The Ethical Boundaries of Politics

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by sidneyworld, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. sidneyworld
    Offline

    sidneyworld Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +29
    I watched all the debates over and over again on both sides through the tapes on MSNBC and early on I dismissed the possibility of a black president being elected into office along with a woman. I was pretty convinced of that no matter the notariety. But as time went by, especially towards the end, I noticed a vast distinction on the diplomacy and wisdom of Senator Barrack Obama. But it wasn't so much what was said. Anyone with common intelligence just needs to see a little out of the box to calm an otherwise irate audience. Just change the mood and don't blatantly criticize your opponents. That was his strategy. Sen. Obama's demeanor was outstanding, especially coming up against the blood thirsty talens of Sen. Clinton. I was impressed. Very impressed. And while I still maintained that even if Sen. Obama made it to the election, he would still not become president because he is black, or at least the half that shows. (yikes)

    As time went on, it became clear the other option was Sen. Clinton in the election. Well, you know how that would have panned out. Her endless strategy on becoming elected ($$$$$$$) barring any substance, of course, may well have afforded her the throne so I looked at the opposition. Sen. McCain was not presidental material. His background alone, and his first hand experience with unstable countries clearly poses a potential bias that might compromise good decisions. And... I just never trusted him. Why? Well who cares. I didn't like him. The irony of that is his outstanding and lengthy military record and distinction. No-one comes close. It was honorable and clearly qualifies a leadership as the Chief Commanding Officer of the United States Military. I've argued about that in the past. Especially on matters concerning President Clinton's non-existant military record. Yeah, I know, Pres. Bush wasn't exactly up to speed on that either. But the debate regarding military record resolved to not needing a war to be the President, but I still maintain that there should be some type of enlistment as a prerequisite to hold office as a Chief Commanding Officer, aside the Presidency.

    In any case, and after much observation, I began to take Sen. Obama seriously and positively and I saw the potentiality of his office as a profoundly positive message to this country on dreams coming true, and by the likes of a Black President who displayed a degree of statesmanship the likes of which hasn't been exercised since the Reagan era though not unlike Sec. Colin Powel. Remarkable indeed. As would have been Powel.

    I don't believe Pres. Obama was elected because of his race, or at the very least I would not have voted for him strictly on this notion. Further, his policies regarding controversial issues seemed diametrically opposed to mine, keeping in mind of course that a president represents the best interest of all citizens. Or at least should. And here's where things changed dramatically for me.

    The nomination of Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State was expected. It was a built in compension and completely unavoidable. And who knows, maybe she will not blow up the world, with Speaker Pelosi. Who knows. But this was not the eye opener. I had a great deal of confidence that race would not become an agenda of Pres. Obama. I was certain that it would not. No matter what event might trigger such a response. But it did. And not that far along his Presidency.

    Since when does a President condem an entire police force before properly reviewing all circumstances? Not only was his comment about the Cambridge Police Department acting "stupidly" a clear breach of presidential protocol, but it also lends itself to favoritism which is a colossal compromise of ethics in acting in the best interest of the citizens of this country. All citizens of all races.

    Harvard scholar on race relations, Henry Louis Gates Jr. has been a long time friend of President Obama. But that's just the beginning of what is completely irresponsible behavior by both Prof. Gates, and President Obama's subsequent reaction to such an event. An event I truly believe was a trigger response to Gates' own racial profiling against white cops. What kind of an example is a Harvard Professor on race relations, and his friend the President of the United States who also happens to be black setting, given the politically disproportioned climate on race relations in this country? This behavior completely undermines the efforts of law enforcement to protect the public, and compromises the integrity of all law enforcement in this country.

    Now mind you everyone is entitled to an opinion. But is the President? Especially a black president given the political climate in this country? I can't tell you how dissappointed I was that this happened. I was completely shocked and blamed it more on his lack of experience, than his race. And a demonstration of arrogance that the country would discount any favoritism towards his black activist friend as the expense of the integrity of a Police Department simply answering to the call of a concerned neighbor. What an incredibly stupid remark, Mr. President that only served to further divide racial relations in this country. It pissed me off. And I'm certainly not the only one.

    What Pres. Obama did was defy what everyone believed would never happen, by overstepping his boundaries as the leader of the free world through a simple remark that has had a collosal impact on many Americans in his lack foresight and vision. And for me, I can't help but see that what we have now, is a Black President. And I don't know if I could be more disgusted at such events.. I had a vision of hope from the man himself. I bought into it. But along with everything else he's attempted in saving this country, much of which, by the way, resembles classic Clinton proposed policies and incentives with buy outs, and stimulus plans and endless deals like carrots in our faces to ingraciate the American public to his favor, he now brings race into the picture... I mean, what else can be said..

    A friend of mine mentioned something a ways back about decisions and truth. That when faced with a decision there can only be one right answer. If none appears to exist, don't make the decision, but instead look beyond the immediate problem and attempt to affect a strategy with the hope of creating a more permanent resolution predicated on its origin and it's core base. This is the perception of leadership. Stoneridge possess this quality for all the years I've read his posts. And they're consistent. If he ran for President I would vote for him. Maybe even campaign. In fact, I am certain of this.

    Once you run for office, especially on such a caliber of responsibility and equality, you are now first a politician before you are anything else. You are a caretaker of the values of those you represent in dealing with an open ended, multicultural society. And there are certain protocols in achieving excellence in this capacity. Pres. Obama's strategy, as has been voiced by many in the White House Staff, is quite liberal and unconventional. They believe he champions the notion of teamwork and nothing works better in promoting this than bringing the throne a few feet down from its perch. They believe in him because they count, they matter and the team spirit in unprecedented, even by comparison to Pres. Clinton's term of office. But is this real? I guess for them, it really is. I know I would appreciate it, especially as an intern. I've worked for high caliber professionals and public figures in this country and I know full well the degree of self-esteem and sense of purpose you gain from such an acknowledgment in working closely with them. In being a part of their daily operation, not as a subordinate, but as a genuine contributor in adding an objective perspective or simply enhancing their platform on issues you yourself believe to be worthy. I've had such opportunities and experiences in my life, fortunately. So I know what it all comes down to, and they have my undying respect and loyalty, as no matter what the outcome they acted on truth and integrity. Not notariety.

    But there is no loyalty in subversion, such as a subversive platform. I believe at this point, Pres. Obama is operating under a completely different platform which does not cater to the American people. And his own party recognizes this, not because he is black, but because he is becoming more and more unqualified to keep the balance of equality at a plausible level. Equality among government and corporations, among healthcare in the private sector for those who can afford top quality care. Among property ownership, and government bail out of mortgages.

    What Pres. Obama has done is reform personal responsibility into a class action against a majority of American people. Those of us who have earned the right to a particular quality of life in this country are being sanctioned to accomodate the poor with our wealth to those who would otherwise be fed by the same hand. As if to imagine he actually forgot that 75% of all charitable contributions in this country come from the private sector to begin with. Bad decision. One among many and no doubt many more to come. When you bite the hand that feeds others, you will eventually end up feeding them yourself. And so what's new? At least private foundations in this country have a strick criteria to charity. There are no hand outs, free falls or piles and piles of carrots in anyone's face that will never afford them an insight or motivation to feed themselves.

    Anne Marie
     

Share This Page