The Dow Jones ended today down 443 points from yesterday… when it lost 486 points. The 929 point loss over two days is the worst in the market’s history. Obviously they didn’t get the memo that all is well now Obama’s coming in to save the world.
Sarcasm aside, the economy is a wretched mess. Obama is going to be faced with not only this but also the insane level of expectations he raised during his campaign. His pledge that your taxes won’t be raised unless you make more than $250K$200K$150K (fill in blank) is going to loom large in all conversations. About the only promise that will certainty still be standing after January 20th is a promise that whatever happens will not be pretty.
The fundamental flaw of a consumer-based economy is that sooner or later the consumers will run out of things to consume. You can’t always buy more of what you either already have or for which you have no need. As the subprime disaster has amply demonstrated, lending to those without means to repay said loans can and will bring down not only titans of finance but cripple entire nations. No one has an inexhaustible supply of money. The naive notion that big business has a bottomless well from which to draw has been clearly demonstrated to be absolutely false. It is also clear that no matter how it is castigated as a heartless machine grinding down all in its path in an insatiable lust for more, big business is what runs the world economy. Certainly it cannot be allowed to operate unfettered, as the bitter fruit of excessive deregulation has revealed. But neither can it be chopped down.
There’s a longstanding tradition in politics: bipartisanship is 1) vital to effective government and 2) 99 44/100% guaranteed to be a fast path toward career self-immolation. The ideological litmus test crew, i.e. pundits, rip mercilessly on those whose primary residence is their neighborhood yet reach out to the other side of the aisle for the unforgivable crime of compromising any of their sacred dictums even as denizens of the other side of the street despise them for where they live period. It’s sharpening the saw to aim at the necks of those choosing to suffer the consequences of living in a lose-lose scenario. The leader who chooses holding fast to their core beliefs and principles does so knowing they will be lambasted for committing the unpardonable sin of standing for what they believe regardless of whether it toes the party line along with never being accepted by the other side. To stand unswayed in the wind compromised of hot air from haters should be a quality revered. Instead, it is reviled.
The Christian knows these things, forever a stranger in a strange land no matter where they roam. The world is incapable of understanding clear certainty when it comes to matters of faith, rendered unable to comprehend this by its inability to grasp the truth that Jesus is. Meanwhile, the church often shakes its head in disapproving bewilderment when one or more of its members behave in a manner deemed unseemly, such as hanging out with publicans and sinners.
Both of these factors come into play when considering President Bush. He has been blasted by the left for his aggressive pursuit of the war on terror via the elimination of Iraq as an active supporter of same while being ripped on by the right for not practicing party politics (or at least the pundit’s definition of same) in matters such as immigration. He has been blamed for the country’s and to a degree the world’s present economic woes; never mind the primary cause being a Democratic-led policy of handing out housing loans like candy to those who had no possible means of repaying said loans once the insane upward climb of home prices came to a halt. Finally, he has been roundly criticized for following his own instincts and beliefs no matter their unpopularity. In short, President Bush is hated for actually leading in a world that says it wants one yet cannot abide actually having one.
An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an investigative journalist and lawyer (now there’s a combo that’ll scare people who cross him) who interned with John Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 presidential election minces no words in commenting on this:
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
‘Nuff said.
The time will come when this country and the world will deeply regret not having a leader who says and acts upon what he believes without regard for polls or pundits. A true leader demonstrates courage by sticking to their convictions. We have such a leader now. He who is next in line? Who knows.
P.S. Continuing the tradition (of one post) of tacking a music video not really having all that much to do with the post other than the title…
One of the elements feeding Obamania is the identification factor. “He/she is ‘one of us’” has long been in play as part of the political process. Although the usual example of same given is someone nervously twittering how African-Americans have a penchant (how’s that for understatement?) of voting for most any African-American running for office regardless — the classic example is Marion Barry, busted twice for drugs and once for DUI (convicted on one of the drug busts, pled guilty on the other, acquitted on the DUI) yet able to win re-election to either the mayorship or city council of Washington D.C. seemingly at will — but race isn’t the only identifier. The Republican leadership and conservative pundits were positively startled by Mike Huckabee’s repeated strong showings in the Presidential primaries earlier this year, consistently missing the attraction of an unabashed evangelical to those who share the same faith.
While there are numerous flaws in the ‘one of us’ mindset, not the least of which is blind allegiance to any politician or leader on the basis of any mutual element not germane to skill set or capability to lead, one in particular deserves mention. In sports it’s known as the make-up call. A referee or umpire or official or whatever they’re called in a particular sport makes a call against one team or competitor that normally would not be made as it’s at best a borderline offense. So why are they doing so? In an attempt to atone for a mistake earlier in the competition when they either didn’t call an offense against the team now being penalized that should have been made, or made a call against the other team or competitor that shouldn’t have been made. It’s an understandable sentiment. But how can making a deliberate mistake atone for an prior inadvertent one? Does this somehow wipe out what happened earlier? How can intentionally doing something in the present that ought not to be done neutralize what was unintentionally done in the past that ought not to have been done? It might be used to the point of being worn out, but it’s still true: two wrongs don’t make a right. Ever.
Another sports example. Back when I was still going to Raiders home games before finally having enough of the crowd behavior earlier this year, so much so I’d rather eat my season ticket than attend, I went to a Sunday night game where Oakland played Tampa Bay. This was two seasons after the Buccaneers had humiliated the Raiders in the Super Bowl. The overriding theme in the stands was this game being looked at as a chance for revenge. Which I suppose was obtained; Oakland won despite a career-ending hit on quarterback Rich Gannon that came perilously close to paralyzing him for life. However, no matter how good that victory felt to the Raider Nation it was still the Buccaneers who won that Super Bowl. And there never will be a do-over of that game.
Believing one must support ‘one of us’ as way to obtain compensation today for grievances that took place yesterday deliberately overlooks one of life’s basic facts: the past not only insists on staying where it is, it’s equally insistent on never allowing visitation rights. Racism is a repugnant evil which all believers must oppose whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head, especially when it attempts to take root within oneself. But how does the election of a politician with less than a handful of years of legislative experience, zero executive experience, a cotillion of friends and influences all residing in the hardcore leftist side of things, waffling proposed policies that when nailed down far more often than not propose overwhelming government activity in people’s lives while demonstrating a shocking naïveté about the base nature of humanity, demonstrated hypersensitivity to the least whiff of criticism, and a penchant for elitist arrogant dismissal of middle class America make up for anything? Sure, it’s a terrific statement. It also states that crying oppressive racism as an excuse for why self-advancement is not taking place has been forever invalidated. But at what price has this statement been made? You know this guy is going to be in charge come January 20th, right? If he screws up, we will all suffer. Regardless of whether he’s one of us, whomsoever the ‘us’ in this case might be.
P.S. Doesn’t have anything to do with the above, but I couldn’t resist:
