I can't remember if there was a hard rule against debating in this thread, but if so, I'll be happy to move this discussion elsewhere.
Mr.Yankees wrote:Woxor, you claim to be "different" from other Americans; however, you wasted no time in criticism the Conservatives. You are no different from any other liberal. You criticize Conservatives and Conservatives criticize Liberals.
I'm not claiming to be different because I somehow rise above the fray -- far from it. I'm claiming that there are too many Americans with a limited perspective. Just because I choose sides in the fight doesn't mean that my own perspective is similarly limited, or that I am "no different" from any other person who shares some of my ideology. Anyway, I'm not so much trying to claim the high ground as I am expressing a complete intellectual alienation from many of my countrymen.
Mr.Yankees wrote:Obama was able to win given his difference in "style" of campaigning. He is no different from any other liberal President when it comes to ideology. His campaign strategies, however, were magnificent.
Candidates are more than the sum of their style and their ideology. If you weigh Lincoln, for example, on his ideology and style, you're not getting the whole picture: there is a vital human element that communicates the notion, "I am truly aware of what's going on, and I am prepared to do the right thing to address it." Being mildly against slavery and good at talking does not make you a good leader; fundamentally connecting with those who would follow you, making the right decisions, and communicating them effectively does. Where you see style, I see a human connection.
That's what America was lacking, IMO, because between Kennedy and Obama we had, respectively, an ineffective politician, a conniving paranoid, two baffled do-nothings, a Randian demagogue, his oblivious side-kick, a superficial smooth-talker, and a petulant half-wit. I don't know what the foreign perceptions are, but our president has a lot of power under the modern system, and moreover he has the peculiarity of being not a faceless elected assembly but a single person, thus drawing inordinate expectations of leadership. To have such a streak of mediocrity in leadership right at the time when the modern egalitarian consciousness is supposed to have taken hold (compare American society fifty years ago to American society now, and you'll see that we did progress somehow) did nothing to stop our civil rights progress, but it was terrible for morale, and it left us cynical and disrespectful of what government stands for. Obama simply spoke as though he understood our spiritual void and intended to at least try to live up to the standard we set, and he seemed genuine, even to all of us newly-jaded yanks.