A recent Economist depiction of President Obama as a one man band
Noticing the general liberal bias of the Aragon community and our blog (and in a possible attempt to obscure my own), I leave you with these parting thoughts in my final post: from healthcare to economic stimulus to nuclear proliferation to the War on Terror, President Obama took on a rather large number of issues upon assuming presidency. Now, he definitely has made significant progress in many of these realms (e.g., revitalizing the American economy, increasing diplomatic efforts, etc.), but many of his initiatives have made no significant headway (e.g., making meaningful advances in Iraq and Afghanistan, quelling tensions on the Korean peninsula, increasing bipartisanship, etc.), and this lack of progress certainly cost the President in the recent midterm elections. As such, how do you assess Obama's initiatives and presidency? Is his delving into an umpteen number of issues warranted? Or is he simply overreaching his mandate?
Do you feel represented by President Obama and his agenda?
Well, in the case that you don't, please consider voicing your opinion below to at least have your voice heard by your student government!
(Shameless advertising never gets old ;])
7 comments:
To be honest, I think some of the decisions Obama made were not good at all. The US doesn't have to get involved in everyone's business all the time. We are just wasting money that is coming out of our taxes! The money spent on things that aren't really important to the US could potentially be used for other things that people in US can benefit from. Well, I guess helping out other countries is good if they really need our help but do we really need to get involved in everything? I mean, I think more money is being spent on other countries than the US itself.
President Obama has clearly overstretched himself in an effort to live up to his campaign image. What we needed was a President who would, as Michelle Mao said, be willing to put the country first in these turbulent times, someone who would be able to fix the numerous problems here at home. Instead, we have a president who wants to become some sort of international legend and who has brought many detrimental changes to our systems.
I think that Obama concentrated too much on his healthcare promise, and in doing so turned a blind eye on the economy until it started to fall.
If you ask me, I think that Obama's 2 years as president so far has been a bust. I think he promised too many things, and shot himself in leg by setting the bar too high for himself. I haven't really seen any progress or change so far. I'm hoping it will come in these next two years.
Obama did certainly promise many, many things in his campaign for change, but given the time that he has been given to work with, Ii fell like he's done a fairly good job. By promising so many things in his campaign, he won the election but doomed the public's perception of him once he took office.
good thing about promising so many things is that you are portrayed as an optimist that has a can-do attitude with an edge of energy. However, the bad thing about promising so many things is that once you are expected to do all the things that you promised, your resolve and dedication may crumble. Compared to what Obama promised, Obama's progress is rather lousy. However, if Obama's progress is compared to what might've transpired if someone else took office, I bet Obama would be held in high esteem.
I definitely agree with everyone's comment that Obama set the bar way too high. But with all the problems our nation faces, ANY president would have had trouble tackling the issues. He may not have made any significant progress in his attempts, but I feel that Obama is faring better than other presidents would have. I haven't lost my faith in Obama yet, and I hope the public doesn't either.
With our "winner take all" style of politics, a politician has to get elected by appealing to as many interests and groups of people as possible in order to get the majority vote. Yes it is logical to take one the major issues of the country first and set the others to the side such as the voters who are making their decision on who will do a better job with the economy, but that's hard to accomplish when there are those who are voting based on a candidate's stand on the war on terrorism, LGBTQ activists, immigrant reformers, etc etc...
the list goes on. no matter the size of the group, they are still are a group of people that President Obama had to satisfy to get their vote.
Whether quickly or slowly..good or bad, you can't bring about change to public policy unless you get elected by any means necessary.
-Raymond Lim
Post a Comment