No matter how much I could try to paraphrase vanden Heuvel's third argument, I would still end up sounding like an inarticulate bumble. Huge text reference time! "Forget about electoral mandates or campaign promises. This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance." This is by far my favorite part of the article; vanden Heuvel so boldly (and eloquently) takes the pleasure of defining what she believes to be Obama's presidential responsibility (which he is currently not living up to), and I think I drooled after I read it.
That final argument, I believe, perfectly epitomizes all of my favorite aspects of Katrina vanden Heuvel's writing: she's a self-proclaimed progressive, and you have to deal with it. She concedes nothing. Oh, that reminds me -- Mrs. Sander, there are no concessions in this article, so I'm not skipping out on part of the assignment. Personally, I think the lack of concession works well for vanden Heuvel since she takes such bold stances. One could say that it parallels the fact that she doesn't want Obama to compromise with Conservatives (so why should
she?).
Because of how juicy that last argument is, here is a list of facts, reasons, and examples vanden Heuvel employs as support. They all revolve around what Obama should be doing to get America headed in the right -- rather, the left -- direction.
- The government cannot invest properly because of social inequality caused by right-wing tax policies.
- Avoiding financial speculation while promoting manufacturing would stabilize the global economy.
- Going green would give the United States a lead on global environmental policies.
- She refers to "destructive military adventures abroad" that the White House should unwind.
That was fun.
All of that was about Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I'm a very self-centered person, so it's time for the moment of truth. (First, a moment of parenthetical suspense.) YES! I agree with my op-ed writer. I wish that we could go back to the days when Obama was dancing with Ellen and America was captivated by his awesome rhetoric and his ability to inspire the country with hope, because with each battle Obama settles with compromise (pick your favorite battles I've discussed in this post and my last post), we slowly return to a country dominated by a conservative mindset.
I've been psychotically looking forward to writing the last part of my post; that's right, it's time to make connections, numbered in German.
Nummer eins: I adore vanden Heuvel's connection to President Lincoln. Luckily, I've come prepared to analyze it because of history class this year. It is ingrained in my mind that Lincoln's main goal as president was to keep the Union together. In a way, I think this goal has lived on; the main goal of all presidents is to keep the Union together -- not necessarily in a time of looming secession, but perhaps in a time of political controversy and economic recession. President Lincoln freed the slaves not to keep states in the Union (eleven states were long gone by that time) but to keep justice and equality in the Union. President Obama is faced with a responsibility to keep the Union together in rough political and economic times. But it's more than that. Just as it was Lincoln's "historic mandate" to free the slaves to keep democracy alive, it is Obama's "historic mandate" to stand by his campaign promises to keep hope alive.
Nummer zwei: Vanden Heuvel talked a little bit about switching political parties in her article, so here's a rundown of my favorite traitors. Woo! First, Peter Pettigrew, who betrayed Harry Potter's parents, both of whom were killed by Lord Voldemort when Harry was a baby. Second, Darth Vader, who became entrenched in power as little Anakin Skywalker in
Star Wars. Finally, Benedict Arnold, who switched from the American to the British side of the American Revolutionary War because he felt that the British would respect him more.
All three were motivated or intimidated by power,
all three were too weak to refuse it, and
all three ended up losing (technically, Luke Skywalker found the good in his father, but I see that as a destruction of Darth Vader and the rebirth of Anakin). As a result, the word "traitor" carries one of the most harsh connotations possible: you're weak and you're going to lose. My request is that we stop throwing the word "traitor" around for people who compromise, because (concession alert) compromise and betrayal are two totally different things. So thank you, Katrina vanden Heuvel, for not using the word "traitor" or "betrayal."
Nummer drei: What the heck do Conservatives think about this mess? After looking at a dedicated progressive's negative opinion, you would think that they would be happy about the compromises. Ah, do I even hear myself? I need to cut the silliness; everyone has stuff to complain about! Allow me to promote
Jimmy Henke's blog post about the same issue but from a Conservative perspective. I like this post a lot because it shows that it is immensely difficult for a president to please anyone. Jeffrey T. Kuhner used the word "betrayal" right off the bat,
and he defined Obama as a failure rather than a potential failure.
Personally, I think Obama's a sharp guy, an amazing speaker, and an inspiration. But right now, he's got an issue on his hands that transcends any other: how to discern and carry out at this pivotal point in history the best path for his reputation as president and for the United States of America.
