No Rest for the President

Going into the holidays I’m sure the president was hoping to get a little break.  However that seems to not be the case.  His approval ratings are below 50%. As early as next week he is supposed to be announcing his plans as to what to do in Afghanistan.  Today he will hold his ninth Afghan strategy meeting.  Unemployment is also currently at 10.2%.  There seems to be no end in sight as we close in on President Obama’s first year in office.

As far as the Afghanistan situation if President Obama does decide to deploy more troops it looks like the results would be slow to reveal themselves.  The lack of results would mainly be due to Afghanistan’s infrastructure.  Afghanistan is a landlocked country.  So while it would seems that flying troops in would be the obvious solution the country only has two airfields.

While Obama might not see any results in Health Care of Afghanistan anytime soon he is trying to forge ahead with global emissions.  The United Nations is meeting in Copenhagen, net month to discuss climate change.  During Obama’s Asian tour he met with 19 other leaders to discuss what might come out of Copenhagen.  While they came to the consensus that nothing concrete will result of Copenhagen, that has not stopped President Obama from trying to jump the gun here.  It is predicted that the United States will purpose a near-term target for reducing global emissions.  However Congress seems unable to decide on exactly what that target should be.

It seems that the upcoming holidays are going to be a tough time for our President.  His approval ratings might not see and upward turn for a while.

Health Care Once Again

Welcome back Mr. President, the senate is voting health care tomorrow.  Clinton has recently met with senators telling them passing an imperfect bill was better than nothing.  The senate rendition of the bill would cost $848 billion over a period of about ten years.  At this point it’s basically just a numbers game.  Will this bill pass?  What happens if it does? What if it does not?  I have no idea what the answer is to any of these questions, but tomorrow might start to reveal the dénouement.

Ever since we have lectured about FDR the theme of the presidency has been power, and growth.  It seemed this power struggle came to a pinnacle with the rise of Nixon.  With his second term came a resounding fall, and it seemed a like a serious blow to the power of the presidency as well.  The presidency of Ronald Reagan seemed to affirm that the power that Nixon had once held was not going to be amassed again.  Yet I just read an article that claims the passing of this new health care bill will again give rise to an expanding government.

I understand that, yes if this bill passes it will be the biggest piece of legislation passed in awhile, but it is still no New Deal.  Obama came into his presidency by promising us change, but now that we stand on the precipice of said change people seem to shirking back.  People are frightened of the spread of the government, and yet want the government to solve the issues that they do not want to deal with. I do not think this bill will start us again down the slippery slope that once led to Nixon, but it is possible.  I think that this is bill is our president trying to keep a promise he gave to us.  I don’t think Obama or any of the democrats in the senate vying for the bill are on a power trip.

Obama in Asia

Calling for cooperation in Asia seems to be Obama’s message.  As I follow Obama’s tour through Asia, it seems there are certain ideas that President Obama is constantly reiterating.   One of these is a continuous dialogue with the East.  President Obama is striving for an open and ongoing relationship with many of the Asian countries.  He started in Tokyo where he commented on the upcoming 50^th anniversary of our alliance with Japan and how he hopes to continue President Eisenhower’s desire for  “an indestructible partnership” based on “equality and mutual understanding.”

However it was clear that the President desired to illustrate the interconnectedness that United States citizens share not only with Japan but all Asian nations.

“Asia and the United States are not separated by this great ocean; we are bound by it. We are bound by our past …. We are bound by our shared prosperity – by the trade and commerce upon which millions of jobs and families depend. And we are bound by our people… all the people whose lives, like our countries, are interwoven.”

The United States is looking to the rising powers in the East and is welcoming them into the global community.  President Obama believes that the rise of one country does not always come at the cost of another.  The United States welcomes China’s rising role in international politics, and hopes to share the burden that once so heavily rested primarily on our shoulders.  President Obama hopes for the United States to be more involved in shaping the future of the Pacific region.

I believe that there is no doubt that President Obama’s desire for a more involvement in Asian politics is probably necessary, but it is certainly going to be a hard path to follow.  There are so many different ideologies within Asia, that the idea of appeasing and working cooperatively with everyone is a near impossible task.  I really liked the idea of welcoming China as a rising global power.  It would be nice for the tensions that are still prevalent between China and the U.S.A. to finally ease.  We will not always agree on every issue. I liked how President Obama seems to want to try to cooperate as much as possible, and respects the differences that China and the United States inherently possess.

The Fox News War

Recently the White House has had a few choice words to say to Fox News.  White house communication director Anita Dun said, “often Fox News acts as either the research or communications arm of the Republican army.”  This war has seemed to spread to other networks.  CNN did a segment on the so-called war, and MSNBC was brought into the mix as well.  Fox news immediately plead the first.  They fought back by comparing the White House to the Soviet Union, and the communist’s attempt to jam signals of certain radio broadcasts.

The statement comparing the White House’s claims is a little extreme, but is this a question of censorship?  The White House simple stated the Fox News tends to lean to the right, but is that really a controversial statement?  It seems to me that it is pretty common knowledge that Fox tends to side with the Republicans, just as other networks lean toward the left.  How does a statement claiming that Fox News is Republican get turned into a censorship issue?  It was quite a jump that Fox News made, from right-winged lover, to victim of big brother.

While there is no doubt that Fox News is probably taking this whole White House vs. Fox News too seriously, they are not the only ones to blame.  Does the White House really need to stoop so low as to call out a News network?  Insulting the media cannot help one’s image.  The White House should not result to insulting any particular network.  It will only result in reflecting negatively on them, and accomplishes nothing.  The media will always criticize the current administration.  In conclusion this whole “war” is petty, and childish.  The media should have more newsworthy issues to report on.  As for the White House I’m absolutely positive they have more important issues to deal with, rather than slinging mud at the media.

The Role of the First Lady

Our country has had a lot of influential first ladies in the past.  Franklin D. Roosevelt frequently asked for Eleanor’s position on many major issues.  When Woodrow Wilson came into office his wife said “I am naturally the most unambitious of women and life in the White House has no attractions for me.”  However the last few months of Wilson’s administration were completely run by Ellen Wilson, because of the president’s quickly deteriorating health.  Hilary Clinton, the first lady during Bill Clinton’s administration, is now secretary of state and campaigned for the presidency during the last presidential election.

It’s true that the people of the United States will never truly know exactly what the president reveals to his wife behind closed doors. However these women seem to be the exception to the rule.  Traditionally when people think of the first lady they expect a kind of professional hostess.  Not many first ladies have been known to make a huge impact on major issues.  It is true that most take up a cause that they support, but they aren’t expected to necessarily have opinions on every major issue thrown at the president.

I’m very curious as to which route Michella Obama will take.  Will she go down in history as an Eleanor Roosevelt or as a Jackie Kennedy?  So far most of the media surrounding Michelle Obama has been related to the latest Thakoon dress she is wearing, but most of the public does know that our current first lady is an incredibly intelligent woman.  She had her own illustrious career before her husband became president, so perhaps she will be able to find a happy medium between fashion icon like Jackie Kennedy, and the tenacity that Eleanor Roosevelt exuded.

Leaving a Legacy

During my weekend of mid-term prep dedicated to memorizing the many facts that Professor Hogue so graciously dumped into our eager-for-knowledge hands I began to think about what exactly defines a president’s legacy?  Presidents strive during their terms to leave a positive legacy, or one that leaves America better than when they began (kind of like the girl scout model of making a place cleaner than before), but when we look back on their administration what are they really remembered for?

The President of the United States is a hefty title bestowed on few, and fewer still are even really remembered.  At the beginning of the year many of Professor Hogue asked what we wanted to get from his class, and many of us wanted to learn more about the lesser-known presidents.  However, when we actually were learning about them I could not help but think to myself  “when are we going to get to someone interesting” harsh but true.  I’ve got to say there was quite a dry spell between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

This weekend I was reading my flashcards out loud in my room and when I got to Benjamin Harrison, my roommate declared she never heard of the man.  She even went so far as to seriously question whether he was a president or not (Google proved her wrong).  My roommate is not ignorant or out of touch in fact she is one of the smartest people that I know, but she still had never heard of Benjamin Harrison.  I guess there is a reason that the lesser-known presidents are well, less well known.

change takes time

Every time a new president takes office we begin to see the cycle of approval ratings begin again.  Whenever a new president gets elected he starts out with relatively high approval ratings.  However as his time in office goes on we see a downward spiral in the ratings.  The approval ratings do go up and down, but they never seem to reach the pinnacle that they were at during the beginning.  So it is no surprise that President Obama’s ratings have already started to drop, but what is the cause of this cycle?  Why has his prestige in the international community seem to flourish while here in the United States we do not seem to hold our own President in such a high esteem?

While there are certainly many extenuating factors that contribute to the downward spiral of approval ratings I think that one factor that strongly affects how we view our president is our inherent impatience.  We like things done fast.  We like fast food, fast cars, and fasting (just kidding about the last one).  Our impatience tends to relate how we view politics as well.  However while the United States of today likes speed, the United States of yesteryear preferred a slower pace of life.  Our founding fathers did not live in a time of Nascar, and McDonalds.  No they had buggy races, and home cooked meals.

Our founding fathers created a political system in which any change takes time.  Passing a bill is not something that can be done fast.  Congress has so many contradicting opinions in it that change results slowly after much deliberation, the bigger the change usually the more time it takes.  Obama’s health care bill that is currently in Congress is big change so yeah it is going to take a little time.   This is something that the American people seem to forget.  We are so used to having our needs met immediately that when we look for the change we were promised and see nothing we are always quick to criticize. Since the president is popularly elected he is the first to bear the blunt of our disapproval.  While impatience is not the only factor that affects how the citizens view their president I believe it is safe to say it is definitely a factor.

And the Award Goes to…..

When I first heard that Obama received the Nobel Peace prize my first thought was “what?  He has not even been in office for a year and already he is receiving one of the most prestigious awards ever?”  It seemed even more ironic to me after what we discussed last class.  As SNL so eloquently put it Obama has done pretty much nothing.  So why was he awarded the Nobel Peace prize?  Now do not get me wrong I am a fan of Obama, and his administration, but I would have to say that I do believe it is way too early to be awarding him awards left and right.  We should probably wait until he completes at least one of his promised goals.

Needless to say I was pretty curious as to the politics behind the nomination, so I started to look for answers from the media.  The Christian Science Monitor has an article discussing the politics. They claimed that this prestigious recognition was a result of international politics.

America’s standing in the international community was at a “nadir by the end of the Bush administration.”  So basically part of the reason Obama received the award was based solely on the fact that he was not George W. Bush.  The same article purposes that by giving Obama the award they hope to stimulate progress.  In the past Nobel Peace Prizes helped to bring attention to specific causes.  In 1996 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Cardinal Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos Orta and proved to move forward their campaign for independence for East Timorese from Indonesia.

So what was committee hoping to receive from President Obama?  Apparently they want him to fulfill his campaign promise of more international stability and peace.  Which is a pretty extensive goal, unlike that of Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos Orta more specific agenda.  The committee claims that they hope that Obama will first fulfill this promise with the crisis that has arisen in the Middle East.  While I understand more as to why President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, I still wonder isn’t it still a little too soon?  It would seem to me that the award would make more sense if there was a specific cause that Obama is pursuing that they want to highlight, or if they just waited until he met some of his international goals.  Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize based on promoting international stability, and peace and not being Bush seems too broad to be of any true merit.

Dealing with Afghanistan and Gen. McChrystal

Lately Afghanistan has joined the news alongside healthcare and the all-important International Olympic Committee.  General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has voiced his opinion loud and clear as to what he thinks should be done.  Currently there are 68,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and the proposed strategy calls for an additional 40,000.  Other proposals of how to deal with the situation  have also been introduced.  Vice President Biden has called for focusing only on Al Qaeda, and Senator Carl Levin proposed increasing the training of the Afghan troops.

Going back to the 2008 campaign I remember one hurdle Obama had to overcome was his inexperience with foreign affairs.  Here is one of the first major foreign issues that he must deal with.  This could very well set precedent for the rest of his administration in relation to issues like this one.  While it is important that Obama makes a quick decision it is also important that he addresses Gen. Stanley McChrystal directly.  The general is speaking up and trying to push his proposal on the Commander and Chief, and in a way questioning Obama’s authority by touching on issues of policy even if that was not his intention of doing so.  Along with that the general has also publicly stated that Vice President Biden’s proposal would lead to “Chaos-istan.”

Now Obama has to an important decision to make, and the public pressure that Gen. McChrystal has put on him has made it even harder.  This raises the question of exactly how far can the military go to get what they want?  On the other hand during the Bush administration the Democrats critical of Bush for not allowing the military to speak up about Iraq.  Where exactly is the balance between too much voice and too little?

UN Global Warming Summit: China vs. the United States result… stalemate

Recently President Obama has made a whirlwind of public appearances mainly trying to push the health care bill.  However, yesterday he had something other than healthcare on the agenda. Tuesday was a one-day meeting of the UN global warming summit.  The summit was looking to lay out the beginnings of a plan to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  The United States and China have been known for having some of the highest rates of greenhouse gas emission in the world and so all heads were turned toward them, and their plans for the future as the summit progressed.

President Obama was quick to point out all the accomplishments that the United States has made to reduce their greenhouse emissions.  For example there has been a bill recently passed in the House that requires the curbing of emissions by 17% by 2020. He also mentioned that congress is working on an energy and climate bill.  Obama asserted that the developed nations should take the lead when it comes to curbing carbon emissions, but he specifically emphasized China and India.  Tomorrow Obama will lead his first G20 summit and global warming is once again the agenda.

It is expected that once again like Tuesday, at least on the global warming issue, all heads will be turned once again toward China and the United States.  It seems like there will also be the inevitable finger pointing, China saying The United States has made no real progress and the United States claiming that China has not done much either.  It seems these two emission producing giants are at a stalemate each unwilling to curb their emissions until the other does something as well.  Hopefully at the G20 summit tomorrow some sort of truce will be worked out, but realistically probably not.