Posted by
Pearl on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:20:58 PM
About the speech. I agree our healthcare is too costly, our schools fail too many, and that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries, but I disagree that it threatens our planet. I disagree we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. I didn't vote for Obama, but I didn't vote for fear, conflict and discord. But of course, grownups know that hope is not a governing policy and unity of purpose isn't likely; nor can conflict and discord be eliminated. It would also be nice to end petty grievances and false promises, recriminations and worn out dogmas, but not likely.
It is long past the time to set aside childish things (like promises of unity, lowering the seas and healing the planet). I agree that our time of putting off unpleasant decisions has surely passed (let's drill for oil and harvest oil shale and build nuclear power plants here in America). He said we will build the electric grids, but has he heard about the environmentalists who argue the planet cannot withstand that?
And what did he mean that we will restore science to its rightful place? Stem cell research performed on aborted children? Is that its "rightful place?" I would like to see our schools, colleges and universities transformed, but I have my doubts that we have any "unity" on how that should be done.
Yes, I question the scale of his ambitions, but not because my memory is short about what this country has already done. Again, he imagines that we have a common purpose when there are undeniable chasms of purpose. The political arguments between left and right and all the shades in between still apply.
I think the question of whether government is too big or too small is answered (it's too small for the left and too big for the right), but by all means, let us ask whether it works. But the work of government is not to help families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, or a dignified retirement (did I miss that?). The reason government is too big and doesn't work is that it too often tries to do too much, when it would serve us better to stand aside.
I think our government should be held to account (When are the hearings where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will be held to account for strong-arming bankers into granting bad loans?) but I won't hold my breath. A nation cannot prosper when it favors only the prosperous, but neither can it prosper when it changes the rules so that "affordable housing" can be had by those who cannot afford it. There's that old law of unintended consequences.
I don't think all of us reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Ideally, we don't listen in on our citizens phone conversations or practice tough interrogation techniques on our enemies. But practically, we have to sometimes sacrifice what is ideal for what is necessary, meaning saving American lives. That's a pretty high ideal.
I think we could roll back the specter of a warming planet by recognizing the specter isn't real; the "consensus" of warming is increasingly being replaced with a "cooling" consensus.
I like the line about not apologizing for our way of life; does that include those who cling to their guns and religion?
I believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; in fact, we are almost there, as evidenced by the election of our first black president.
A new way forward with the Muslim world based on mutual interest and respect, will be tricky; I hope he remembers his earlier line about not apologizing for our way of life. Infidels don't get no respect from radical Muslims.
As for extending a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist, I hope he'll speak to the Hollywood folks who just love Castro and Chavez.
I am grateful for his words about our troops and agree they embody the spirit of service. Finally, I liked his line about a new era of responsibility as the price and the promise of citizenship.
Now the hard work begins. And we will answer the question, "can we?"