Balance of Not?
Today’s nugget is going to illustrate the very reason I reside on the web. You see, I am seriously conservative. But something in me is extremely cautious of the divisive nature in our internal political structure. It seems you are either residing in Karl Rove’s backyard or you are in the Ayers sect. Or, rather, this is the blinded way in which political pundits from each side talk of one another. Believe me, I am outraged by the debt we are racking up. I believe that Capitalism would have corrected our markets, not government intervention. However, I think when it comes to matters of social interaction, you are talking about hearts, and denigrating each other is causing scabs which cannot heal. We need a new alternative.
So it is with the speech which President Obama gave yesterday in France. Political pundits are decrying the President as pandering to the Europeans and accuse the President of being on the proverbial campaign trail oversees. Here is what the President said:
“In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
Clearly, there is a problem with the quote. However, Conservative pundits are focusing on the second sentence in the quote: “that America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive. Personally, I think it’s possible that maybe we have been, and I’d even argue that there are times where appropriate as a sovereign state. But, untouched by the conservative pundits, the real problem is with the first part of the quote. “We have failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world?” COME ON MR. PRESIDENT! Europe doesn’t lead on anything except perhaps implementing systems for inflation and expensive regulations for climate change which aren’t returning results. You can’t just out and out lie! Europe wants the United States domination of the economic markets to end, and they will not be happy or discontinue the rhetoric until it is so. In such a state, the leader should say, “In America, there has been a failure to continue dialog when we have fundamentally disagreed.” That might be a bit more truthful.
NOW, also neglected by conservative pundits is the exact mirror opposite of the above quote, which followed the above quote:
“But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common.”
Isn’t that exactly true and well stated? Shouldn’t the President receive some credit for the truth in which he speaks, not just the criticism of possibly anti-American sentiment in the first quote? The President’s speechwriter has used a tactic to try to build consensus by contrasting the attitudes and sentiments of each country. Perhaps he goes too far in characterizing Europe as being a model and leader. However, isn’t he really just giving a compliment so that they can swallow the criticism? I would argue that this tactic is pretty natural.
It’s time to criticize folks. It’s time to stand up. But, we lose all credibility when we focus on the ammo you want to use and disregard the facts. My focus is to look at the problems with the administration once they actually make them. I do not Hannitize the situation by predicting a Socialistic state with tens of thousands of folks in soup kitchen lines. Though, I am watching closely for government too big, too invasive.
I suppose in some ways, it makes me behind the “news.” But then, aren’t we really just rewarding extremism by reading and clinging to pundits which are comfortable being wrong as much as being right? Because being the first means that you just throw out vast predictions which may or may not come true. It makes for sensational TV, but it’s wrecking our ability to harmonize and succeed.
Leave a Reply
Official CPAC Blogger
Join me as a fan of From The Right Radio
Good Good Good!
I completely agree that first sentence was just poorly stated.
I’m all about the differing opinion as long as it has constructive criticism and reasonable alternate solutions. Taking the Hannity road is just too easy.
I agree with your words of wisdom. On a related note . . . I find Obama often says one thing to one crowd and another to a different crowd. Very Mussolini-esque. The old “tell them what they want to hear” tactic. (Take the latest speech to a carefully selected group of troops in Iraq, for example). It conveniently provides different sound bites to different media (pro-Obama & anti-Obama). The problem is that Mussolini controlled the press. Obama doesn’t (at least not FoxNews). Thus, he needs to “check himself before he wrecks himself” and get his story straight . . . and preferably Right. (: Hope I didn’t stray too much from your thesis. As always, your comments are dead-on.