Godheval

Read More »

How is the party with the clear advantage put on the defensive?   Probably because President Obama was insistent upon “reaching across the aisle” – which while honorable – opened the Democrats up to political attack.  It would seem to me that the skeleton crew of Republicans remaining after the massive Democratic victory in November, are those who are the most ideologically opposed to any Democratic initiative.  After all, Republicans in conservative strongholds were unlikely to lose their seats, meaning that most of the casualties were the more moderate in the party.

Therefore, President Obama would be more reaching across a chasm than an aisle.  And really, bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake is absurd.  The Democrats won handily, which signaled an ideological shift amongst the electorate, and left no real need for bipartisanship.  The voters elected to place the future – at least temporarily – in the hands of the Democrats, in the hope that they would at least do things differently than the previous administration.  It’s my opinion anyway, that partisanship is an unavoidable consequence of having parties at all, and I’d just as soon seem them dissolved.

Bipartisanship, in any case, would require a “reaching” from both sides, and in spite of President Obama’s efforts, it is pretty clear that most sitting Republicans had no real intention of doing so.  They are probably still in the process of licking their wounds and attempting to repair their damaged pride – and be damned if they were going to concede any further victory to Democrats in the way of compromise.  That much is obvious in how they used minor flaws in the House bill to criticize the overall initiative.  Furthermore, there is the irony of criticizing spending while advocating for sweeping tax cuts, both of which amount to the same thing – a massive and sustained national debt.  Both spending and reducing taxes bring about similar, if not the same results – and the Republicans’ proposed tax cuts would near triple the Democrats’ projected spending in a few years.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are two separate bills – the House version and the Senate version – which while they overlap considerably, will require some serious reconciliation before a final version can reach the President’s desk.  The Senate version, which initially raised the overall tab to more than $900 billion, has since been trimmed down in another attempt at compromise between Democrats and the few remaining moderates amongst the Republicans.   While some of those cuts came from the more extraneous provisions of the bill, a sizeable portion came from the bedrock of the Democratic agenda – most lamentably, funding for education.

So as I said in the beginning, the only thing that’s clear about the stimulus is that nothing is clear.  Hardly anyone can agree – with differences appearing between economists, along party lines, within parties along ideological lines (liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative) and even between the two houses of Congress.  Personal interests taint if not fully steer any motivations for supporting or opposing the legislation – Democrats stuffing it with agenda items, Republicans fighting it to make a political point, and individuals within each party arguing to ensure their own priorities are adequately represented in the final version.  All of this superseding the purpose of the bill  – to stimulate the economy.

With all of this bickering and maneuvering and chaos, how is anyone – most of all the average citizen – to make any sense of this debacle?  Because hardly anyone can agree, and because even economists – the presumed experts on the subject – can only speculate on the outcomes of any stimulus bill, we can only follow in the politicians’ footsteps, and evaluate the merits of the bill through the lens of those issues that are most important.  For those few of us who support ideology before candidates, and try to remove ourselves from partisan bickering, it would seem to be the only option.

«

Read More »

This would be another place where I disagree with Republicans, as I am certain most of them would rather leave all educational matters to the jurisdiction of the states.  Nevermind that the states have had jurisdiction all this time and have proven themselves in many cases – like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and many southern states – to be unworthy of the responsibility.

Corruption is everywhere, and the education sector is no exception.  From little crimes like low-level school administrators pocketing money intended to go towards programs and technology, to the larger scale offenses of companies like Edison sucking the money out of Philadelphia’s education budget only to effect absolutely no improvements, the public education system needs a watchful eye to ensure that all efforts are focused on improving the quality of our schools.

So I hope that this education stimulus is not merely another instance of throwing money at a problem, but a signal from President Obama that more attention will be paid to improving education nationwide.  It is vital that every penny of the $150 billion be tracked and accounted for if the stimulus is to have any lasting effect.

«

Read More »

It seems to evoke Jim Crow-era symbolism that an African-American appointee would be denied entrance to the Senate, which currently has zero African-American members. But the controversy here isn’t that an African-American wasn’t allowed access to an all-white club, it’s that race was introduced as a factor at all. Burris was not turned away because of his skin color, but because he represents the defiance of Blagojevich.

Now, there is no question that Burris was chosen at least in part because of his ethnicity. Because the Senate is losing its only African-American senator (nevermind that that Senator will go on to become the next President), it was mostly a foregone conclusion that the replacement would also be African-American, in order to maintain the status quo.

But Blagojevich had more in mind than the status quo when he appointed Burris. He anticipated exactly what happened – that any denial of Burris to be seated would evoke the race issue. Not only that, but Burris has the unique distinction of being first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois – when he became the comptroller in 1979, which puts even more weight behind his appointment.

It may be true that some U.S. Senators have ideas about maintaining Senate exclusivity as an “all-white” club, but at the risk of great political fallout, I cannot imagine that any of them would voice those ideas, let alone act on them. So there is little doubt in my mind that the rejection of Burris has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with pride, the Senate attempting to demonstrate their sovereignty – at least within their own ranks.

I am wary of situations where race is injected into matters where it shouldn’t – and actually doesn’t – belong. Every time this happens, it only strengthens the case made by those who like to use troublesome words like “hypersensitivity” or “race-baiting”, and sets back every attempt to truly identify the significance of race within the American social dynamic. It dilutes all of the very real and quite prevalent instances of racial discrimination.

While many people – mostly social conservatives – are in denial about the role that race continues to play in American society, they are right in condemning those instances were race is used as a political tool, or by the media as a way of drawing more readers and viewers. The Roland Burris situation is one such case.

In the end, Roland Burris will be seated, as a matter of legality. Hopefully at that time, or sooner, this race non-issue will be put to rest. That is, of course, until 2010, when the question of Senate exclusivity will probably be raised again in electing a replacement for Burris, who has already decided not to run.

As much as I believe that the Senate should be an all-inclusive body, at least to the degree that it represents the multicultural demographics of the country, I do not think that Illinois or any other state should be held to the expectation that they elect an official of any particular ethnicity. After all, if it were as simple as maintaining a status quo, then we might as well select someone like Alan Keyes or Larry Elder, who have very little interest or personal stake in the plight of African-Americans, and who for their purported ideology would serve in the same ideological capacity as a white counterpart.

«

Read More »

At one time Obama acknowledged a need for Palestinians to be elevated to the status of regular citizens of their country, rather than a colonized, disenfranchised, and oppressed second-class. During his presidential run, in contrast to his previously stated understanding of the Palestinian situation, Obama made very clear and obvious concessions to Israel, and its American lobby – AIPAC.

This is no small thing. While al-Qaida represent the radical fringe of the global Islamic community (to whatever extent we can say such a thing really exists), al-Zawahri’s comments probably do reflect a fear amongst people in the Middle East that Obama – as the next leader of an “American Empire” – will merely continue the policies of his predecessor.

The Islamic world uses the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a gauge of America’s foreign policy. For every year that we unilaterally support Israel, and completely ignore the Palestinians, our reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere diminishes. Bill Clinton made noteworthy strides in mending our relationship with the Middle East through the Oslo accords, but since then, we have regressed – to the point of negating all the work that was done at the time. The current administration didn’t even make an attempt.

Regardless of how you see the Israel-Palestine conflict, regardless of who you think is right or wrong, you would be misguided to believe that the current way we are handling the crisis will eventually bring about any sort of solution. In as far as Obama stays the course, he could rightfully be seen as a betrayer of the faith that many in the Middle East have placed in him as the new face for America.

The use of the term House Negro implies that as an African-American, Obama has some obligation to people of color, either in the United States or abroad. That is where al-Zawahri makes a mistake, because Obama’s obligations have nothing to do with his ethnicity, and everything to do with those who elected him. Only to the extent that those people – the social liberals, progressives, and moderates – support a shift in foreign policy in the Middle East, is Obama obligated to make such a shift.

However, it is also my opinion that he has an obligation as both a human being, and as the future leader of a country which extols the values of justice and freedom, to at least conduct himself in a way that upholds those values unconditionally, and for all people. This means no longer making concessions only to Israel and AIPAC for political gain, but also working towards restoring the Palestinians to their rightful place as healthy and empowered citizens in their own country.

«