I've noticed that it's become common for Obama supporters to dismiss Obama critics by arguing that these critics aren't sincere because they said nothing as George W. Bush wreaked havoc on the nation. Obviously, this tactic does allow Obama supporters to avoid responding to individual criticisms, but there's certainly some validity to this idea. The two party system in the United States encourages the party faithful to ignore the failings of their own politicians yet make mountains out of molehills when it comes to even superficial blemishes of the opposition. Undoubtedly many Obama critics would say nothing if a Republican was in office and doing the very same thing. On the other hand, is it really so unreasonable that an individual -- not a dedicated follower of a particular party -- might dislike BOTH President Bush and President Obama?
I would say that yes, it is quite possible. In some ways, I even think it's quite a natural attitude to have. President Bush's greatest failings seem to me have been his push to war with Iraq, his general fiscal irresponsibility, and his disregard for civil liberties. President Obama has inherited and continued Bush's wars, he's not just continued on the path of big spending but pressed down the accelerator, and he has only done a little bit to reverse the excesses of the Bush administration in regards to civil liberties. Bush effectively had a cover for his wars and restrictions of liberty because of the nation's fear of terrorism. Obama effectively has a cover for his economic policies because of the recession. In both cases, I think there are legitimate reasons to question whether the pursued policies of both administrations were really the best thing for the country at the time.
Of course, there are differences between the two presidents as well. Bush earned much love by cutting taxes. Obama has tackled the issue of health care reform, which millions of Americans have been clamoring for for decades, more avidly than any other president. Bush preferred an aggressive foreign policy while Obama favors a conciliatory one, even to the point of not meeting with the Dalai Lama seemingly to placate China. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the majority of remaining support for Bush (and he's no longer a popular politician at all) boils down to the two issues of terrorism and taxation while support for Obama (who still is favored by the majority of Americans) is largely based on health care and the general hope for an expanded safety net. However, I'd say Obama and Bush have more similarities than they have differences overall. It's easy to mistakenly cast one or the other in a false political light. To say Bush didn't care about social issues, for instance, is to overlook his support (billions of dollars worth) for fighting AIDS in Africa, an unprecedented effort. Obama is sometimes presented as being "weak" on foreign policy, but during his presidency so far the image of America has improved globally.
So, I guess it all boils down to what really matters to you. If one or more of Bush's or Obama's pet issues are most important to you, there's a good chance you'll overlook their faults in other, less important (to you) areas. On the other hand, if you dislike big government spending and deficits, corporate bailouts, and wars that just keep going and going, you have every reason to dislike both presidents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment