grand Slam" night
Thursday Morning, Aug 29, 2008:
A ticket to see history
I hope to have one final post regarding the last day, shortly.
Sunday Evening, Aug 24, 2008:
A newcomer braces for frenzy to come
Monday Morning, Aug 25, 2008:
"Illuminating" message from Denver
Tuesday Morning, Aug 26, 2008:
Putting party before candidate
Tuesday Evening, Aug 27, 2008
Not much wackiness or drama to be found
Wednesday Morning, Aug 28, 2008:
Unified, energized and embracing a new start
Wednesday Evening, Aug 28, 2008:
A "Grand Slam" night
Thursday Morning, Aug 29, 2008:
A ticket to see history
I hope to have one final post regarding the last day, shortly.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Bush on costs for future generations
Today I was watching the NewsHour (PBS) reporting on the debate over the new Cap and Trade legislation. I screamed at my TV when I heard George Bush say this:
I could not believe this president, who increased the US Public Debt to approximately $9.5T today from $5.6T in 2000, could make such a statement with a straight face. Granted, debt as a ratio of GDP is below the historical high but should the economy fail to grow or even contract, that debt will remain.
This has been an administration of "do as I say, not as I do."
GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: You know, there's a much better way to address the environment than imposing these costs on the job creators, which will ultimately have to be borne by American consumers.
And I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans. We'll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by taxes increases isn't the right way to proceed.
I could not believe this president, who increased the US Public Debt to approximately $9.5T today from $5.6T in 2000, could make such a statement with a straight face. Granted, debt as a ratio of GDP is below the historical high but should the economy fail to grow or even contract, that debt will remain.
This has been an administration of "do as I say, not as I do."
Saturday, March 08, 2008
I Must Take A Stand
I have a roll to play inside the Obama for America campaign, as a volunteer. However, I also have a roll to play inside this country as a citizen. I realize the two are linked in some ways but below is a letter that I'm sending out because, as a citizen of the country, I feel it is time to hold my ground and make a stand. There is much at risk but in affairs such as these there always is.
Honorable Senator Feinstein,
After 7 years of increasing frustration over how this country was being governed, I had hope that a sea change was underway. After years of politics by division and elections where any tactic was acceptable in the pursuit of victory, I thought the Democrats were going to show the world a different side of America. I now think I was wrong.
I understand that to effect change (i.e. the ends) one must have power (i.e the means) but I still believe that principles matter. If a person or party abandons their principles in the pursuit of power, then I believe they have compromised the moral authority to exercise that power.
Since the South Carolina primary, I have seen tactics employed inside the Democratic party that I had only associated with the Republican party. Since 1992 I have defended and praised the Clintons and as recently as last November considered supporting Senator Clinton for the nomination. That has now changed.
I am so thoroughly disgusted with the way Senator Clinton and her campaign are behaving that there is no way I can support her nomination or candidacy. I believe she is calculating that people will rally behind her because she'll be the last person standing and the lesser of two evils.
I cannot condone or support this and we deserve better. I have not worked for any candidate in 25 years but I have been moved to do so this year because I believe the system is broken and we need real change -- change from the scorched-earth policies of the past.
People are telling me that I have to support Senator Clinton were she to become the nominee because too much is at stake. To them I counter that I can NOT support Senator Clinton precisely because so much is at stake. The soul of the party and the future of this country are at stake and I cannot turn a blind eye to this self-destructive behavior.
I have to take a stand and I am serving notice that should Senator Clinton somehow get the nomination, not only will I not work for her or the party, I will not donate money to her or the party and I will not vote in the general election. In addition, I am going to send this letter to Senator Boxer, Representative Thompson, my local, regional and national papers and publish it in two of my blogs.
I feel this is the only way that I can make my voice heard and demand that we strive to be a people and a party our country and constitution deserve. Principles do matter.
Sincerely,
Chip Roberson
Honorable Senator Feinstein,
After 7 years of increasing frustration over how this country was being governed, I had hope that a sea change was underway. After years of politics by division and elections where any tactic was acceptable in the pursuit of victory, I thought the Democrats were going to show the world a different side of America. I now think I was wrong.
I understand that to effect change (i.e. the ends) one must have power (i.e the means) but I still believe that principles matter. If a person or party abandons their principles in the pursuit of power, then I believe they have compromised the moral authority to exercise that power.
Since the South Carolina primary, I have seen tactics employed inside the Democratic party that I had only associated with the Republican party. Since 1992 I have defended and praised the Clintons and as recently as last November considered supporting Senator Clinton for the nomination. That has now changed.
I am so thoroughly disgusted with the way Senator Clinton and her campaign are behaving that there is no way I can support her nomination or candidacy. I believe she is calculating that people will rally behind her because she'll be the last person standing and the lesser of two evils.
I cannot condone or support this and we deserve better. I have not worked for any candidate in 25 years but I have been moved to do so this year because I believe the system is broken and we need real change -- change from the scorched-earth policies of the past.
People are telling me that I have to support Senator Clinton were she to become the nominee because too much is at stake. To them I counter that I can NOT support Senator Clinton precisely because so much is at stake. The soul of the party and the future of this country are at stake and I cannot turn a blind eye to this self-destructive behavior.
I have to take a stand and I am serving notice that should Senator Clinton somehow get the nomination, not only will I not work for her or the party, I will not donate money to her or the party and I will not vote in the general election. In addition, I am going to send this letter to Senator Boxer, Representative Thompson, my local, regional and national papers and publish it in two of my blogs.
I feel this is the only way that I can make my voice heard and demand that we strive to be a people and a party our country and constitution deserve. Principles do matter.
Sincerely,
Chip Roberson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)