[Addendum 7/24/10: The situation involving Shirley Sherrod can fit cleanly is the list of items I have identified previously. The preposterous idea of a “post-racial” America lead straightway to a complete abandonment of the sober consideration of issues when an outrageously edited video purporting to show anti-White racism and to a confirmation that Black people have absolutely no regard in this so-called post-racial society. Indeed, we may as well go back to Jim Crow. The whole affair was sickening and President Obama must accept full responsibility for all of the missteps. Belatedly, yes, he did call Ms. Sherrod, but by then the damage had been well and truly done.
Recall also that Whites are the majority race and hold all of the societal power. This is a fact that is conveniently and repeatedly forgotten.]
Over the past few months I have found myself questioning the direction of President Barack Obama’s Administration. It seems that he is projecting an image that he is centered and calm and does not consider that he can address a broken political system even while he sits at its center of gravity. This rationale is ill-conceived because even though he acts for himself, the consequences of the broken system, of which he and his official actions (or lack of) are a part, will be rightfully attributed to him. For this fact, I cannot accept the thesis of The Washington Post‘s Jonathan Capehart. The President does not need to be angry to act, he needs simply to take productive action, period. Acting like the previous Administration is not productive action.
Several examples (not exhaustive) come to mind as I think about this issue.
Gaza blockade and flotilla killings-In this international incident, the Administration issued a sober, detached statement which indicated its regret for the loss of life on the Mavi Marmara that was headed to Gaza (by going through an Israeli-imposed blockade of the Palestinian Gaza Strip). This regret would be sincere only if the United States were truly not involved in the creation and enforcement of the blockade. Because the United States is intricately involved, it leads one to believe that perhaps they were aware of possible military action against the Mavi Marmara. The answers given by the Administration’s State Department while stating their “neutrality” constantly inferred its belief for the application of the law for blockades rather than the law for boarding civilian vessels at sea. The internal investigation scheduled to be completed during another holiday in the United States (July 4) will very likely find little to no wrongdoing except by the passengers and crew aboard the Mavi Marmara. The President and the United States will be occupied watching the fireworks, etc.
The present Administration is very little different from its predecessor in its foreign policy in this area. Yes, the President gave a so-called address to the Muslim world in Cairo, but since then there has been little to no follow through on much of what the President discussed.
Iran-During the President’s inaugural speech, he stated that he was prepared to negotiate with Iran as long as Iran “unclenched its fist.” Well, the United States may have had an “outstretched hand” but it always has had a club behind its back (the world’s largest military and unilateral international political and financial force). So even as the President was addressing the Muslim world in Cairo, he was laying the seeds for the “Green Revolution” for regime change in and the political isolation of Iran (something the previous Administration would have done).
Health Care Debate-This issue was covered somewhat on this blog. One thing that I noted is that the President criticized the behavior of lobbyists of acting against the passage of his original bill, but he never mentioned his side agreement with the same lobbyists for their support of the bill.
Note: After the health-care bill passed, the President, a Democrat, proclaimed that the bill was a Republican bill.