Note: I am not a political person, by any stretch of the imagination. I am registered to vote, but I am not a member of any party--that designation on my card reads "NOP", for "no party." My old Maricopa voting card read "PND", which means "party not designated," but I think what they really meant was "party pending." In any event, it's still pending.
That said, please do not read this as dripping, falling-in-love support for President Obama. I studied history and I grew accustomed to looking at things past from an outside perspective. In many ways, I look at current events in that same way. It's a bad habit; I should know better that occurrances in D.C. do affect me (and I already know this, if for no other reason, because I'm receiving an incentive for being a first-time home buyer). So I'm examining this situation from an odd perspective and appreciating it for what it is, without taking a lot of other things into account. I'm dissecting someone who is a historical figure by default (all presidents are), even though he's still around to change who he is, his legacy, his policies, etc. It's not a done deal. And yet, I'm sort of writing about it like it is.
In any event, keep that in mind. Not an Obama lover. Not a hater either, just making an observation (that you're free to disagree with, of course).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_online
I'm not an Obama fan, necessarily. I don't think the nation is doomed as a result of his election, either. Rather, I'm waiting to see if he is worth the hype--or at least part of it (I don't think anyone can actually live up to the hype he receives).
That was a negative start, but keep reading. Juxtapose that with what I'm about to say.
The day after Obama was elected, I told my wife and several others who asked my opinion: for Obama to be as successful as everyone wants him to be, he has to go in there like FDR, in the first 100 days, and lay down dramatic new policy that actually reshapes the nation in a positive way (whether FDR actually did that, I'm not going to argue with you about that right now).
In at least one way, Obama has followed FDR's footsteps. FDR started the "fireside chats" where he addressed the nation on the radio on a regular basis. This was unprecedented, in part because the technology was new, in part because no one prior tried to use the technology in that way. Note that using the radio was not new; it was the President connecting with the people via the radio that was the bright and shiny idea.
Obama has done the same thing with the Internet. Rather than merely take questions from media and other officials, Obama took questions from the general public (perhaps that's giving Internet surfers too much credit on several levels, just go with it for now). He even briefly discussed legalizing marijuana. His first response wondered about the Internet crowd in general (see?), then he responded seriously by saying he doesn't think that's a good plan to help the economy.
This isn't the first time Obama has tried to "connect" with the people at large. The night before the election, both Obama and McCain were interviewed by Chris Berman of SportsCenter fame. McCain talked about steroids in professional sports and getting rid of them, which is a fine but tired answer. Obama said he wanted a playoff in college football. That's not a new idea, but it is a fun idea. It's controversial and heatedly discussed, unlike steroids, which is not controversial (generally we either don't care or we want them gone; few are arguing for more steroid use) and while passionate, not heated (again, no real argument for keeping steroid use).
(Moreover, both Katie and I noted that the steroid argument probably appeals to liberals and Democrats who seek equality (even in sports), while the college football argument was designed to endear Southerners to Obama. So these arguments were likely last-minute efforts to sway undecided voters. But still.)
Additionally, if you didn't know already, Obama filled out a March Madness bracket... and showed it to the rest of us (forgive me for not linking it). Is that dangerous because of it's ties to gambling? Maybe, but everyone fills out a bracket, right? (OK, not everyone; I didn't this year, but I usually do even though I don't follow college basketball--everyone likes to get lucky and pick the right "thing", and more points for lucky picks than educated ones.)
So here's what I'm saying: Is Obama going to sweep in like FDR's New Deal? Probably not. Is he a perfect leader. By no means. But he's already started a legacy in that he's made steps to connect with a more diverse group of people, in several ways. Is he (still) an elitist? Maybe, and those questions will never fade with Columbia and Harvard on his resume. But if that's the case, he's at least a smart elitist. Maybe it's a facade, but it's one that I don't mind for the moment, because people still have the opportunity to get involved, regardless of whether Obama really cares about their involvement.
I hope, however, that he's genuine in trying to get more people involved in government. If he does nothing else useful, that's a powerful legacy... if he continues to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment