President Obama gets another chance for 2nd term

Congratulations to President Barack Obama. He gave a great victory speech because he exuded hopefulness and he embraced inclusivity. Amongst many great lines, my favorite line was: “…together we rise and fall as one nation, and as one people”. Obama truly understands that the greatness of a nation is the sum of its people, not just one cross-section of America. I am proud of President Obama for this understanding. (From listening to some Republican candidates, many still to need to grasp this principal of nation-building and come to the realization that the nation has changed).

Obama is humble because he knows where he came from. I can relate to humble beginnings because I am child of immigrant parents to Canada. I may not agree with some of Obama’s social policies, but I, like many, are not absolutely conservative on all social issues either, and I do agree with some of his policies too.

Obama is also a man who loves God and nation–necessities of a good national leader. I do not relate with the rhetoric of my fellow conservatives who falsely accuse Obama of being a Muslim, unAmerican, and a socialist (neither do I understand it when liberals falsely accuse Romney of some things too). Come on, let’s get real here. That’s just pure ignorant hogwash and gives us a bad name. Mitt Romney resonates with many Americans. The economy and jobs were big issues for many Americans. Whether liberals like it or not, Romney also would have made a good president. I am confident that Romney also would have done a great job if he was elected. (If I were an American, I might consider myself an Independent; but I’m very proud to be Canadian, proud of my great country, and of my Prime Minister).

In 2012, the economy was the most important issue for all Americans. And yes, the national debt is still ballooning, and unemployment is still very high. However, this election did not seem to turn only on the state of the economy. Rather, it likely also turned on social issues. Like it or not, people blame the poor economy on George W. Bush, not Obama.

Americans voted with their hearts. Despite the jobless numbers, there are many who still like Obama. They may not like the current state of the economy, but they do like what he stands for. Obama knows how to embrace all people and understands their challenges. I did not hear this in the rhetoric of Gov. Mitt Romney. Romney focused solely on the economy and jobs in his campaign. Perhaps this was his campaign’s mistake. Did Romney speak out enough on abortion and other issues conservatives are concerned about?

The majority of Americans wanted to give Obama another chance, even though the economy isn’t so great. In my opinion, people did not vote purely for economic change, but also for social change. Social issues was a big factor, especially on gender equality issues and health care. There was an 18% margin in the women’s vote. The House now has a record number of women (all Democratic). ObamaCare, as divisive as it has been, will give new health care to millions more people who never had it before. This will be a good thing for the future of the nation, but it will cost a lot of money. Better health care for all people has now become a part of nation-building, and the majority of the American people have agreed to this. Kudos to my American friends.

Advertisements

Author: Kevin S.

A follower of Jesus, a husband and a father. Hobbies include biking, keeping fish if they don't die on me, blogging when I can, theologizing and ministry, and pondering about world affairs.

3 thoughts on “President Obama gets another chance for 2nd term”

  1. The Republican Party was, in the 1800s, a center of advocacy for the destruction of chattel slavery and the establishment of civil rights. Then it gave up on civil rights in the late 1870s. The Democratic Party picked up the civil rights mantle in the 1960s and the Republican Party began its Southern Strategy of seeking votes of disgruntled white segregationists. That is why the Republican Party is overwhelmingly white; many people of color have excellent memories. In Georgia, where I live, the Republicans are the mostly white party and the Democrats are mainly of color. The color line is easy to see.

    It also did not help the Republicans, who have identified themselves as defenders of traditional family values, to have candidates for state and national office who made inappropriate and uninformed statements about rape and reproduction. One Wisconsin lawmaker seeking another term of office said that “some girls rape easy.” These candidates lost, fortunately.

    As an American and a patriot, not as a partisan, I prefer a country in which both major parties are big tents which are open to facts and science, between which constructive conversations occur. Now we have a big-tent party (to which I belong) and a club dominated by ideologues who don’t want to be confused by facts.

    Like

    1. Kenneth, thanks for that interesting bit of history about the Republican Party. It’s too bad the party abandoned their advocacy of civil rights. I wonder if the Republicans will have to re-invent itself for the future in order for it to be a viable alternative to the Democratic Party?

      When the new Conservative Party of Canada was still the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance, it was picked on and labelled as racist. We’re past that now. The Conservatives now has some good support from Canadians of other ethnicities.

      Like

      1. I have a copy of the book which the Nixon-Agnew campaign published in 1968 to explain their position on issues of the day. They were appealing to segregationists at the time. For years before that, Barry Goldwater won the support of many Southern segregationists by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the Senate. He claimed to have Constitutional problems (related to private property) and not to be a racist, and I take him at his word. (Goldwater had a libertarian type of conservatism. In fact, by the 1980s, after the Reagan Revolution, he seemed liberal relative to the Jerry Falwell-style social conservatives.) But Goldwater was on the wrong side of history in 1964. And many openly racist Southerners voted Republican that year because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

        There was a time–not long ago–in the 1980s–when the Republican Party was known as a party of new ideas. Now it is dominated by those who express a reflexive distrust of government while handing out corporate welfare, cutting welfare for the poor, and preaching traditional family values. (I wonder what Hebrew prophets would say about that.). And facts do not seem to matter to many political operatives, As one Romney campaign official said in August, facts would not define their claims. And they did not, as in misleading claims about Jeep in Ohio.

        There was a time–not long ago–in the 1980s–when Republican and Democratic leaders worked out compromises on a regular basis and governed. Now compromise is a dirty word on the right and on the left. Lyndon Johnson (in the 1960s, I know) did not insist on an all-or-nothing approach. As he said, once one has passed a law, one can amend it. And Ronald Reagan preferred to have part of what he wanted rather than none of it. These men cared about governing, but partisan purists care about sticking to their ideologies and being obstructionists.

        I have been following the media this week. Responsible conservatives–those who care about governing–have been quite critical of the Republican Party and what it has become since the midterm elections of 1994. Reagan conservatives of the 1980s would now face charges of being too liberal, too prone to compromise. Before the USA can have two major parties interested in governing, the leaders of the Republican Party need to assert standards of reasonability.

        I am a Democratic partisan for several reasons, including my Southern origin, my sensitivity of civil rights relative to the South, and my communitarian values (as opposed to rugged individualism). But I also remember what one great British liberal (whose name I forget) said about Samuel Johnson: It was good to have Johnson as a debating partner, for he required the opposing arguments to be good ones. And the arguments against Johnson’s case forced his position to be better than it would have been otherwise. A reasoned and civil debate improves all sides and works for the common good. That is what I want for my country.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s