I admit that I am a supporter of President Obama. I have faith in him. I believe in his message. I believe in his ability to get the job done.
I have also watched in dismay as three months into office his approval rating began to slip. I'd like to see the science behind these approval ratings. When did we start to need approval ratings anyway? The talking heads on television cannot even mention the President these days without mentioning the approval rating. They did the same thing to W. Excuse my language, but FUCK approval ratings. They piss me off.
Americans have short memories. Does anybody remember what this President inherited? The mess that was left behind for his administration to clean up? Allow me to refresh your memories. There was the worst financial melt down in American history, the ramifications of which we still don't fully understand. How about a war without an end in sight, one too dangerous to pull out of completely, and too expensive for us to stay indefinitely--that is, Obama took office with us embroiled up to our necks in a region of the world we can barely relate to, a culture so completely different from ours that it's hard to even begin to understand. Our current President came into office with those problems and on the heels of one of the most inept, dishonest, and one-sided administrations that we have ever seen.
So what exactly has he done that is causing such dismal approval ratings? Cash for clunkers? That was a successful program by all accounts. Bail-outs? Well, the bail-outs began when W. was still president. Afghanistan? At least there we are fighting in the actual country where our enemies are being sheltered. Health care reform? On this issue, I will say that he is trying. He can't do it alone, and he has opposition on both sides. It's like trying to bring peace to Israel and Palestine. The Democrats and the Republicans just will not give. So how is this President supposed to succeed?
And then comes the American people who seem to always elect a President from one party and then during mid-term elections elect candidates from the other party. Why, why, why people?!?!? The result of Tuesday's senate election in Massachusetts is supposed to reflect badly on the President. I don't buy into it. The Democratic candidate was lackluster in her campaign. Not very likable, and she pissed off Red Sox fans to boot. The Republican candidate was smooth and handsome and looks a little Kennedy-esque to me. They love their Kennedys in Massachusetts. Why is Obama on the hot seat for this?
I think the media plays a huge role in shaping the opinions of Americans. In this day and age we get news that we agree with on demand. People leaning right can watch Fox news and surely everything they report will be slanted to the opinions of the Republicans. People leaning left can find news sources that slant the other way. What I would really like is some good old fashioned news reported straightforwardly and without bias. What we have now is propaganda in its most insidious form, because it pretends to not be propaganda.
What would people think if the media didn't report approval ratings? I wonder what our dialogue would be like then. What if the media didn't focus so much attention on those crazy anti-health care reform people. You know the ones I mean, the ones who painted Obama's face to look like Hitler. What if substance was important in the news and not sensationalism. How would our national dialogue sound without approval ratings and polls and analysis.
This kind of discussion leaves me feeling discouraged and apathetic. I don't want to feel this way. When Obama was elected, it was a beautiful moment in American history. I was filled with hope and I don't think I was alone. As a people we are so fickle--three months is all the time it took for hope and optimism to turn back into cynicism. Surely we can give this man a little more time, can't we?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Are the American People too Fickle?
Posted by S.D.S at 1:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I agree that the media slants the news to their opinion. I also agree that Obama received an unbelievable state of affairs and an overwhelming task. The American people are fickle, we want immediate results. We put a lot of expectations on our elected officials. Most people rely on our politicians to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.
Is it really the media’s fault that we are uneducated about local, national and world events? Is it their fault that we usual get one side of the story and then make our decision? I think that most people spout off dialogue that they’ve heard on TV or radio, we allow people that we perceive and “experts” to make up our minds?
Nothing is completely one sided. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be walking around with their heads too high. This country is stagnant due to their inability to compromise and for some politicians due to their self-serving, egomaniacal, self serving greed.
As for the Health Care Bill, I feel that every citizen of this country should have access to good affordable health care. It truly is the humane thing to do. I believe that the real issue is the outrageous cost of health care that has caused this problem in our country. We should be treating the cause – exorbitant cost, not the symptom – paying for the uninsured. Obama should be going after the Lobbyist’s and the Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies. It is these soulless people that are killing Americans.
History will determine how Obama did. He has been dealt a poor hand; however he may not have the leadership ability to change our state of affairs. Good intentions are not enough.
We do need to do something about Lobbyists. They have unbelievable power over our government. Why? because of all of the billions that "pay off" candidates to essentially take care of them.
We need campaign reform. Each candidate should receive equal amounts of TAXPAYER money to fund their campaigns.
We need elected officials to serve the people. I think the American people are sick of their voice being drowned out by all the money that is thrown at both parties by special interests groups, lobbyist, corporations to make sure their agendas are taken care of. None of which has anything to do with a better America for all. If you want to know who a candidate is going to serve, follow the string of funds being given to them.
I don''t think the MA election was a reflection on President Obama so much as a refection on the the way Washington works. People are so sick of it. I think it is the independent votes that are reflecting the big discontent.
Too true. Sigh. As long as politicians can take money from special interests there will be no help for we the people. A good leader is still hampered by those that work with him and work against him. I want to believe in him and I am stubbornly holding onto that.
It's a fundamental problem that our culture is based on the all mighty dollar. It's the bottom line. Pharmaceutical and insurance giants have people behind all the those decisions. People with families to support. It's not a bunch of evil executive laughing maniacally at how they are fucking with the American people. It's just a bunch of people, making decisions that are best for themselves. That's the insidious part of our culture. The part that says that the American Dream is all about money, money, money. Good points following 40. Food for thought. Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. Hmm, wanna write something for my blog? Guest columnist type thing?
Sorry GMA didn't see your comment there. Also true. The only way to show our discontent is through our vote. That does seem the get their attention doesn't it?
Agree with all the comments...
We live in a microwave, drive-thru, High-Speed internet world, and we want all of our problems solved in a very succinct 30 minutes - just like on sitcoms.
We sit in front of the microwave, complaining that it is taking 2 minutes to cook that pizza that takes 25 in the oven. It sucks, but we are impatient people who crave convenience.
You raise a great point. What if we weren't spoon fed opinions? What if we had to figure out what's good for us and what's bad for us? Would people really believe that "Trickle Down Economics" works if they knew that a) it gives all the money to big business and b) it has failed and is part of what got us into this economic crisis Obama inherited. But, as you wrote, they watch what they want to watch, so they can believe what they want to believe. It's inconvenient to have to think for oneself.
We seriously need compromise - amongst the citizens of our nation and both political parties in Congress. I'm sorry, but Nancy Pelosi is as much behind the problems the Democrats face as anyone else. She has strong convictions, but compromise is not a word in her vocabulary. We are not going to get anywhere without leaders who first lead, and second listen.
I see Obama as that leader and listener. But something else we need is an electorate which is willing to give him more than a few months to fix 8+ years of disaster.
That is why I only get my news from The Daily Show! (okay, that and NPR)
We can’t even get people to fill the voting booths. We sure as shit aren’t going to get them to make their own decisions. It makes us feel better about the state of the world to blame the government than to take responsibility for our part in it.
What’s your carbon foot print? Are you involved in local politics? Do you take the time to educate yourself on the topics at hand?
We are just as responsible as the Politicians, Lobbyists and Corporations. It’s easier to blame them for our problems; it absolves us because we are not engaged. They get away with what we allow them to. Look at all the things that people have risen up to overcome.
S.D.S. spoke of Gandhi; here’s one man who lead his country to their freedom. Maybe it’s time for us to rise up and redefine what’s important; Decency, humanity and kindness to our fellow man.
Let’s stop talking about the problem and start taking action towards the solution. I challange you to make a difference.
Curious Following 40, what do you suggest in terms of changing things. Gandhi did it through kindness and a hunger strike. He did change the world. I've mentioned more than once in this blog that I would like to do something but I truly don't know what. Any ideas people?
Getting the word out is one thing.
Leading by example is another.
That's what bothers me about Pelosi, and I'm not just singling her out - most politicians are embarrassing. These people act worse than children while representing us - and we let them. Shame on us.
Could this be from all the reality TV pumped into our houses, which shows people yelling at each other, fighting, and arguing. Many people consider that entertaining. IMO, it's not - and it's certainly not how real people should act in real situations.
It's shameful that a member of Congress yelled out during a speech by the President, calling him a liar. That's not acceptable. Would we allow that in our houses? Why allow it in Washington?
We need to tell our elected reps that we're not going to put up with them acting this way. Why not, instead of writing our reps and telling them what we want, let's tell them what we won't put up with?
As for ourselves, instead of arguing with people about our views - as we so often see, yet I'm not accusing anyone here - let's discuss our views and try to work toward common goals. Keep the discourse civil - no one wants to be yelled at or preached to. I think it's not as much the message as the method. I really think both sides want the same thing. Someone has to be the bigger party and start giving a little to get the ball rolling. :-)
"unbiased" reporting may never really have existed, but certainly just now it's at an all-time low.
News outlets have slashed budgets for genuine reportage and put 'pretty face and voice' too high on the list of qualifications.
It's important to teach our kids to listen to the news critically, analytically, and notice the biases, distortions, and sloppy reporting that show up. Also we need to teach them to watch out for sensationalism.
Have you ever noticed that the stock market "plunges" about three times a week? Sometimes it's by 5 points, sometimes by 5 percent, sometimes by a couple hundred points ... but always it "plunged."
Same thing with presidential approval ratings. Obama's been in office a year and his approval ratings are still at 50% -- that's actually pretty good. Better than W, LBJ, Nixon ... and likely others, but those are the ones I remember.
Involvement, education, ativism.
Maggie, if I might add a little more about the news...
I agree with you that unbiased is probably a fantasy. :-) I think we need to look for "less" -biased, and settle for that.
I'm a fan of NPR for one HUGE reason: they are not nearly as accountable to sponsors as any other news outlet.
Network television has got to be the worst form of news available, because it is ratings driven. You're right - it's about attractive people with radiant voices, but it's also about what sells. That's why "plunge" and other sensationalistic words are used. Only the most sensational stories sell those ads - and that's what it's all about on networks.
Another outlet I like is BBC. Yes, it has its slant, but it sure is nice to get an outside view of what is going on over here. Those Brits have a habit of being brutally honest in expressing their feelings. And, I do think it's important to know how our current state of affairs affects the rest of the world.
So true, though, the importance of critical thinking. Spot on! Really enjoy everyone's input. :-)
I'm going to second and third NPR. I love it. I think their analysis is very good and if it is slanted they at least try to have opposing voices. Also, the old stand by NYT. Still, in my opinion, the best newspaper out there.
Local news here in Iowa is the worst.....
buy tramadol online tramadol 50 mg bluelight - tramadol 100 mg withdrawal
Post a Comment