Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a copy of a Fox News comment I wanted to leave on their site, but couldn’t because of some heinous Internet glitch. The Fox News story is about Obama directing an address to students, and I think it points-out a failing of our system for which I suggest a solution. Note that it seems necessary to start all comments on Fox News with the same opening statement:

All the knee-jerk paranoia and bizarre communism/fascism fantasies aside, it’s obvious the job of President has become too big for one person. This has been evident since the Nixon days when foreign policy was focussed upon at the expense of domestic policy. Every president since has had to make this choice. We need to elect TWO executives: one for foreign policy and one for domestic policy. Many countries do this and it seems to work.

There are 300 million American, and billions of other nationalities. Today’s issues are intensely complex and technically challenging. Even with a large support staff, one person can’t handle running the most powerful country in the world. Look at the mess Bush made and he had a massive support staff. Likewise Clinton, and Bush Senior. Reagan ended-up letting domestic policy go to hell to concentrate on his foreign policy legacy. Carter couldn’t handle either. They all have to make the choice of which side of things to concentrate on.

Time to re-think some of the fundamental aspects of our system – like why does the Senate exist at all? Because in the 1780s the wealthy landed gentry were afraid to give the common people any actual power. Get rid of it, give representatives four-year terms so they don’t have to start running again right after an election. Also reform elections – maybe a nice 90-day limit on the campaign season (check-out how Britain handles this). We need to streamline things, and we need more specialization in policy-making.

This post isn’t actually about changing our government – I just slipped that in there because I was upset I couldn’t post it on Fox News. This post is about how utterly silly this non-issue of Obama’s speech is.

Now, Presidents making speeches directed at students is nothing new. It’s obviously the usual partisan hate-fest going on here (“I don’t want that black commie talking to my kid!”). Of course there is also that undercurrent of racism that Obama is always faced with, as well as the generally low intelligence level of people who spout rhetoric laced with words like “communist” and “socialist” and “Nazi” and “fascism”, etc. etc.

I’m guessing these parents don’t want Obama talking to their kids because they know the kids won’t listen to them; how disheartening if they actually listen to Obama. And while there are few more ignorant and mindlessly blustering things on Earth than an indignant liberal, I’m pretty sure nothing like this would have happened if Bush had done the same thing (of course he wouldn’t have – those elementary school kids can be vicious to other kids who talk funny).

Of course, just because parents don’t want their kids to see Obama’s speech, the kids will do everything in their power to see it. And that won’t take much power, since now that these parents have created the issue, this address will be replayed on cable 24/7 for the next week (because Michael Jackson finally got buried, Ted Kennedy got buried, and the Garrido abduction case is cooling off. So grist is needed for the mill).

If I seem to be unduly facetious here, it’s just in the spirit of things. Can you actually imagine this kind of thing happening here in the “Land of the Free”? What if Obama was going to talk about traffic safety, or give an anti-drug address (God help us, remember those Nancy Reagan “Just Say No” ads? That worked so well, didn’t it?). Would we be hearing this same foolish noise then? Yes, we would – that’s how unreasoning the partisanship in this country has become. It will be the death of the Republic.

Advertisements