Analysis for Critical Thinkers

Now as Barack Obama appears to have won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, the official general election campaign has begun. It is now time to look at the slogans and try to find some sort of meaning in them. At almost any Obama campaign stop, people are waving signs that say “Change” on them. I have asked people what exactly that means but I have not yet gotten any answer. It is a brilliant campaign sign because it sounds good yet is utterly meaningless. It expresses no position on anything and hence can never be looked at later as an empty campaign promise.

Ask any Obama supporter just what it is that they would want to change. Other than the increasingly popular “Which President will give ME more stuff” attitude,  some responses that I have heard are:

– “Just look at everything! I don’t like the path that this country is taking.”

If they are pressed to name just one thing in particular about this path that they are referring to, people have replied such vague generalities such as “the economy” or “gasoline prices”.

Very well then. If one believes that there is something that they would like to see changed about the economy or that something should be done about gasoline prices – what exactly is your candidates plan? What is this “change” that he is proposing. First, please explain why it should be the job of the President of the United States to do “something” about “the  economy” and then please state just what in particular your plan would be. Be specific so that we can have an issue to discuss and that on which, we can then either agree or disagree. Maybe I’ll vote for your guy! But saying that your candidate plans to “make things better” is meaningless because everybody wants to make things better – it is just how they plan to do it.

 – “Look what Bush did to this country!”

This is puzzling to me primarily because George Bush is not even running for President. On a side disussion, what in particular did he do that you didn’t like? But more importantly – what is your candidate’s plan specifically?

No one that I have spoken to can say with any specificity exactly what Obama has to offer that they like so much. If you find this as an insult, then perhaps it is just a matter of a poor presentation of his core beliefs. I personally don’t want too much to change – particularly those things that a president would or should have any control over.

It is clear that Barack Obama has an earnest desire to become President and seems willing to be anything that you want him to be in order to win the election. We have seen him quit his membership in a church that he has attended for many years only after public outcry over the opinions of his pastor. He is seemingly willing to change religions if that would help get more votes.

In closing, please let me say this to those that seek to be President. It matters not which party you represent. I need someone who has – above all – integrity; a steadfast adherence to some moral code. It is actually okay for me that I disagree with your point of view. I need someone who has experience as well as a clearly thought-out plan. Please do not be afraid to state your position on an issue and be ready to explain and defend your position – even if some poll may make you want to change it. Tell me specifically why you should be the next President. Even if I wind up voting for your opponent, I will at least know where you stand and I will respect you for your beliefs.

?

Whenever I see an anti-war demonstration, it is baffling because that would suggest that there are some people who are “pro-war”. I believe that most people are in fact anti-war; it is only how they want to see it end that is in dispute. And in war, you can either win or you can lose.

 It is chilling to me that when U.S. soldiers are killed by terrorists in Iraq, there are people here who organize demonstrations against – of all people – the President of the United States!(?).  Why are there no demonstrations against terrorists or terrorism in general? Why do they not demand an investigation into the capture and punishment of those who murdered our soldiers? Why is this blind rage against George Bush and his generals not channeled toward a constructive purpose such as looking for ways of fighting our terrorist enemies? Why is there such a strong desire for a U.S. surrender? Why is there such a movement toward giving more rights to terrorists while taking away anti-terrorist tools from the U.S.?

Instead of fighting terrorism, there are actually some of these types who will look for ways to ensure a U.S. defeat, which they believe may help their own selfish political cause here at home. But if you are “for the troops”, then you must also be against their enemies.

Before General David Petraeus issued his latest report on the war in Iraq, he was pressured by Democrats that if he did not report something in line with their party’s position, they would again call him “General Betray Us”. If he gives bad news about Iraq, he will be portrayed as a brilliant war hero. If he gives good news about Iraq, then he is a “stupid, evil, baby-killing Bush crony”. The war, it would seem, is all about the latest poll numbers and about who will win the White House in November. But what about the troops? What about the terrorists?

But forget about all of that for a moment. Never mind – for a second – how well things in Iraq may or may not be going. Let us get back to the main reason of this war – the fight against terrorism. Is this an important issue to you? Do you want to see an end to terror? Does your answer to this question depend upon how hard the fight will be or how well it is currently going? Do you look at the latest poll results in order to form an opinion?

 There seems to be a popular belief that the course of the war on terror depends on the latest report by General Petraeus. It is as if a report of success means that the troops stay in Iraq and continue the fight and a report of difficulties means that the troops give up as soon as possible. It seems that the latest poll numbers also come into play as well — if people think that we are doing well, then we should have a war against terror but if they think that we are doing poorly then we should give it all up.

I suggest that we may consider separating the two issues. It is important to assess how well the war on terror is going, but do not let it change the core issue of fighting against terrorism. Regardless of the difficulties and how they may be portrayed by the media, the fight against terrorism must go on because the alternative is unacceptable.