Among my fellow Lowly Insects I found a man who has seemingly left his blog behind (he last posted in December, announcing a hiatus, and hasn't been back since). He wrote an essay, let's call it, describing his vision of the ideal president and the ideal policies, ones which he felt would resonate among all Americans. I am taking it upon myself to respond to them, point-by-point. This isn't a fisking, because, as I wrote here, a fisking implies contempt. I am just going to question.
What Our Nation Needs
At this time of division in our nation, many people are asking the question, "What does our nation need?"
It does not need a religious fanatic. It does not need a corporate crony. It does not need a warmonger. It does not need another talking head who recites party policy.
These things we know to be true.
This is boilerplate. Your standards of "religious fanatic," "corporate crony," "warmonger," and "talking head," are not mine. Therefore, I'm afraid I can't agree with your implication that the President is all of these, which makes it difficult to join your "we".
We still leave the question unanswered. What DO we need?
The United States needs a leader. A statesman. Someone like FDR or JFK. Am I stating that either of these two men were perfect? Of course not. No man is perfect.
However, both men were strong willed. Both new how to address the people of the nation. Both worked to restore a feeling of safety and comfort to the people.
Is it your estimation that Reagan, just as an example, had none of these qualities? Just asking.
FDR was elected during the great depression. He had a plan. He pushed the plan into action. Today, we still have programs he initiated in place. Social Security. Unemployment insurance.
Social Security is an argument for another time. Unemployment insurance I have no criticism of. But I notice that you don't mention any of JFK's achievments. What was it about his presidency that you admired? I, personally, don't see much at all to esteem, though he did cut taxes.
So what plan does this great American statesman, that our nation needs, need? He needs a plan to address terrorism. Not one of attacking other nations, but one of securing our homeland. He needs a plan to secure our borders, to prevent terrorists from gaining entry. He needs a plan to secure our nuclear power plants, our shipyards and harbors. At a time when American should be consolidating our military power at home, we are instead fighting battles abroad and spreading our military too thin in the task.
You seem to be implying that the way to combat terrorism is to have the military police the targets that terrorists are most likely to attack, to be building up our domestic security apparatus, to be sealing the borders that terrorists will not get in. In other words, since trying to change other nations is out of bounds, we must accept a permanent police state, empowered to do whatever is necessary to prevent another damaging attack. I have to say that I don't think the consensus exists for this. If I have misread you, may I ask for more details?
He needs a plan to control government spending. He needs a plan to lower and eventually dissolve the national debt. He needs a plan to bring jobs to the US, not send them abroad. He needs a New Deal.
As I understand it, the New Deal involved a vast increase in government spending. I agree that such spending needs to be reined in. But the most expensive programs happen to be the most popular ones. Regardless of what spending gets cut, someone is going to get angry.
One way to "bring jobs to the US" might be to decrease corporate taxes and burdensome regulations that drive companies overseas. A president who does this, however, will undoubtedly be referred to as a "corporate crony." It also will make getting rid of the debt more difficult.
He needs a plan to enact corporate responsibility. He needs a plan to bring healthcare costs under control and to cover every American citizen with a national healthcare plan. He needs to ensure that illegal immigrants are either urged to earn US citizenship, and not play the green card system for their own personal gain.
How are we to give every American citizen healthcare and rein in government spending?
He needs to bring taxes in line with wealth. The more you make, the more you pay and vice versa. He needs to protect the American worker, the lower, the middle, and the upper classes. He needs a vision of fair treatment and constitutional guarantees of equal and inalienable rights.
I am given to understand that this is how the system already works. The tax system is based on graduated percentages, so the more you make, the more you pay. I would like to see the evidence that this is not true.
As to the constitution, what rights do you have in mind that are not already enshrined in the constitution, or rather, how are the rights we already possess not "equal and inalienable"?
A true statesman would welcome transparency in his government. A true leader has nothing to hide.
He should neither tow the party line nor follow the party creed. He must, most importantly, think first of what will benefit the American people the most. He must be a humanitarian. Yet, at the same time, he must be prepared to defend the American people with military force as a last resort.
At what point may the "last resort" be employed? There seems to be a sea of disagreement on this subject.
He must be willing to compromise on some issues, while refusing to budge on others.
All politicians have some issues on which they will not budge, and some on which they are flexible. What specific issues did you have in mind?
It's a tall order. Some would say that it is impossible to fill. I say that it is not impossible.
We in America seem to have fallen for the myth that a truly great president must be wealthy, college educated, and well-known. I say that that myth is wrong. The greatest thing a US president can possess is a patriotic spirit and a healthy dose of common sense.
Common sense, you ask? Yes, good old fashioned common sense.
I agree with this up to a point, because I don't know that "common sense" is as widely accepted as perhaps it once was. Many people find some of the notions that some call "common sense" offensive, and I don't know that anyone has defined "common sense" in any but a few specific cases.
I'll give a hypothetical example.
To protect our nation from terrorists, what could a man of common sense do?
You'll forgive me, but this isn't very hypothetical at all. Terrorism is a well-known issue about which many opinions exist. You seem to be trying to declare what you think a president should do to be "common sense." I don't think this a very persuasive tactic.
First, he must listen to his intelligence advisors. Then he must question their authenticity. He must ask questions, and expect answers. He cannot ignore warnings. We saw on 9/11 what happens when warnings are ignored.
What if he gets a warning, from his intelligence advisors, questions their authenticity, and errs in so doing? If all warnings must be accepted as valid, it is difficult to question them. Also, what is your basis for assuming that the President does not do this?
If the intelligence groups cannot provide the answers needed, then he must err on the side of caution and then address the issue of inadequate intelligence agencies. He must communicate with the American people on a regular basis. He must reassure the people. He must increase the security at our borders and increase security on our airlines. He must push for standardized training guidelines for security officers.
In other words, the intelligence and security apparatus of the federal government must be vastly increased, and the capacity of the government to watch the people inside the borders made stronger. Again, I feel that many will object to this.
To pay for this, he must stop wasteful government spending. He must urge congress to actually read the bills that they are voting on. If the result is a slower legislative process, then so be it. We as American people must learn to slow down, to think before we act, to understand before we rush headlong into an issue.
There is absolutely nothing I can object to about this, in principle. I must ask however, precisely which government spending do you consider "wasteful"? It matters, because one person's "wasteful" is another person's "needful". Many groups are attached to certain programs, anc can motivate members of the populace to vote with that in mind. It is a political hurdle that every president has dealt with.
The statesman must present this case to the American people. He must then pursue a more progressive tax plan. He must streamline social programs and make them more efficient. He must seek to lower bureaucratic wastefulness and red tape.
So, less spending, more taxes. That's going to be a tough program to sell.
Most importantly, the statesman must gather a diverse team of advisors, from all professions, representing the interests of the American people. They must be black, white, Asian, democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, religious, and non-religious, and on and on. He needs to listen to their advice, and weigh the alternatives to determine the best, most effective choice for the American people.
Not to be glib, but a body like this already exists. It's called Congress, and for the President to get anything done, he must listen to them.
He must remember that he is a federal employee and a civil servant. He must remember that the office of president is not a priviledge, but a job. He must be a man of the people, and a servant of the people.
Every President since Jackson has labored to make this his image. What is your basis for assuming that Bush does not agree with every word of this?
I believe, that if such a person were to present a common sense approach for the American people, that the American people would unite behind that person. That grass root donations would and could pay for his presidential campaign, without the need for corporate sponsors who would later expect favors.
I've pointed out several points where people might not agree. But let us assume you were right, and a president came to power with a vast popular mandate to increase the surveillance powers of the federal government, decrease spending, increase taxes, close the borders, etc. What problems can you for see with such policies being implemented? How should they be addressed?
Maybe its all just a dream, but it is the American Dream.
Be careful of such assertions. I'm an American, and I don't know that this is my dream.
Allow me to reiterate that I find these arguments merely questionable, not offensive. It's said that such is about all we have in the way of consensus these days. But I guess that is the nature of an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment