Here’s a Side-By-Side Comparison of How Obama, Rubio, & Paul View the State of the Union
President Barack Obama on Monday went before Congress to deliver his State of the Union address, the first of his second term.
Shortly after the president’s speech,
Florida senator and rising GOP star Marco Rubio delivered the official
Republican response. And shortly after Sen. Rubio’s response, Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul delivered the official Tea Party response.
In their own words, here’s a look at how President Obama, Sen. Rubio, and Sen. Paul view the following topics:
The Economy:
Obama:
[W]e gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs – but too many people still can’t find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs – but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.
Most Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share.
Rubio:
Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012. But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.
Paul:
Under the Obama economy, 12 million people are out of work. During the President’s first term 800,000 construction workers lost their jobs and another 800,000 simply gave up on looking for work.[...]Under President Obama, the ranks of America’s poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work.[...]With my five-year budget, millions of jobs would be created by cutting the corporate income tax in half, by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%, and by cutting the regulations that are strangling American businesses.
National Debt:
Obama:
[T]he biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms – otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.
Rubio:
The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment. The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in.
One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.
Paul:
Over the past four years [President Obama] has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.[...]This massive expansion of the debt destroys savings and steals the value of your wages.Big government makes it more expensive to put food on the table. Big government is not your friend. The President offers you free stuff but his policies keep you poor.[...]Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.
It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.
Where would we cut spending; well, we could start with ending all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America.
Immigration:
Obama:
[T]he time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.[…]Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.
And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.
Rubio:
We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.
Paul:
We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future. We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities. We must be the party that says, “If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you.”
“The Sequester”:
Obama:
These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.
Rubio:
We don’t have to raise taxes to avoid the President’s devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.
Paul:
The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade.[...]Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America’s credit rating. Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess.
Energy:
Obama:
Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year — so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.[…]I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.
Rubio:
One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil, and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called “clean energy” companies like Solyndra, let’s open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration.
And let’s reform our energy regulations so that they’re reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.
Paul:
Sen. Paul in his response didn’t specifically address U.S. energy, but it’s widely known that he opposes government intervention in the free market. Obviously, this would extend to large and expensive government investments (i.e. the people’s money) in “green” energy.“The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it!” Sen. Paul said.“For those who are struggling we want to you to have something infinitely more valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and pathway to success,” he added.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/12/heres-a-side-by-side-comparison-of-how-obama-rubio-paul-view-the-state-of-the-union/
The Broke, Retreating State of Our Union
In reality, the state of our union is this: The United States is today $6 trillion deeper in debt than it was before Barack Obama was first sworn in as president. That represents an increase of 57 percent in just four years. Put another way: Out of every dollar the country owes in government debt, 36 cents was acquired under the Obama administration.
The state of our union is this: Today there are more than 4 million fewer Americans working than there were when Barack Obama was first sworn in as president — not including those who have retired. The work-force-participation rate is at a historic low. Never before have so many Americans simply abandoned the hope of a job.
The state of our union is this: Economic growth is weaker than it has been during any recovery in recent memory; in fact, the economy shrank in the last quarter. Those figures may be revised, but in any case growth is so weak that the difference between what President Obama calls a recovery and what economists fear is the beginning of a new recession is within the margin of measurement error.
The state of our union is this: Incomes are lower today than they were when Barack Obama was first sworn in as president. True, he became president during a recession, and incomes dropped 2.6 percent during the recession. Since the end of the recession, they have dropped another 4.8 percent — which is to say, incomes have fallen almost twice as fast during President Obama’s so-called recovery than they fell during what he (inaccurately) called “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”
How strange, then, that the president declared during his annual address: “A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs — that must be the North Star that guides our efforts. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?” That is a remarkably brass-faced assertion for a president whose policies have neither achieved strong growth nor attracted more jobs to our shores nor improved the ability of workers to secure high-skilled jobs nor strengthened the relationship between hard work and a decent living. Barack Obama is incapable of grappling with his own record.
He further promised that his policies would not add “a single dime” to the national debt when he already has added some 60 trillion dimes to it, and while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the president’s 2013 spending blueprint would add another 64 trillion dimes to the deficit in the coming years. That on top of the tax increases he already has demanded and secured.
But there is more to the state of our union than the feeble state of our economy. The president boasted that a decade of war is coming to an end. It is, and a new decade of war is beginning. He boasted that al-Qaeda is decimated, but that news has not reached Bengazi or most of North Africa. So the state of our union also is this: North Korea sets off nuclear weapons with impunity. Iran seeks them without fear. Islamists slaughter our diplomatic personnel while the president’s national-defense team keeps bankers’ hours. Our allies are unsure, our enemies are emboldened. Our troops may be coming home, but it is not clear that we have secured the objectives for which we dispatched them. It is even less clear that President Obama has any intention of doing so.
The president’s confrontational, hectoring, and highly ideological speech ought to be a wake-up call to the country. The Republican majority in the House is the only real check on his power. Supplementing that check with a Republican majority in the Senate is imperative. Even through all of President Obama’s obfuscations, that much is clear.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340557/broke-retreating-state-our-union-editors
The State of Our Union Rendered in a Fractured Bizarro Lens
The state of our union is weak and fraying. This president has launched attacks on faith and is going out of his way to divide our people. Our economy is not growing, it contracted in the final quarter of 2012. Our economy is not growing jobs. On the international front, North Korea greeted President Obama’s 2013 rendition of Give Me More Money with a nuclear test — a sure sign that his strategy of engagement, which his soon-to-be defense secretary supports, is a failure.
But like with all of his other failed policies, Barack Obama declared that he will just keep on doing them all.
So he declared that he wants to hit the wealthy with more taxes. This will not create jobs or grow the economy. He just raised their taxes a month ago. How much will be enough? Liberals never answer that question. Barack Obama pretends that it is never asked.
He wants to “ask more of our wealthy seniors,” a line that Sen. Obama and his speechwriter, who once penned lines for Ted Kennedy, would have dubbed a “war on grandma.”
He called on getting arguments out of politics, which really is a call for duly elected Republicans in Congress to forget who elected them and why, and just do what he wants.
He called for a new revolution in manufacturing in America, through some government-centered hub system. And he called for a hike in the minimum wage, which will keep pricing American labor higher than many of our competitors around the world. In Barack Obama’s way of telling, he was not calling for bigger government, even though he was. The economic consequences of his ideas are less relevant to him than the sound of his voice.
Barack Obama is like this: incoherent. He calls for new government “investments” while claiming that they will not increase the deficit. His plans to pay for them appear to rest on magic.
Barack Obama has no economics background. Upon what basis does he make his claims about creating jobs or growing the economy? It’s all entirely political, not based on any sound reality. He is addicted to spending other people’s money. For the sake of our country, he needs an intervention.
Shortly after declaring that he wants our economy to grow, he called for more action on “climate change.”
This “action” will come in the form of more regulations on our industries. The science has left him and his party on this, but he does not care. He also does not care that his “action” on “climate change” will kill American jobs, as his previous regulatory actions have done. His war on coal has already wiped out thousands of jobs across America. How many jobs will he kill before he is satisfied?
How can America become a manufacturing powerhouse again, when our president is systematically shutting off the power?
If Congress won’t act soon on climate change, the president said, he will. This was a threat. Plain and simple. A threat to override the Constitution, sideline the Congress, and ignore the will of the American people.
But threats from a president who seated an illegal alien at his grand speech should come as no shock. To Barack Obama, the law is an obstacle, not a guide or a limit. He has swept Congress aside before via executive orders, and he intends to do so again.
His actions amount to a hacking of the US.. Constitution. Under our system, the two houses of Congress serve as checks on each other, and together, they serve as checks on the president’s power, and the three branches check and balance one another. But this president has the Senate in his back pocket through its leader, Sen. Harry Reid. Reid renders Obama impervious to congressional and court action against him. Thus, when his recess appointments were judged illegal by the courts, he simply ignored the courts. Harry Reid has his back.
Obama called for the federal government to “redesign high schools.” Does he not know that schools are creatures of local and state, not the federal, governments? Does he care? Does he see no limits at all on the things that should occupy a president’s time?
And again, on what basis does the president who cannot even submit a budget make the claim that he is qualified to redesign high schools?
It’s all absurd. Barack Obama is the absurd president. He makes no attempt to make any sense, yet the media will pretend that he is a visionary.
The reality is, Barack Obama is just a very powerful crank.
From there he moved on to pressing for “comprehensive immigration reform.” He claimed that he believes in stronger border security, which simply is not credible when his homeland security chief claims that the border has never been safer while there is a civil war raging in Mexico. He called on people of faith, whom he has attacked via the ObamaCare abortifacient mandate, to help him “get it done” on immigration reform. He hits you with one hand, then wants you to help him with the other.
When he turned to calling for a raise to the minimum wage, he made no sense. He called for a raise in the minimum wage to $9 an hour, decrying the possibility of anyone working full time on minimum wage living below the poverty line. Isn’t that why it’s a minimum? It’s not supposed to be a full-time living wage. No one is supposed to spend their career on the minimum wage. Workers should want, and work for, more.
Raising it outside normal economic forces will kill, not create, jobs. Tying it to the increasing cost of living was one of the few ideas he proffered that made any sense, in that it would at least pull some of the politics out of raising the minimum wage by government fiat. But there is a basic question here that politicians pretend does not exist: Should the federal government even set a minimum wage at all?
When Obama turned to the war, his aim was as simple as it has been for years: End it. Whether we win it or not is not his primary concern.
Obama declared that he will stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But North Korea is getting them and blew up another one this morning. He has no strategy for dealing with them at all.
Then he said that he will work with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals. Russia just backed out of a bilateral relationship to fight crime. Putin has shown no interest in reducing Russia’s arsenal. Is Obama planning to use his promised “flexibility” to reduce ours anyway? Is he, in other words, going to just drop our guard based on his faith in a man who spent most of his life in the KGB?
Reality never seems to intrude on this president’s world. He has his ideology and he is sticking to it.
Case in point: Obama mentioned women in combat and gays in the military, but never mentioned Chris Kyle. Kyle was the most successful sniper in U.S. military history. He was laid to rest in Austin, TX, today. Could the president not spare one word for a genuine hero who saved countless lives? He could, but his ideology gets in the way.
Another case in point: Obama railed against any American having to spend three hours to vote, saying that it “betrays our ideals.” But he and his Justice Department militate against voter ID. So voter fraud does not “betray our ideals,” but having to wait in line because of healthy voter turnout does? How does this even make any sense, other than as political statements devoid of logic and depraved of any understanding of right and wrong?
Then he called for gun control, without calling it gun control. “Each of these proposals deserve a vote in Congress,” he said. But none of his proposals would have stopped any mass shooting. Why then do they deserve a vote? They don’t, but he tried distracting us from that fact by name-checking some victims of violence. He never name-checked anyone who has used a firearm to defend themselves. To Barack Obama, they do not exist.
Near the blessed end of his speech, Obama hailed the idea and ideals of the citizen. But this president is working to water down the legal meaning of the word. Again, incoherent.
The consequences of Barack Obama’s loose grasp on the real world are just going to have to work themselves out now. He will win some and he will lose some. Hopefully he will lose more than he wins.
“The evil that men do lives after them,” Shakespeare wrote of ambitious men centuries ago. So it will be with Barack Obama, who has done much evil to the Constitution, to the country, and to the concept of truth. He will continue to do more evil to them all for the next four years.
America, you were warned but you re-elected him anyway. And that’s the state of our union.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/12/the-state-of-our-union-rendered-in-a-fractured-bizarro-lens/?singlepage=true
PK'S NOTE: His upbringing doesn't provoke sympathy from me for the man he is (and I don't think that is the intention of this next article). Many, many people have gone through this .... and worse ... and haven't taken the turn he has. Added to this mix was his Marxist upbringing and training all his life.
Inside Obama's Mind at his State of the Union Adress
President Barack Obama took us inside his mind, again, Tuesday night and gave us a glimpse of what motivates him, how he sees the country and how much of the country sees itself.
The president is psychologically predictable. He does not surprise. Having been abandoned as a boy by his father, and then his mother, only to then learn that his grandmother feared people of his race, he seems inherently to distrust individual initiative and intention and to place his trust only in the collective—i.e. the state. What benefits a burgeoning central authority is good for all. When a child’s guardians keep letting him down in profound ways, that child can grow up to want a lot of power himself and distrust the idea of giving anyone else very much.
Hence, the president wants to use tax increases to remove wealth from those who earned it, fair and square. Because, you see, wealth really does confer power on those who amass it, and giving that kind of authority to individuals, rather than the collective, is anathema to the President. It likely reawakens in him very closely held memories of what he got from his parents when most in need: Not much.
Individuals are also better off without guns, the president would have us believe. It is true, of course, that some capital crimes are committed with guns (but only the minority with automatic weapons, and lots with knives and explosives and by strangulation, too).
When a child’s guardians keep letting him down in profound ways, that child can grow up to want a lot of power himself and distrust the idea of giving anyone else very much.
The president celebrates his Affordable Care Act. But the reality of ObamaCare is that, for the first time, ever, it earmarks American citizens’ after-tax income to be spent, by law, on a product that they might or might not want: health insurance. They have to buy it. The collective always knows best in Obama’s mind. Because individuals left him out in the cold, when he needed consistency and nurturance the most.
Many millions of young Americans listened to Barack Obama on Tuesday night, as they have listened to his core message for nearly five long years. And his message has remained remarkably consistent and remarkably toxic to their psychological well-being: Do not rely on yourself. Entitlement Nation will parent you, until you forget about growing up, period. Stay on your parents’ health insurance, even if you are 18 and in great health and would rather—wisely or not—use that money to start an Internet company in your basement. It’s okay to blame rich people if you can’t earn money. Just ignore the fact that government policy is now hostile to entrepreneurs who might otherwise decide it is worth the risk to staff up.
The government will even grade colleges and tell you which ones are worth attending. Really? Teenagers can’t even research that for themselves, anymore? Their parents can’t help them evaluate schools? The state, the collective—long known for the miserable educational system it has deployed—will decide which institutions of higher learning are worthy?
Welcome to the psychological projection of an abandoned boy’s vision of how much you can rely on other individuals and on yourself. The less, the better. When your mother and father take off on you as a kid, when your white grandmother seems to fear people of color, you probably figure putting any trust in individuals is crazy.
My 10-year-old son was watching last night. I was just glad that he got to see part of the Bruins’ game, too. Because he saw remarkable athletes find something inside themselves that they tapped to come back from being down three goals, to tie the game 3-3 (even though they eventually lost in a shootout). And when Brad Marchand scored that tying goal, with 42 seconds left, and no goalie in the Bruins’ net, I saw my son jump up, out of his chair and pump his fist in the air and yell, “Yes! He did it! He did it!”
“Yup,” I said, “He’s amazing.”
People—individual people—make things happen. Yes, they are part of a team. But celebrating their individual accomplishments and rewarding them for them isn’t bad. It’s good. Brad Marchand scored that goal. He did it. And people build their own businesses, too, Mr. President. Things did not go well for you at the hands of the individuals who were empowered to care for you. But individuals are not inherently bad.
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/13/inside-obama-mind-at-his-state-union-address/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2KofPnslq
PK'S NOTE: Guys, this next article is important because it shows you how organized they are and how they're taking action. We must do this also. Truly.
Permanent Campaign: Obama Speech Launches 'Organizing for Action' Nationwide
As President Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union address, activists involved in his new non-profit advocacy group, Organizing for Action, gathered in local meetings around the country to watch and cheer him on. The new 501(c)4 organization, which is an offshoot of his re-election campaign, aims to support the president’s policies and to project the power of the White House beyond Washington into local communities and media.I joined a gathering in southern California, which rented out a local pub and tuned in on the big screen. The buildup to the event was almost as interesting as the event itself. I received several email invitations to join a State of the Union-watching party; once I had accepted, I received two confirmation emails with detailed directions, plus a personal phone call the day before the address just to make sure I knew where to find the event.
When I arrived, a small crowd had already gathered. The sign-in sheet was not simply a record of attendance; instead, organizers asked guests to sign up for one or more issue campaigns: “gun violence,” immigration reform, and the president’s budget plan. People were quite friendly, and unmistakably liberal; one discussion debated whether it was the military or the police that had pushed LA cop-killer Christopher Dorner over the edge.
We all settled down at the bar or around tables to watch the event. Loud applause broke out for President Obama when he entered the chamber, and at several times during the speech itself. The group was particularly pleased by lines about climate change and on immigration reform, though the clapping stopped when the president spoke of “going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally,” a conservative theme.
There were a few boos, particularly when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) appeared onscreen, or when Speaker of the House John Boehner failed to react positively to something the president had said. There were also some gasps and whispers at stories the president related about victims and survivors of gun violence, towards the end of his address; people seemed genuinely moved, just as they were in the congressional gallery.
Immediately after the speech ended, organizers turned the sound down on Sen. Marco Rubio’s response and set up a laptop to hear a special message from president Obama, who would be addressing Organizing for Action activists on a national conference call. After a few minutes, Obama’s voice came through the speakers, telling the activists that he would be asking for their help in pushing Congress to adopt his second-term agenda.
There was something slightly different in his tone of voice. This was not a head of state addressing a nation; this was a local community organizer talking to his volunteers--not over them, but at them. The contrast in style created a feeling of intimacy, which made listeners feel he was speaking personally to them. Not everyone was convinced; one woman told me she doubted he would be able to achieve all he had set out to do.
Regardless, the very fact that the evening happened the way it did was a success for the new organization. The Obama camp believes it is less important to convince people with words than to condition them with deeds. And the deeds are not that complicated. For all the talk about high-tech voter turnout programs, the methods Obama uses to win are decidedly old-school. He wins because Republicans don’t bother to do the same.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/13/Permanent-Campaign-Obama-Speech-Launches-Organizing-for-Action-Nationwide
PK'S NOTE: Here's another point on tactics on how to counter what's going on
Welcome to 21st Century America
A recent Gallup poll revealed that President Obama rates high on foreign affairs and low on the deficit. That he is regarded highly by our fellow citizens on foreign affairs is disconcerting because he's doing more harm to us and to others than anyone in the "free world" since Neville Chamberlain. I'll go one step further, by attempting to disarm U.S. citizens at a time when we face greater risks than at any time since World War II, Obama makes Chamberlain look like a hawk.How can you explain the fact that typical Americans think Obama is doing well on the foreign front? Rush Limbaugh refers to Obama supporters in general as "low information voters." He's on the right track, but I've seen evidence suggesting that the problem extends beyond Obama's acolytes. I have a Facebook group for a book that I wrote titled His Name is Yahweh. Members of the group aren't ordinary readers, but they have a liking for shorter rather than longer pieces, and by longer I don't mean very long. Even more alarming, they prefer pictures to articles.
For example, a catchy cartoon attracts about ten times as many responses as a meaty article, and a gory picture elicits a deluge of comments and goes viral in a heartbeat. That saddens me, but it's the truth, and I have roughly 4 years of data to support my conclusion. It reminds me of a clip from the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles starring Steve Martin and John Candy. They are on a bus trip, and Candy encouraged Martin to start a sing-along song. He began singing Three Coins in a Fountain, and the response was stone-cold silence. Recognizing the problem, Candy started singing the theme song from The Flintstones, and he got an enthusiastic response. That's a depressing but accurate depiction of 21st century America.
Sometimes I wonder if we aren't making a tragic mistake by packaging our messages in articles that are too long for average readers. In 1982, John Naisbitt wrote a book titled Megatrends. It was on the New York Times Bestseller List for two years. In it, he claimed that you can get a handle on what's taking place around the world and extrapolate to pinpoint what comes next (i.e., trends) by simply reading the headlines and article titles in major newspapers.
I was associate dean of my school at the time, and my dean asked his administrative team to read the book and prepare to discuss it. I was skeptical about the book's thesis, so I started doing as Naisbitt suggested. Each day I read the headlines and article titles from a wide variety of highly regarded news sources, and much to my surprise, I discovered that Naisbitt was right.
The model for my blog, SnyderTalk, is based on Naisbitt's finding. Each day, it includes the titles of articles from around the world with hyperlinks. By reading the article titles and the text of articles of particular interest, readers can keep abreast and become well-informed.
One criticism of SnyderTalk is that I include too many articles each day. That's probably true, but I prefer to err on the side of providing too much information rather than too little. Still, based on what I see taking place in the U.S., I wonder if my readers wouldn't be better served if I cut the number of articles to 10 or 20 each day. I haven't moved in that direction so far because there is a great deal to know, and I don't want to penalize serious readers. The day may come when I have a change of heart, though.
With that information as backdrop, I believe the only rational way to explain why typical Americans think that President Obama is doing a good job in foreign affairs or any other area is that they are not well-informed. They may be "low information" voters/readers as Rush Limbaugh says; they may be intellectually lazy; or they may not care, but this much is certain: average readers aren't well-informed and show no desire to overcome the problem. Regrettably, they are probably too unaware to realize that they have a problem.
President Obama understands the situation better than most. He talks incessantly and provides precious little detail on issues, but he does possess a captivating delivery style. Like riders on the bus in Planes, Trains and Automobiles, average Americans sing along with him gleefully even though he is leading us in a dangerous direction toward a precipice while he croons a soothing melody. Some argue that Obama lacks substance. I disagree. I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
For example, last night in his State of the Union speech, the president conjured up images of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and other atrocities that were perpetrated by crazed lunatics to buttress his message that we need to further restrict guns and magazines at a time when evidence suggests that law-abiding citizens need more and better weapons to defend our families in case the need arises. Unfortunately, he failed to mention Christopher Dorner. He's a serial killer, an ex-cop, and an embodiment of evil, but he has attracted a cult following among Obama supporters.
Was the president's omission an oversight? I doubt it. I think he said what he believes people want to hear in hopes of moving his agenda forward regardless of the consequences. He did the same thing where foreign policy issues were concerned hoping to placate his political opponents and maintain his support among the uninformed.
Ironically, following the SOTU speech, Obama plans to visit several cities including Chicago to push his agenda. I say "ironically" because that city, in particular, is a perfect example of what happens when Obama's policies are fully implemented. The Windy City is a crime ridden and decaying mass of humanity whose future looks bleak, and it's not for the lack of gun control or federal largess. Some have gone so far as to argue that Chicago is in such dire straits that we should wall it off and turn it into an open-air prison. I won't go that far, but I will say this: we can't afford to allow our cities to deteriorate any further.
If we hope to inform our fellow citizens and win their support, we need to do a much better job of packaging our message. That means we need shorter articles with pictures--lots of pictures and the more explicit the better. The old newspaper adage "if it bleeds, it leads" applies here. Another axiom applies as well: KISS--Keep it Simple Stupid.
This is the bottom line: we can't change this nation for the better unless we attract support from average Americans. That's a simple fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment