As I look at the man I voted for in 2008, I can see more of how he thinks and how his beliefs have formed what he does. I do not quite understand the compromise of his integrity in favor of politics, though I can only assume that it is a "the end justifies the means", as he needs to be elected in order to carry out his grand mission. (See Assessing Integrity/Responsibility.)
It is interesting that what he is teaching seems to align with the view of a community organizer, who sees the plight of the people who are not well off and wants to do something about it. He seems to see justice as not being equal, and often being unjust. He seeks to right the wrongs of the world - and even to have the countries get along better.
________________________________________________________________________________
HIS STATED VALUES/VIEWS
Solve climate warming, increase alternative energy and efficiency as soon as we can, discourage oil, raise
costs so high that we're forced to use the more expensive alternative sources
Help the oppressed and people having trouble making ends meet, assure healthcare for all
Eliminate social injustice
Have the countries get along better, minimize war
Many of the wealthy, companies have too much and are unfair (Fat cats, Wall Street, rich pay their fair share
Redistribute wealth
The rich are the cause of the inequality, fix the system as it is unfair
Fix Washington
______________________________________________________________________________
THE MESSAGES (See whether you assess, based on facts and reason, that this is true.)
We need to redistribute the wealth.
We need to rescue people (vs. they need to be responsible)
You're poor because of others...
Wealthy (many) and big companies are unfair and taking advantage of the poor
One interesting contrast appears to be in the area of having the poor be involved in bettering themselves. Certainly Bill Cosby seeks to confront the non-responsible, non-productive viewpoint of African-Americans - and he does it well, though the "truth will piss you off". Interestingly, I think, he might as well be speaking about any people stuck in a similar view of life, people of any color who have given up or have a culture of survival and lethargy about productivity and responsibility.
________________________________________________________________________________
(QuikScan, if you don't want to spend time reading this. Just notice bolded words and read just what is of interest.)
TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELF VERSUS ENTITLEMENT AND RESCUE
Obama's talk is very seldom, if at all, about people taking responsibility for bettering themselves. Alot of what he says fits right into the culture of blame, which is the basis for victimhood and nonproactivity. The "fat cats", Wall Street, the rich not paying their fair share, oil companies making too much profit... Nowhere in there does he mention that each of us needs to take the bull by the horns and to make ourselves better off - that "if it is to be it is up to me." It's more about "those people" and fighting those people - a bit like some community organizers might think if they had not been exposed to the "other side", to economics, to business, etc.
His famous remark to "Joe The Plumber" that he would redistribute wealth is entirely consistent with what he has done since. He has given more to the students (one of his strong supporting groups) in terms of forgiving their loans earlier (and has mentioned that other people end up with the tab for the government, since its revenues would be less without repayment).
And, yes, I would agree that we need to help those who are poorly off and especially Americans who are in a jam. But it looks to me that, as in the video by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, the ability to rely on getting "Obama Bucks" means not having to work, which would further encourage a nonresponsibility attitude.
CHANGE WASHINGTON VERSUS EVILIZING, BLAMING
He said he would change Washington. Of course, that is difficult to do, but he has resorted to language and behaviors that are the opposite. Compromise and working together is what is needed - and he has blamed the other side for that. A responsible "getting to yes" leader will never blame the other side for not being reasonable and not coming over to his side and doing what he wants, but he will instead seek to find where compromises will work, knowing that getting part of a pie is better than none at all. Instead, he models the language of victimhood: they held us hostage, they were going to push us over the cliff (bargaining to the last minute is a common negotiating tactic, but not one that lets bad things happen). And then he speaks almost like a blaming child would, making the other side the "evil side": they want dirty air and dirty water [absurd], they want autistic kids to suffer, and lots and lots of similar material. This is sad - and it's an illustration of the opposite of what is productive. Yet, somehow he has convinced people that the blame is truly on the other side - no unbiased expert would even agree with that viewpoint.
TELLING ALL THE FACTS VERSUS JUST ONE SIDE
He talks more about people being entitled, so it would seem logical that he could be encouraging people to feel entitled, to get their fair share - and to some degree have "people work to their capacity, but get according to their needs", which is the basic precept of communism. The only problem is that incentives and productiion go down, productive people leave the country, companies go elsewhere - and we go more toward killing the golden goose. I don't see how this country would go that far, but it has happened in numerous other countries. (All things have tradeoffs, and a good leader informs people of those and he makes decisions that weigh the tradeoffs, without being stuck in opinion or ideology.)
But unless one understands economics and basic human incentives, one would not understand that and could easily have a magical view of how we can just "give, give, give", without having to be concerned about the source and paying the bills. We naturally want to spend on all the good things, but we must, I think, have limits. The 2007 spending was $2.8 trillion and 2013 is $3.8 trillion (without Iraq expenses anymore). It is easy how this could make it ok to want to "get, get, get" what the government will gift us, but I think Obama is responsible (though it is politically difficult) for explaining that we must pay the piper sometime - and that taxes will have to go up dramatically, since taxing the small percentage of very wealthy people more produces only a small part of what is needed. (See Tax The Rich - and the absurd idea that there is enough there to solve our deficit problem.)
INJUSTICE, WITHOUT DEFINING THE SPECIFICS
"Social justice" - what does that mean? It is appealing, but what are the specifics? What can we do to correct the injustice.
"Obama Accuses Republicans Of Social Darwinism Over Paul Ryan Budget." Although the inference is absurd and the conclusions not logically proven, and false, the message could be that "survival of the fittest" and good ol' American self-reliance and independence is "not good" (or is "bad") and that we need rescuing. Of course, I observe, both parties will take care of those who are unable to do so for themselves (and I project that Romney will make the system work more effectively to help people much more, while being more efficient, and assuring that those who can will learn and become more able and then contribute more to society).
Don't complain about the top, have people do the work to become better off.
