Obamamania: the politics of change?

September 6, 2008
Joshua Herring, RA analyst

There are many causes that could be cited for the three-ring circus that's made a shambles of the American political process this election. Foremost among them is this simple fact: in an obvious effort to overthrow American campaign tradition, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were so power-hungry from the outset that their drives for the presidency were already in full swing by Feb. 10, 2007.

Most of the other presidential aspirants didn't even have time to make a well-considered decision before they entered the race to avoid being left behind. After seeing what has happened since then, I'm persuaded that had they been given more time to consider their decision, some of them would have opted not to run.

Barack Obama fully intended to run for the Oval Office in 2008 from the moment he was elected Illinois' junior U.S. senator. In 2006, Obama released a book he wrote titled "The Audacity of Hope," which underscores this fact. The book's objective was to raise funds for Obama, gain him greater notoriety, and win the hearts of the American public in preparation for his 2008 presidential bid.

The politics of change — or the politics of blatant hypocrisy?

Obama has traveled so extensively for the purpose of self-promotion that at this point, out of approximately 1,000 weekdays that have passed since he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator in 2005, Obama has shown up for work only 143 times. (See Wes Vernon's column titled "Doubts, backstabbing, unrest: Recipe for Obama-Biden convention — or 'Clinton convention'") This kind of behavior raises questions about Obama's priorities, character, and inordinate ambition.

During the 2004 Senate race, Obama revealed much about himself when he flippantly told a reporter that he had no idea if he was going to heaven and then repeated this casual assertion of unbelief in the second senatorial debate with Alan Keyes. Any true Christian knows that heaven is assured anyone of sincere faith — but sincerity doesn't seem to be one of Obama's more notable traits. What he exhibited at the time of those statements was simply ignorance and false humility.

Once faith in Christ became a campaign issue in the 2008 primaries, Obama stood behind the pulpit of a church zealously trumpeting: "Any house that's God's house is my house!" Since then, Obama's pretentious assertions that he views his career as a means of serving God have been frequent. Yet, as I mentioned in another article, when asked what he considered the two most serious moral problems in our nation, Obama said, "The lack of national healthcare and the high rate of unemployment: that is immoral!" Such a statement, and other things I am about to mention, coming from a man making as strong a profession of Christianity as Obama has done, is as hypocritical as it gets. Obama is so lacking in true faith and reverence that he is willing to use God as a tool of personal profit and advancement of the liberal agenda.

During the time Obama has spent vying for the democratic presidential nomination, he has waffled on everything from his stance on abortion, to stem cell research, to gun control. He has tried to give the impression that he is everyone's candidate by "inviting discussion" on abortion with pro-life advocates, and with those opposing embryonic stem cell research — as if he would actually consider anything more than how to bamboozle the most naive among his listeners to gain a few votes. When President Bush signed the bill banning partial birth abortion, Obama was extremely indignant about the outlawing of a procedure in which the back of a living baby's head is punctured and its brains are sucked out. I cannot but wonder about the biblical passage that leads Obama to believe that promoting such a thing would be service to God. I guess someone who can find justification for homosexuality in the Sermon on the Mount can do just about anything and justify it in their own mind.

Obama openly agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision in support of citizens' right to own guns — and to do so without regulations requiring the guns to be stored in such a manner that owners would have to take the padlock off and/or reassemble the gun and load it before they could protect themselves against intruders in their own home. Up to that point, at which time Obama was obviously realizing the power of gun rights advocates in a new way, he had been a pure-bred gun control advocate. Obama made that clear in the 2004 senatorial debates against Alan Keyes, a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.

What kind of change should we expect from Obama?

Although Obama is full of rhetoric about change, there is actually nothing new about his politics except the rhetoric. He is long on talk about the need for change, and short on offering explanations of how he intends to bring it about. Any politician can make extravagant campaign promises, but accomplishing what he promises is another thing altogether. Obama is going to dramatically improve American government, to hear him tell it. What reason has he given us to believe that he is capable of making such fundamental change — and of making it wisely? Is there anything on his resume to suggest it? Should all the time he has spent on the road promoting himself, both before and after this election season began, be considered a reasonable substitute?

Obama is a man who says America's problems are a result of bad policies and corruption in Washington, and that the solution is "out with the old — in with the new." Yet, Obama has a long line-up of some of the oldest and most influential Washington power brokers and policy makers as advocates, advisors, and potential members of his presidential administration, should it materialize.

Clearly, the track record of Barack Obama is limited to his unabashed pursuit of high office. That is what he does best — and his run for the presidency so soon after being elected to Congress is the manifestation of a bloated ego, overt ambition, and a hunger for power and prestige. If it weren't for the Republican Party's recent scandals, a presidency that has weakened the nation dramatically over eight years, and the lack of outstanding candidates in either party, Obama wouldn't be the overnight sensation he has become.

Many voters in both parties are desperate for improved leadership, and Obama is capitalizing on their desperation and despair. Yet Barack Obama hasn't even proven himself to be a capable and dependable U.S. Senator — and he thinks the American public should ignore this and entrust to him the prosperity, health, welfare, and the safety of their homes, their families, and their land . . . on the basis of what, his list of senatorial accomplishments???

What has Obama actually done for us?

The length of this primary season has severely damaged longstanding traditions and protocols — leading to a major restructuring of the dates when states hold their presidential primaries and caucuses, a subsequent rearranging of the rules and procedures that regulate elections, and all the negative things that have come as a result of such sweeping changes. In addition, the extended primaries have driven the cost of running a competitive primary campaign to over $100,000,000 — much of it coming at taxpayer expense — not to mention what is spent on campaigning after party nominations are secured. None of these things would have occurred if it weren't for the length of this primary season.

Now that so many state primaries have been moved far forward, we will almost certainly have to endure bitterly contested presidential campaigns two full years out of every four. Predictably, there will be little concern for anything but personal ambition and one-upmanship, both among the states and among the candidates. The result will be a loss of such important things as the dignity of the American political process, sincere love of country as a dominant force, and respect for time-honored traditions.

One thing that bothers me the most about all this it is the way Democrats have been spouting off about returning America to its founding principles, as if they've actually been promoting that goal. The truth is that they've sought to trash almost every American principle in existence, either for the sake of their socialistic ambitions or other godless liberal purposes. I heard one pundit on MSNBC assert that Obama's strength is the way he is "moving us past divisive politics," and uniting Americans to work on the most important issues. As I listened, I began to realize that while he claimed this to be something new in American politics, it is simply the same thing Democrats have been claiming to pursue all along.

The commentator was really saying: "Obama will unite enough of us to overcome conservatives in their struggle for moral rectitude and values ('divisive issues'), and convince them to quit struggling against inevitable change (godless liberal agendas), so we can work together on things the power brokers deem most vital to their utopian dreams." He was also saying that people who refuse to go along need to be pushed out of American politics in the interest of a new day of cooperation and equality. By "cooperation," he meant submission and surrender to a liberal takeover; and by "equality," he meant forced cooperation with anything godless people want, and punishment of those whose consciences will not allow them to go along quietly. The fact that Democrats claim that the changes they want to institute would be examples of a restoration of American principles infuriates me.

Principle, purpose, and poo-poo

This election season has been turned into a sham in which Obama has diverted attention away from his lack of political knowledge and experience and focused instead on vague generalities. It's worth noting that, like Obama, the last presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, John Kerry, also lacked a substantial, well-defined political platform at the beginning of the primaries — although he possessed considerable political experience. Voters will recall that for quite some time, his answer to basically every question about what he was going to do amounted to saying, "The opposite of what Bush is doing, of course." Because Kerry lacked true conviction, he entered the race unprepared. Eventually, he studied the polls and the trends, and by this stage in the election season, he had accumulated a more detailed, clearly-defined platform.

Obama, on the other hand, initially suffered from a lack of experience — and for that reason, whenever he was asked throughout the primaries what he intended to do about something, his answer was always "Change it! We need change!! Yes . . . we . . . can!" He has since studied and learned from his advisors as his campaign has progressed, and now he has more of a platform — although it still lacks substance. Always evident in his rhetoric, however, is the fact that Obama is without the experience to know how to do the things he promises — and whether those things are even possible.

For lack of clarity and content, Obama has relied on emotional appeal, as is apparent in his use of his wife and kids to help sell himself, and he has worked up a sort of celebrity image in the eyes of the public to distract voters from the fact that he really does lack the savvy that only political experience can bring. Although Obama has been gradually building a more solid platform, any way you slice it, once you look past his wife and kids — and all the celebrity hoopla — what you are looking at is a political novice with an unrestrained desire to govern our nation.

I understand the importance of a man having a wife who is an asset and who stands by him in love, loyalty, and respect for what is important. But if I were to cast a vote on that basis, I would not be electing Michelle Obama — but her husband. Furthermore, I love children as much as anyone, if not more than most. But whether Obama is a good father or Biden is a great grandpa, these things do not prove that a man is ready to take command of the highest office in the mightiest nation on the face of the earth — and all this showcasing of Obama's wife and the children at the convention has been nothing more than a ploy aimed at emotional appeal shallow enough to do the trick.

After Obama began to involve his wife in his campaign, sending her out to stump for him, he became indignant and aggressive when people called her to account for things she said. He said people could take shots at him, but warned in a menacing tone that his wife was to be respected. I wished that I had been there to tell him, "If you want your wife to be respected, then by all means show her more respect — by not putting her on the firing line for your sake and then expecting people to refrain from taking issue with what she says. If you want her protected and respected, then by all means grant her protection in ways you can, and which you may legitimately expect others to cooperate with. But who do you think you are to demand more of your adversaries than you demand of yourself?"

The cuteness of Obama's kids notwithstanding, the votes of the American public should be a result of conviction and consideration of Obama's character, experience, ability, policies, and accomplishments. Barrack Obama has made a sham and a three-ring circus of the American political process for the sake of his own self-serving interests, and this is being labeled "the politics of change." Don't think, just jump on the bandwagon and go with the flow. . . this is Obamamania.

© Joshua Herring