Zeitgeist Zephyr

Today the White House posted the full text of President Obama’s Back to School Speech set for tomorrow.  I’ve read through it and I must say, this president is running a mighty fine propaganda machine.  That is, if you consider him making a speech that motivational speakers all across the country have done for decades to encourage students to study and stay in school, then yes, what President Obama is going to say amounts nothing more than unbridled political propaganda.

People have argued, and as an Obama supporter I concede that yes, President Obama will be pushing his agenda onto students.  That agenda is personal responsibility, like doing homework, respecting teachers, and staying in school so that they can make a positive and lasting contribution to society.  It’s a familiar agenda that has been supported by every single president and the last time I checked personal responsibility is a cornerstone of conservative ideology.  What baffles me is that when the President does something that everyone should agree on, pure and unbridled party-line politics get in the way.  Parents are concerned that Obama will indoctrinate their children with his “dirty” liberal political agenda. 

Staying in school and studying hard on the student’s behalf is not a political viewpoint, and I fear that if this country has reached the point where parents will pull their children out of school when the President echoes these sentiments, then all hope is lost for America’s future, which depends on bright educated minds to create the new ideas that will drive America into a better future.  Without education, America will quickly stagnate and decline.  Studying is not a political ideal, it is a cultural necessity for a society with its eyes to the future. 

Put the partisan politics away for 30 minutes and maybe the President will inspire the next Bill Gates or Albert Einstein to drop the doobie and open a text book.  You just never know…

The entire text of the president’s speech can be found here.    

I’m tackling this because since it’s the headline on Drudge it’s bound to start making its rounds through the conservative talk show and blog cycle this week, so I’ll make my own preemptive strike on the issue so I don’t have to worry about complaining about it this week.

Pew released a new poll that indicates a 61% difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of how he is handling his job.  A similar poll for Bush in 2001 had a 51% difference, Clinton had a 45% difference in 1993, and the first Bush had a 38% difference in 1989.  Going back further for Reagan, Carter, and Nixon, the numbers are 46%, 25%, and 29% respectively.  Written out in a list form so they’re easier to see

•  61
• 51
• 45
• 38
• 46
• 25
• 29

will show that just as a general trend, politics have been becoming more partisan since the late 1960’s during a president’s first term according to polls in the March-April timeframe.  This is as much Obama’s doing as it is W. Bush’s, Clinton’s, Bush’s, Reagan’s, etc.  I encourage you to try to place all the blame on Obama.  

Every politician says they’ll try to work with the other side better to create fairer legislation.  It’s hardly Obama’s fault that there are differences on how to handle an economic crisis, mind you that’s been really the only thing that’s been seriously dealt with since his presidency started.  If it hasn’t been the economy, there’s been a way to tie it into the issue if he’s already tackled it. 

Let’s also not lose sight that politicians have an agenda.  President Obama has an all Democrat Congress.  If he requests a piece of legislation that has x,y and z components, he’ll more than likely get it.  Compared to Bush, who was so conservative we really don’t know what he was, he had a Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled House in 2001.  Think anything could get passed in that environment very easily? Clinton had Democrats in both houses of Congress, so his difference was high, but HW Bush had to put up with Democrats in both houses during his first year too, so he had to be more bi-partisan, hence a lower difference.  I could go on for hours, but for the purposes of pleasing my conservative readership, Reagan had to deal with a Democratically controlled House his first year in office, so, again, not a lot got accomplished, and the numbers are eerily similar to W. Bush’s in a similar situation.   

My point?  It’s all a matter of what a president is faced with and their ability to get things passed.  Clinton’s first term was an all Democratic government much as it is now, the numbers being virtually the same in the House and Senate.  I’m sure that if he were dealing with an economic crisis much like this at that time, he would be responding in similar fashion with a similar public response.  This is by no means a reflection on Obama himself, just a reflection of how the Democrats are choosing to handle the crisis and that America is still America and not everyone agrees with their chosen strategy. 

Sources: 

Party Politics from 1945 to 2009: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Pew Research Center Article: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic    

I may have been in 5th grade at the time that George W. Bush was starting his first term, but I do remember an event in his first year as president that got overshadowed after 9/11 and had many, including my 5th grade teacher, talking about he possibility of a conflict with the Chinese.  On 1 April 2001 near Hainan Island in China, a Chinese interceptor jet and a U.S. Navy surveillance plane collided and the Navy plane was forced to make an emergency landing in China.  The crew members on board destroyed all sensitive equipment and data for nearly 15 minutes after landing before being detained until 11 April by the Chinese military.  The nature of the event is still surrounded in speculation, but many view the Chinese response as a test towards George W. Bush and many feared during the event that it could have escalated into a military conflict between the U.S. and China. In their defense, China called the Navy flight a violation of their airspace in accordance with the UN Convention of the Laws of the Sea.  Sound familiar?

Over the past week, the U.S. Navy surveillance ship the USNS Impeccable has been repeatedly harassed by Chinese ships including Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, a Chinese Navy intelligence collection vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers.  Mind you this is all occurred about 75 miles south of Hainan in the South China Sea.  The Chinese are claiming that the ship was in violation of the Chinese special economic zone in the South China Sea and is thus in direct violation of international and Chinese laws.  

Interesting coincidence?  Perhaps, but it is nearly a tradition of America’s rivals to test new presidents as they enter into their first term.  North Korea is prepping to test a missile, likely a Taepodong-2 akin to one tested a few years ago on the 4th of July, within the next week or so.  Whatever their intentions are, they have put their military on high alert and have warned they are prepared for an all out war should their missile or satellite be shot down.  

However President Obama responds to these crises, it is good to keep in mind these are largely tests on him to determine how he stands up under pressure on the international stage when faced with a crisis.  I don’t really expect much to happen as a result of these events (knock on wood) beyond figuring out how Obama does handle a crisis and how China and North Korea will respond, but anything is possible.  If Obama holds to his campaign promises of how to handle international diplomacy, everything should turn out just fine.