Uneasiness and Empathy

There seems to be a growing uneasiness that America is changing, and not for the better. While some believe our new president can bring us out of our national funk, others believe that he has put us on a very destructive path. Others have just come to a realization that America will never be the same and are okay with it. Still, many fear what is to come.

Immigration as the Source of Change?

This spectrum of American feelings may explain why the immigration debate is so heated. Immigrants bring tangible, visible changes; so folks point to it as the source of evil, or good, but definitely change. But we are a nation of laws, and therefore immigration laws should be enforced, at the border and here at home. But we are also a compassionate nation, which makes the how and why of our enforcement tricky. So the question stands: Is immigration (illegal and otherwise) changing America? If not immigration, what about America is changing? And is it good change?

When Reagan’s daughter asked him upon his return from the '84 Olympics in L.A. what he enjoyed most, he said the Opening Ceremonies. He noticed that when the nations marched out behind their flags each nation looked her part. The French looked French, the Italians looked Italian, the Chinese looked Chinese and so forth; and then he said that when he saw the United States march out, we looked like the whole world. I heard that story years ago but it has stuck with me because we as a country do not define ourselves by our race but by an ideal. We rally around the flag because “[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..”

In 1776, America was one of the freest places for men to live on earth. Yet it was not enough, as the founders fought for freedom from oppression and the ability to manage their own destinies. They had a love of liberty and a willingness to defend it whatever the cost. The fundamental belief of equality of opportunity has led this country to be the greatest country since the beginning of the world. And since our country's birth, many have looked to the ideal of America and they see us for who we really are.

The Source of Our Uneasiness

So what lies at the core of change and the cause of our current uneasiness? We are changing because there are too many in our country that no longer value true liberty but are willing to relinquish freedom by allowing the government to dictate how we live our lives (the Return of King George?). We are NOT changing because we look different. Too many in this country see government as the only answer and seemingly wish the death of the creative exercise of self-initiative. Too many have lost hope and just don't realize that the systemic problems of the present were created by government, not solvable by government. Unfortunately, reason has given way to fear.

Besides the systemic macro problems inherent in our oversized government, there may be an even greater fundamental flaw on the micro level. A truly alarming statistic recently revealed that 40% of births in the United States in 2007 came out of wedlock. Is there any question that there is any true substitution that the ideal for a child is to be raised with a father and a mother? Exhaustive research supports this ideal. Society's other ills such as drug use, poverty, education, depression, self worth, etc. are all affected more by home life than any other thing. But who needs research to understand this? People know this because it is human to believe this, whatever your circumstance.

A Need for Empathy?

Empathy is a very popular buzz word in politics now. Clearly, on a personal and human level we want to be empathetic; we want to understand and help others overcome the hardships of life. And surely, as we try, we don't want to offend. Plus, we want our nation to reflect compassion for others. However, when our government tries to do the "empathy" thing, in practice they go too far. Rather than actually being helpful in achieving a productive result, the government enables behaviors that create a welfare state.

So our new President now has the opportunity to name his first Supreme Court nominee to make his mark on history. He has stated he wants a judge that demonstrates empathy. Enter Sonia Sotomayor. Her life story is impressive and her time on the federal bench is of note and not to be ignored. She grew up in the Bronx from poverty where she credits her mother as the one who enabled her to achieve what she has. Oh yeah, she is of Hispanic origin and she is a woman. But for all of her unique experiences does this provide her the necessary experience to be the "empathy" judge the president is looking for? More importantly, is this really the new standard by which we are measuring judges?

The Oath of a Justice

The oath will read, "I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

It does not say to administer empathy. Why? Because no one is capable of being perfectly empathetic AND that is not the role of a judge. If we could count on judges’ empathy we would have no need for laws. She is to do equal right to the poor and the rich based on the law and to impartially discharge her responsibilities. Without a doubt her troubling statement to a La Raza meeting would automatically disqualify a white person if he made the same comment. She said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So being a Hispanic woman will make her a better judge than a white man? Peggy Noonan recently made an astute observation when she said that those who focus on their own suffering can never appreciate the suffering of others. Mr. Obama is using race and gender again for his own advantage by insinuating that her life story qualifies her to be a better candidate than a different life story. Please let this identity politics stop already.

I remember reading once that if suffering alone taught, all the world would be wise for we all suffer. We can only hope that Justice Sotomayor takes her oath seriously and that her rulings from the bench will be free from prejudice, free from overt bias, and free from social engineering and policy making. So please let us stand up for what is right. In this case, let's stand up for the rule of law.

The End of the Grand Old Party? Cheney Back From the Bunker.

You have probably heard the pundits all over the news with their dramatic questions: Is the GOP over? Will they ever be back in power? James Carville predicted 40 more years of Democratic rule in his presumptuously titled book ‘40 More Years.’ And so it seems reporters in the mainstream media love to report the end of a political party. But for all the sensationalism and wishful thinking, the GOP is NOT dead.

In the 2008 Presidential election Barack Obama received 52.9% of the popular vote, while John McCain received 45.7%. In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the popular vote. So Barack Obama received 2.2% more of the popular vote than George Bush and suddenly Mr. Obama has a mandate to do whatever he wants while the GOP is doomed to oblivion. Yes, elections do have consequences but "Obama's mandate" is a clear overreach. This is evidenced by signs of discord among the American people with regard to President Obama’s policies. In a recent CNN poll 23% of the respondents believed that the economy is worse off because of the policies pursued by Mr. Obama, while 40% believe his policies have had no effect. That’s 63% of people who believe he has either had no effect or has made things worse.

Also, California voters this week rejected more taxes and government spending by a 2:1 margin. Even California, a state used to higher taxes and government spending has said "enough is enough!" What's that popular refrain, as California goes so goes the nation? If this is an indicator of what is really happening on the grass roots-state level, Obama must be getting a little nervous.

In a surprising twist, Gallop released a poll this week showing that for the first time in their polling history the majority of Americans (51%) consider themselves pro-life. This is further evidence of an opening for the GOP that we haven't seen in decades. There is clearly room for a party platform that is pro-life and believes in personal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. So maybe the GOP is not . . . dead.

Some time ago, former Vice-President Dick Cheney scheduled a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on national security. Not to be outdone and possibly feeling a threat that people are catching on to him, President Obama decided to speak on the same subject on the same day, and just before the former Vice President. For having such low approval ratings, it is odd that the White House and the mainstream media want to silence Cheney. They call his behavior undiplomatic, even sleazy. They believe he is an easy target and easy to caricature. Indeed, it would be difficult to find evidence of a President in his first 100 days that has attacked and vilified the previous administration more than Obama. When his back is against the wall and he is facing genuine criticism, Bush and Cheney are the target. But how long are people going to buy this?

Thank goodness Cheney is speaking up and not accepting being silenced. And here’s why. The supposed adversarial press has yet to be adversarial in asking President Obama tough questions. Because of this, we really have not had a legitimate debate on enhanced interrogation techniques (aka torture?). With Cheney speaking up, he has brought this debate to the table and it's finally time we talked about it.

Does water boarding really work? Do the memos Cheney has requested to be declassified back up his claims or is he just overstating? If water boarding does work, would we be willing to do it if we could get information to stop an imminent terrorist attack? Is water boarding even torture at all? It certainly is coercive and uncomfortable, but is it torture? If it is torture why are navy seals water boarded as part of their training? Clearly we aren't torturing our own soldiers! And do enhanced interrogation methods affect those administering the interrogation? We don't know the answers to these questions because we do not have all the information before us.

So let’s have the debate so we can determine what is real and what is not, what works and what does not. If the press did their job, Cheney wouldn't have to be out there. Surely, he'd rather be in Wyoming, fishing.

An Annoying Roommate, A High Stake Game of Poker, and Decency

You know the roommate that always vocalizes what he doesn't do around the house. He says it with a half-smirked smile, a laugh. By doing so he believes it alleviates his responsibility of participating in household chores. Because instead of actually doing the dishes he just says, "You know, I need to do the dishes." It is said as a faint apology but translates into an actual unwillingness to correct the problem.

This week President Obama acted like an annoying roommate. In his town hall meeting yesterday, he said “But the long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can't keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries because part of it is, we have to pay for -- we have to pay interest on that debt. And that means that we're mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt…”

This is an extraordinary statement from someone who has outlined a budget that has been revised to have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year (meaning we are borrowing 50 cents for every dollar we spend); the stimulus package will end up costing $1.3 trillion when you factor in interest; and next years' budget deficit has been revised to $1.26 trillion.

Mr. President, rather then just stating that our long-term debt is unsustainable and that we can’t keep borrowing money, how about you stop creating more long-term debt and borrowing money. As you also mentioned, Mr. President, we are in danger of having interest rates skyrocket, but undoubtedly it will be because of your policies; stating the adverse consequences of your own policies does not make you blameless. It is time you go into the kitchen and clean the dishes, especially since you are the one dirtying them.

If Nancy Pelosi’s press conference yesterday were a poker game, she put it all in. Time will tell if this was the right move but she looked uncertain, discombobulated, and out-right pathetic. How many versions of the truth can we continue to stomach? But she really lost me as she deflected by talking about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What? Are we in 2009?

She also said the CIA had lied to her. Huh? Accusing the CIA of a blanket lie to a senior member of Congress is frankly ridiculous. We finally received confirmation yesterday that she in fact knew in 2003 about enhanced interrogation methods. She knew, yet did nothing to protest. Will someone call her bluff, please?

What has happened to common courtesy and decency? Wanda Sykes was the introducing comedian at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last Saturday night. She was funny at times but equating Rush Limbaugh to the 20th hijacker was beyond the pale. Clearly she knows provocative gets you instant press; an unfortunate side effect of our multimedia world.

Worse yet was the President’s reaction; he laughed, he smiled. This is not a time to appease a comedian with a courtesy laugh. Thanks for sanctioning this line of humor, Mr. President. I'm glad you've brought a new sense of decency to Washington.

A Pattern of Appeasement

In 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich with an agreement in hand declaring “peace in our time.” Chamberlain struck a deal with Hitler with the hope of securing peace throughout Europe and the world. He was hailed as a hero by many and his intentions were good. However, his policy of appeasement turned out to give Hitler more confidence that European nations would not stand in his way. Winston Churchill was one of the most vocal opponents of Chamberlain’s actions and believed war would come.

History has shown Chamberlain’s approach to be dead wrong and Churchill to be right. Appeasement does not work.

In search of a Reagan “tear down this wall” moment, President Obama went to Prague to deliver an important foreign policy speech. Said he, “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."”

The statement “I’m not naïve,” was a last minute addition by President Obama. Not exactly a “tear down this wall” moment. The rhetoric is nice but truly reckless. Yes, you are naïve Mr. President. We have survived as a superpower because we do have nuclear weapons. Having them has been the greatest deterrent in not allowing ourselves to be a puppet of another nuclear power. There have been plenty of articles discrediting such a naïve idea.

This is not a good sign from our President, is it a pattern?

The President outsourced the writing of the stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi, both to appease her and avoid real responsibility.

He appeased Congress by signing a spending bill with over 8,000 earmarks. Then minutes later told the American people how irresponsible earmarks are.

During his European tour, the President allowed the European nations to set the agenda. He then apologized for America, saying it was arrogant and derisive (this is a broader topic for a later post). He did so to appease Europe, believing he would get its leaders to spend more stimulus funds and provide additional support in Afghanistan. We can only hope that the President learned that trading respect for popularity gets you nothing.

His bow to the Saudi King was a mistake, but his lying about it to the American people was disgraceful.

When he attended the Summit of the Americas, he allowed Daniel Ortega to bash the United States without coming to our defense. He seemed pretty chummy with Hugo Chavez and accepted an anti-American book with a thank you. Worse yet, there was no formal purpose or agenda in giving creditability to one of our harshest critics. This is reckless and diminishes the office of the Presidency. When a President meets with oppressive leaders, there should be an agenda, think Reagan-Gorbachev or FDR-Stalin.

To appease the left, the President clearly dismissed principle and released torture memos, reversing his earlier conviction. Even if you disagree with the contents of the memos, this was an error in judgment.

Thus far, President Obama has shown to have virtually no backbone. Even worse he is unwilling to stand up for who we are as a nation and chooses to appease whoever is holding his attention. His Chamberlain approach of appeasement will ironically make his lofty goals of peace and prosperity less likely. Where is Churchill in all of this? Certainly, no where near the Oval Office.