Over and over the President has proven, using his own words, and through his own actions, that he errs on the conservative side of liberal. This should come as no surprise. Aside from the health care debate – which is nigh on a century old – he has proven to be, both now and during the election, a middle-of-the-road liberal. Hardly radical, and probably not even a progressive, really.
The majority of America voted for a president who is even-keeled, pragmatic, empathetic, and intelligent … and, while disappointments are sure to occur and he probably will fall short on issues that hit us personally, President Obama presented to everyone pretty much exactly who he is and what his intentions are.
That said, the President of the United States probably does not know you personally, therefore he – like many of us – speaks to us in general terms. So, this statement is particularly perplexing: “Obama’s path is so clearly illuminated by the light of his own reason, he simply can’t entertain another possible way of being, a different set of beliefs, held by an intelligent person who is well-informed and well-intentioned-or so his language about cynicism, fear, and lies strongly implies.”
What the author has done is describe herself. You see, she should know very well that what the president was referring to when he wrote the following in an August NYT OpEd: “In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain.” She should know very well that he is not speaking of intelligent disagreements or actual policy debate. No, he is talking about – and we continue to talk about – actual misrepresentation of the facts. She should know this.
That an editor of Reason Magazine in an editorial that same month – and smack dab in the middle of all the town hall shenanigans, talks of death panels, comparisons to Marxism, Nazis, and Socialism (not the helpful sort) – would use personal feelings that Obama somehow will not negotiate with ‘disagreers’ to misrepresent what the point of the President’s piece actually was about is rather confusing, perhaps even unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment