Furthermore, consider a more specific application of this comparison: The clamor was vociferous and provocative; letters-to-the-editor, syndicated columns, even bumper stickers made up the plethora of formal and informal responses to the administration's handling of several issues, most notably the Iraq War.
As the nation slowly recovered from the 9/11 tragedy and the troubling years that followed, people questioned the prudence of the invasion up to the 2008 election, which evidenced the exacerbated frustrations with President Bush.
It was on this wave of upheaval that Barack Obama-touting his voting against the invasion as a senator and campaigning to end the war-rode to victory in the presidential election.
However, now that Obama has taken over as commander-in-chief, his promise to end the occupation seems to have become nothing more than giving the nation an opportunity to clear its conscience by renaming the war on terror the "Overseas Contingency Operation" and setting a date for the withdrawal - August 2012.
And that's assuming the date doesn't get pushed back in the three years in between now and then. Why then, did we bury the strong sentiment that plagued the Bush Administration on Jan. 20?
The president, who based so much of his personal appeal on his dedication to policy over politics, conveniently set the deadline for ending the war for just three months before the 2012 election, in which he will be seeking his reelection. Coincidence? Ha. He is indeed a politician, after all. The nation needs to maintain a level head and approach all policies with a prudent distrust, or else risk falling victim to political amnesia and losing many of the agendas it supported at the polls last November.
There are those who will say this is simply stirring the pot and undercutting the president without enough time or actions to judge him on; there always are.
And indeed, stirring the pot is exactly the intent of this commentary - it has been shown that this is necessary for a desired public policy to be enacted.
In regard to the latter accusation, this historical context does not imply that we have gone 0-3 in our perceptions; it is still early in the young president's tenure. However, political columns in protest of a government action always fall into two categories: warnings and petitions.
Unfortunately, for those who advocate waiting to pressure the President on issues, choosing the latter is to be choosing too late.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 10 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
How did this article get on here? While the cats are away the CT conservative mice will play, I suppose. Who is Scott to hold a politician to their word? Obama said he was going to fix things so things will be fixed-period. All questions do is get in the way of productive change.
Reply to this Top
Kudos, Scott. It took many years of listening to my father rant about the New Deal and the steady decline toward our current state of government control in almost every area of our lives before I actually started reading up on it. Frightening.
Reply to this Top
Sean, that's absolutely hilarious! good satire. Yes, questioning the gov't is always BAD. matter of fact, why don't we do away with elections-- all they are is disruptive of democracy. just out of curiosity, did you ever question Pres. Bush? (for the record, I'm not a conservative, either. As i said during the Bush era and still today, the patriot act makes me sick).
Reply to this Top
I'm not into politics, I'd characterize myself as a conservative but I don't like how people sort themselves into political parties. I remember back in the day I liked nominee Bush's message of "US should not be in the business of nation building." Holy Jesus look how that one turned out! And his promotion of home ownership was a big thing I had a problem with. I had no idea it was going to turn out the way it did, but I remember his talking up home ownership whereas I thought that if people couldn't afford a house then they shouldn't get one. I like how you used the name "publius", I was going to write in my previous post how all policy editorials should be published anonymously since the "D" and "R" next to somebody's name have more to do with support than the actual substance. I am currently reading the Federalist Papers for my bathroom time literature so that is why I was thinking about it.
Reply to this Top
Doesn't Bush's contradiction between campaign and presidency just prove the point of the article? I don't see what any of that has to do with questioning the president-- except that we have to hold politicians to what they promise, otherwise they won't keep their promises.
Reply to this Top
Get real. Your juvenile economic analysis is cute at best, dangerously ignorant at worst.
Reply to this Top
Concerned Reader, please educate us on this "dangerously ignorant" economic analysis you refer to. While you're at it, please explain how further increasing the national debt is going to fix the debt problem in this country. As I see it, individuals took on more debt than they could ever repay. Banks did the same, packaging up these bad loans and pretending they were worth more than they are. Now along comes the Fed, piling on the national debt at unprecedented levels to bail out the banks and individuals who took on too much debt. Why should I expect the Fed's results to differ? Is it because they're bigger? Is it because they can print money at will? That's a fallacy, you know. Sooner or later (as individuals have been learning) you have to pay the piper.
Reply to this Top
Well written article. The only I would say is that a good candidate has no choice but to promise things that he or she may not be able to completely come through with. So I don't think its that big of a deal that Obama is calling for our "residual force" in Iraq to stay a bit longer than originally stated. However, you are right that we absolutely must keep the pressure generally on our leaders in order to hold them accountable and avoid the political amnesia you speak of.
Reply to this Top
It is a myth that spending for world war 2 ended the great depression. The depression ended because of dramatically loosened economic policy, rapid technological advancement and education. And my personal theory is that the introduction of women to nontraditional roles in the labor force helped as well. But the author is right. The new deal was stupid and Obama is very stupid. At least FDR has the excuse that modern macroeconomics hadn't been developed yet. I hate Barack Obama and everyone who supports him.
Reply to this Top
Correction- dramatically loosened MONETARY policy, not "economic" policy as I wrote in my last post.
Reply to this Top