Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Honeymoon over.

Forgive me for the politic; I am still a political science major. Ignore this one and skip to my attempt to get out of res-life, or my search for pin-ups, or my plan to radically switch my major, if politics isn’t your thing.

“Honeymoon over.”

That is what MSNBC’s host Chris Mathews claimed of Obama’s presidency, prior to this morning’s public address. Apparently, his approval numbers have hit a plateau, amidst growing concerns over the economy.


Obama’s address this morning, focused on three particular subjects: Iran, a Green Economy, and Health-care reform. Meh. I am less interested in the speech, in which no politician ever lays out specifics, and more interested in the question and answer session at the end.

First impression: Obama is sticking fast to the “witness” buzzword: The United States will be a “witness” to the courage of the Iranian people. The United States will be a “witness” to the woman shot to death in the streets of Tehran. Sigh. A witness and no more.

When asked by one reporter if there was going to be any penalty for the crimes of the regime, Obama answered that the international community was a “witness”, and that if the Iranian regime wished to have the respect of the international community, it would heed its citizens.

Let’s restate this: “Is there a penalty for Iran’s crimes against its protestors?”

Answer: “Yes, they will lose respect in the international community”

When asked if there was a red-line that the Iranian regime could not cross without the United States intervening, Obama responded that “I’ve laid out a path for Iran’s leadership, to come into the international community. Part of this requires that they listen to the current dialogue in their country.”

Let’s restate that: “If Iran starts widespread Stalinesque purges, will we do anything?”

Answer: “We won’t let them be a part of the international community”

I’m sick of watching rhetoricians dance around the real issues. Now, I personally would take the same position as Obama, but for vastly different reasons. Because I am not a hypocrite, I will happily stand up on my Nationalist principles and cite that military intervention in Iran is not yet viable… yet.

There is a great difference between that, and those who would champion “Universal Human Rights”, only to turn around and say that those Universal rights end where another nation’s begins. But, hey, I love nothing more than “witnessing” the suffering of other human beings.

Hypocrisy is what galls me. Not opinion differences. If Obama came flat out and said he didn’t give a rat’s ass about Iranians and therefore wasn’t going to do jack, I’d have more respect for him than I do now. Don’t preach to me how courageous these men and women are, and then deny them help.

Have we forgotten the civil right’s movement? When white preachers claimed that they were “witness” to the suffering of the protestors? Remember how that clearly empty word drew such flack for its blatant hypocrisy? It was, and is, a blatant cop-out to allow those in power to preach one thing, and then do another.


Post a Comment

Feel free to drop a comment, or do you want to dissent in silence?