The Commander in Grief

No matter how active an individual claims to be in politics, the discourse and opinion surrounding the office of the President of the United States is arguably the most watched and scrutinized of any public office. According to Thomas Hollihan, in his book Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, the election of the President in the United States is crucial to national identity. “Presidential elections are thus the most important moments in our election rituals. They mark the time when the ideological divisions that identify the two major political parties and that most sharply define our sense of purpose and commitment and that chart the course for our future will be most sharply revealed.” (Page 22)

Through the years, Americans have faced numerous crisis and conflicts as well as times of peace. The American people have shown what qualities they view as most important for the President to posses. As recent generations have seen, to be an effective leader is a matter of one’s own opinion. We have learned that sometimes the most popular candidate does not always win. We have also learned that sometimes the most effective policies are those that lower the approval rating of the President. So by what standard does society measure the President? Is honesty the preferred quality? Or does our country prefer an individual of focus and who is indifferent to conflicting views? Do we as citizens find our own identity in the demeanor of our Commander In Chief, or do our political affiliations dictate our views of the office of President?

In 1932 The United States faced perhaps its greatest crisis ever. Not only did the nation face an economic problem unlike any before, but a growing threat lingered across the ocean to the East. The Nation seemed to have found hope in New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Considered by many to be one of our greatest presidents, his popularity over the course of his four terms was unparalleled. According the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut, his approval rating never dipped below 54 percent. Hollihan states that “our presidents are the embodiment of our national identity.” (Page 23) In contrast Ronald Reagan also thought to be very popular at his time, dipped to 35 percent in 1983. So what qualities made Roosevelt’s popular? In our most trying times it was Roosevelt who answered America’s call for action. In response to the Great Depression, he created the New Deal programs which the Library of Congress states “New Deal programs helped improve the lives of people suffering from the events of the depression. In the long run, New Deal programs set a precedent for the federal government to play a key role in the economic and social affairs of the nation.” Many of these programs, including Social Security, exist to this very day. Thanks to Roosevelt’s accomplishments in his first 100 days, we now measure the course of a presidency’s future based on their first 100 day performance. Or were the words of President Roosevelt in the nation’s darkest moments what makes the mark of the president?

On December 7^th, 1941 The United States saw its largest attack from a foreign enemy in Hawaii. Roosevelt framed the day and the attacks on Pearl Harbor as “one that would live in infamy.”

For a long time prior to the day, Roosevelt found it hard to articulate the words for why The United States chose to remain “neutral” in the beginning of the Second World War. But in a moment of great mourning and sorrow Roosevelt addressed the nation with words that gave no mixed meaning or intention.

“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.” - historyplace.com

Roosevelt’s ability to make a stern statement increased the Nation’s confidence and support for whatever his cause would be, showing his ability to lead.

Flash Forward 30 years after Roosevelt’s death, the years of democratic ideals dominating the presidency had been replaced by the election in 1968 and re-election in 1972 of Richard M. Nixon. Much like Roosevelt Nixon saw early approval ratings in the 60s. Many know that Nixon is the only President to ever resign from office. Nixon watched his approval drop in record numbers due to his involvement in the Water Gate scandal. Upon his departure of office, his approval rating sunk to a record low of 24, despite being re-elected by a landslide in 1972. His mere involvement in the scandal changed the public’s opinion so greatly that his call for impeachment was imminent. Despite the low approval rating, Nixon has been heralded for his diplomatic work and was well known and respected as Dwight Eisenhower’s Vice-President. As president he promised “Peace with honor” when it came to the Vietnam conflict. Nixon’s first term saw the landing of men on the moon; a goal set by the Kennedy administration, as well as his establishment of the EPA or Environmental Protection Agency and authorization of the Clean Air Act.

Despite his multiple accomplishments, Nixon’s troubles overshadowed his triumphs. When the president of the United States is no longer able to uphold the beliefs and ideas of society, his role is put into question.

“When American’s elect a president, they elect a ‘king, a high priest, and a prophet.’… As a priest he enacts the rituals of our ‘civic religion’” according to Hollihan. “The presidency is a symbolic institution, and the president’s actions affect the daily lives of U.S. citizens and people throughout the world.” (Page 23) So, no matter how good a president’s deeds are considered to be, if one action is taken under their watch that is considered detrimental to the nation, then their complete legitimacy as President is challenged.

Almost every president since has come under some fire for the follies. In the later part of the decade, President Gerald Ford became the target of even further public scrutiny. Ford was known to be a college athlete who took an unfortunate spill getting off of Air Force One. This was lampooned by Chevy Chase of Saturday Night Live.

Ford:

Chase:

Not only is the president expected to uphold the highest values of society, he is also expected to carry himself in a manner that garners respect from the world over. The President’s ability to command such respect was put into great question once Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. Although Carter was considered to be very articulate and well mannered, many thought this to be a sign of weakness. In his “Crisis of Confidence” speech which delivered to the nation in response to the growing concern of energy and the current state of the country.

“These ten days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our nation’s underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law, and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people, I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.

It is a crisis of confidence.

It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.”

Carter makes many concessions in this speech. By doing so and admitting to the short comings of not only the Government but also of the American people themselves, Carter alienated himself. The man that the nation had wanted so bad after the scandals of Nixon, had been done in by his very qualities that Americans respected… His honesty.

In the 1990s the Unites States saw a similar situation to that of Nixon regarding moral conflict arise. During the Presidency, Bill Clinton was accused of having an affair with an intern named Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton appeared to be the perfect example of a down-to-earth everyday man that American’s craved. We wanted a fast food loving “good old southern boy" with charm and charisma that would bring change to the 12 years of Reaganomics and class division. The President again seemed honest and trustworthy. He even admitted to using Marijuana.

However, when the ethics of the President came under fire, the highest office in the land saw disenchantment from the people it served. The questioning of the President’s moral fiber challenged the nation’s opinion of what characteristics the president should posses. How could an honest down-to-earth man have done such a horrible thing, especially as the President?

The President in many people’s eyes should uphold the very ideals that society lives by. So how did George W. Bush get elected? Was it out of sheer fear of having another immoral liberal corrupting the Office of the President? Or by the faults within the electoral process itself?

	George W. Bush		Albert A. Gore, Jr.		Ralph Nader		Electoral votes
	Popular vote	%	Popular vote	%	Popular vote	%	R	D	G

Total

50,456,002

47.87%

50,999,897

48.38%

2,882,955

2.74%

271

266

What seemed important is that he was a church going father of two, who seemed committed to family values, a far cry from the “perverted” Clintons. He was heralded as a “Compassionate Conservative” or as Robin Williams saw it “like a Volvo with a gun rack.” But again the nation had found a stern leader, a man of conviction who wouldn’t take "no" for an answer. Unfortunately, his popularity, an approval rating average of 49% according to Gallup, was unable to rise due to his inability to articulate his thoughts in a correct manner. He became well known for his “Bush-isms” and became the subject of public scrutiny unparalleled by any other president in history.

Again, the office of the Presidency has shown that it has become increasingly hard to appeal to all voters. Whether it’s Bush’s lack of rhetorical prowess, or policies enacted in order to combat poverty, the President will never be able to please everyone.

Throughout time, our society has questioned and re-assessed what exactly the office of the President entails. Is he a Fiscal and Social leader? Is he there to lead by example in times of tragedy and great duress? Should he be vigilante in his words and stick to his guns, or do we fault him for his honesty when it scares us? Perhaps the will of the people as well as the increased media coverage has created such an environment that no matter what the President does, his failures no matter how big or small will be forever scrutinized. This leaves only our own moral compass to offer the true guide. No matter how much we try to deny it, our perceptions of what our president should be will always find conflict with what our President is.

I leave you with this:

George Bush On Global Warming - Spoof By Will Ferrell - More amazing videos are a click away

Blog #1 Participation In a Sound-bite Media Age

As our ability to communicate through means such as texting and internet sites like Twitter and Facebook has increased, our political participation has changed as well. Many would assume that because of these new open technologies, participation in the democratic process would increase, but in-fact these sites have become detrimental and hazardous to political discourse in our country. We are no longer well informed, but have grown impressionable as technology and the advent of the 24 hour news channel grow in popularity. This growing problem has become more evident within the last year starting with the access (or lack thereof) to information during the presidential race of 2008, and the current political issue of healthcare reform. We no longer engage in dialogue on issues, but instead find it convenient to have the information filtered to us. And in many cases we never receive the information at all.

According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil War: Political Campaigns in a Media Age “Public audiences are exposed to a barrage of experiences, events and messages that they must attempt to explain and understand. People acquire their political attitudes and information through these experiences and through their interactions with others. The media play a role in these events, as do conversations with friends, relatives, neighbors and colleagues.” (pg. 17) And while this has been a truth for many years, the increased access to media via social networks and 24 hour news stations has diminished our ability to effectively process and discuss the topics and issues.

Proof of this inability to filter information is evident in this screen shot from Fox News Channel. During President Obama’s address to school children on September eighth 2009, Fox, flashed this information bar below the president at eight minutes into his speech “Obama: Need Students to develop skills and intellect.” Now some may ask, what is wrong with that? To understand the issue of such a claim, one must understand where Fox sits on the political spectrum. More times than not, Fox is considered to be extremely conservative, and in many instances, the personalities on Fox have been known to call President Obama a socialist (Bill O’Reilly), and the anti-Christ (Glenn Beck). In O’Reilly’s defense he says it jokingly here, but repeatedly on his program, as throughout Fox programming, Obama is pegged to have Communist tendencies.

When media personalities begin to use terms and images like these to describe political heads, citizens begin to shape their opinions in what can be considered a poor light. In a specific example Fox News flashed this screen shot in light of President Obama appointing positions within his administration as watch dogs for major industry. Fox chose to label these people as Czars, making a connection to Russia, which has a long history of Communism. The interesting part of this "bite" is that a czar should be a reference to Imperial Russia, a Czar is a king, not a dictator.

This screen shot is also posted on Rush Limbaugh’s website http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090809/content/01125107.guest.html. The interesting thing to note here is the headline “Obama’s School Speech Explained.” At this point a media personality has taken it upon himself to explain the meaning and connotation behind President Obama’s Speech. This may seem like participation but it would actually take someone just as long to read Rush’s transcript as it would to hear The President’s speech first hand. So by allowing the media to filter this speech and give you “highlights” the true meaning and message of the speech is shaped how the media outlet wants it.

Another recent example of political participation, recent hot button debate has come from a comment former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made. In a public appearance Mrs. Palin commented on HR 3200: America’s Affordable Healthcare Act of 2009, specifically remarking on “Section 1233” regarding “Advance Care Planning Consultation” as it pertains to what Palin called Death Panels. In the address obtained from Yahoo! News, Palin comments “Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program …The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

This Quote created a firestorm for both parties. Putting Democrats on the defensive about the language of the document, while putting Republicans on the offensive with a new hot button term known now as “death panel.” Now by reading the whole quote, one can understand where Mrs. Palin would make the analogy of the “death panel” as it pertains to the counseling at the end of life, or need to update medical records. Unfortunately, if you read “Section 1233” it is a bit easier to understand the actual stipulation discussed.

“(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

‘(II) The information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy).

‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

‘(II) That has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

‘(III) Provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

Now actually looking at the document, there are no mentions of “death panel” listed anywhere in the document. In-fact, read the entire bill, and not one time does “death panel” come up. But because Sarah Palin said it in a speech, many people on conservative side of the spectrum ran with the term. This includes reporters who began to use the phrase whenever it was deemed necessary to address the stipulation. In doing so, the term completely reshaped the discourse surrounding the bill; particularly in the town hall meeting that have been taking place across the country as well in the online social networks. On Sarah Palin’s Facebook she further elaborates on her speech. And while Palin’s response seems to be warranted and substantiated in some regards, a stream of over 3 thousand responses fallowed. Some included such participation inspiring comments like “Govt. has NO RIGHT NO RIGHT ever to tell us what we may have, to have bureaucrats interfere and invade our most private of rights. This is how the Nazis started out,” brought to you by Judith Ne. Or another highly intelligible comment such as “how it got this way. I'm sure the Germans that didn't speak up at the beginning of Hitler's rule, sure wished they had when they finally realized what type of demagogue they had allowed to become leader of their country. We get the government we deserve, so let's start deserving better.”

The provision states that in the event of no living will, end of life counseling would take place. The federal government would be making no decisions on whether someone deserves to live over the other, but the bill does state that for those who are on life support who cannot make the decision for themselves, it is possible for first a family member or next of kin to decide what the best option is.

As Hollihan states in his book “We might learn more about political candidates and how they would govern if we could get candidates to talk in detail about their positions on complex issues… Instead, candidates make pithy sound-bite statements… And the public gets little in the way of real information (page 52).” As a society, we have come to rely on the sound-bites to shape our political views. A 30 second news clip on a 30 minute address holds greater value, than actually watching or reading the transcript. This creates a social environment where the use of 30 second clips as valid support for an argument is acceptable.

When the information does finally get funneled down to everyday Americans, much of the information has been presented in such a way that it is impossible to truly understand. An example from a town hall meeting in which a man approaches a woman in the crowd to get her view on the current healthcare debate demonstrates how a lack of knowledge on the issues shapes our discourse and political participation.

So many things this woman says are contradictions I don’t know where to begin. “I don’t want to identify myself with any group” when moments earlier she says she’s a Republican. She says “I believe in biblical values.” If I’m not mistaken, The Bible says something along the lines of take care of your fellow man. She also references that illegal immigrants will get health care, in HR 3200; there is not one mention of health care being provided to illegal aliens. She also mentions that no one is “obligated to give you care,” but in fact hospitals cannot turn away anyone... it’s the law. This “participant” is the perfect example of the difference between Participation and sound-bite involvement. She wants the word to spread “ten people tell ten people,” but in all reality has only a small idea of how the proposed bill would work or what it contains. She would be better served to sit down and become informed beyond the banter that is offered via media outlets and inform herself before she speaks.

Below is an interview with New York Congressman Anthony Weiner on Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough. The interview is a fantastic example of the dialogue that should be taking place in order for citizens to be informed.

Congressman Weiner articulates his opinion, and Scarborough does a good job of asking Weiner to elaborate on points. The discourse that takes place is a good example of responsible media shaping participation.

So what are the facts on health care? The numbers are staggering according to National Coalition on Health Care.

• National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.
• National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year.
• Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent.

· the average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost. Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily.

· Total health insurance costs for employers could reach nearly $850 billion by 2019. Individual and family spending will jump considerably from $326 billion in 2009 to $550 billion in 2019.

• The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade. Employer-based family insurance costs for a family of four will reach nearly $25,000 per year by 2018 absent health care reform.
• A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.
• According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.
• Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.

These are the facts as to why health care reform is important. But I challenge any reader to identify a news organization that has devoted the time to the facts. Most of the discourse surrounded in this topic, as with many, is covered in buzz words that have no actual effect on the topic.

So next time you are listening to the so called "dialogue" that the sound-bite media has to offer, remember that only you can shape your participation in a productive manner. Ask questions and choose to seek out the information so readily available first hand, not through filters or sound-bites that are detrimental to participation. Because at the end of the day, we are the ones who the decisions and discourse effect the most.