Faded Glory, Decimated Hope

I have been meaning to write this post – or any post, for that matter – for some time now. Life has been demanding so much of my attention, however, that lately I just haven’t had the time. And then I watched the recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, with President Barak Obama as the guest speaker. A year ago, I would have been in a state of high anticipation to have the populist president sit down with the hard-hitting pundit. I had imagined an intense, provocative conversation with the occasional chuckle and overall goodwill. Obama would expound upon his views and Stewart would ask sophisticated questions that engendered consideration and further discussion. And I, as a viewer, voter and involved individual, would be reassured what while there was still a great deal of work to be done, progressive issues had the confident support of at least one reliable man in government and another sane one in the media.

“You have to come on the show, Mr. President, because it’s true what they say. Long distance relationships are tough.”

Instead, I found myself fidgeting in aggravation and general displeasure as the conversation unfolded. Perhaps out of respect – or perhaps, similar to all other presidential interviewers, restrained – Stewart reined in his usual criticism and substituted a tense jocularity that failed to either encourage discussion or lighten the mood. On numerous occasions throughout the conversation, Jon appeared to be holding back a barrage of questions, criticisms and demands for clarification. I was right along with him.

Pictured: a frustrated man.

Stewart has never shuffled off his self-appointed duty to walk down paths of inquiry where mainstream media talking heads are unwilling to grow limbs and tread. Perhaps before the beginning of the show, he was presented with a list of appropriate discussion topics, and was attempting not to veer from these restrictions. Regardless, I half-expected him to risk it all and demand answers to the burning questions on a number of topics. I do not fault him in any way for withholding. I only felt further frustrated by the muzzling of one of the vigorous voices for sanity and progress by previously one of the strongest advocates of these very same principles.

Ah, the Glory Days.

Though a believer in realpolitik, I was moved – along with many others – by the passionate, progressive stance of Obama when campaigning for the presidency. Aware of the depth of ineptitude and hyperbole into which the country had waded, I had no grand imaginings of a changed nation brought on by the dawning of hope among educated and well-informed masses. I merely imagined that pragmatism based on that idealism would lead to eventual positive change, in both the government and society. And as it would be unfair to place the whole heaping of expectation on the president, I also imagined he would receive assistance from the same young and energetic crowd who had supported his election. So when I say I am disappointed in the president, I do not consider him wholly to blame for the failing of reform efforts. Certainly we have all failed through lack of participation, support and motivation.

And the occasional filibuster.

Within the span of two years, a number of issues trumpeted on the campaign trail have been dealt with – as the president pointed out during his conversation with Stewart. However, it is his reversal or otherwise dismissal of immediate and essential issues that has weathered my patience first into disappointment and now into disillusionment. (It is perhaps a good thing I was forced to wait to write this post until now. My ire has cooled considerably.) These are the issues which I would have liked Stewart to be able to address.

Or the lack thereof.

The relationship between the United States and Israel is one that will continue to plague international relations and hinder efforts towards conciliation in the Middle East. America’s unsound insistence on supporting Israel is a topic for another blog – this one is already long enough – however, that even the Obama administration would profess continued support for this theocracy is a matter of deep concern. It is highly unlikely Obama is unaware of the situation in Palestine and the serious consequences of supporting the policies and military action of the Israel government. Certainly he isn’t earning the trust and cooperation of the region. Our historical reasons – the Cold War, mostly – for originally supporting Israel no longer holds. Do we continue to support them because of threats of annihilation from Iran? How can you offer protection from destruction to Israel while blindly allowing that same nation to destroy the Palestinians? Obama has even congratulated Israel on “showing restraint,” when if this situation was happening another nation, the actions of the Israelis would be considered genocide and the situation would be termed civil war. Mr. President, this isn’t looking good for your appearance as “fair and balanced.”

Liberation verse Occupation

We move east to our relations with Iraq. Obama promised an end tour entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably unaware of the complications of keeping that promise. We have been slowly pulling out troops, only to send more in. Now, supposedly, all active troops have been pulled from Iraq, with “consultants” left in their place. Only now, everyone seems to be just now realizing that if we leave entirely, the country will collapse due to corruption and inefficiency. Since we are no longer technically at war, we’ve settled on the only alternative: occupation. The situation certainly matches the definition. Mr. President, what solutions have you considered?

Well, this is a cheery picture that inspires hope.

Oh, nevermind. Our new plan is to bomb Pakistan. These missions are considered to be “secret drone” and CIA strikes against militants, but reports pouring in suggest that citizens are constantly caught in the crossfire. First of all, these are hardly secret considering information about them is splashed all over the internet. Secondly, do we have any proof that this is actually helping or these are actual militants we’re taking out? And how is this any better than Bush sending America into war with Iraq over WMDs it turned out they didn’t have? I feel like there should be a lot more ruckus about this little development. Mr. President, can you explain to me, without “endangering national security,” why you authorized these supposedly secret strikes, and how the entire operation is justified as necessary?

Lego demonstration, in consideration of your “sensitivies.”

We move from this delightful development in the war on terror to the topic of torture. Mr. President, weren’t you going to outlaw this or something? I thought we were closing Guantanamo Bay, and holding trials for the convicts who you were rather certain had been unjustly convicted as terrorists. Oh yeah, and then tortured. Following the most recent material made available through Wikileaks, it really doesn’t look like you’ve done much to improve the situation. It actually looks quite a lot worse than the previous administration. Currently, our human rights record isn’t looking much better than China’s, thanks to the “improvements” made during this administration.

Back at home, we’ve got our failing education system to worry about. There’s a lot to say on that topic, so I’m going to let two professionals state their case, and then the president can defend his stance. In the meantime, allow me to point out that free attendance at university for students with records of civil service was a point raised during the campaign. I was naturally thrilled that America might follow in the steps of European countries of offering its youth such a wonderful opportunity. This opportunity, sadly, has yet to be considered seriously.

Finally, there’s the environment. Everybody already knows about the big story of the BP oil spill. But there’s a small story of almost equal importance. In September, a group of college students set out on a road trip to D.C., hauling solar panels that President Carter previously installed on the roof of the White House. It was the hopes of these students that President Obama would reinstall them as a sign of his administration’s good faith with the green movement. The administration, for some unfathomable reason that did nothing to improve their standing with their former young supporters, rejected the solar panels. I imagine a grumpy old man at the door of the White House, shouting “hey you kids, get off my lawn!” Along comes Day of Action against Global Warming in October, and suddenly Obama is thrilled to reinstall the solar panels, recommitting himself to the green movement. Mr. President, I don’t feel the need to ask a question here, as I feel the situation is rather obvious. You’re on the verge of pandering, and I don’t appreciate it.

Thanks for your help, LOL Cat.

If anyone is reading this, they might respond with: but consider everything the president has accomplished! Health care! The economy! Health care again!

President Obama himself discussed the achievements in these areas on the Daily Show, and admitted that there were topics – though not those discussed above – which had fallen by the wayside due to the effort and attention dedicated to, well, health care and the economy. Two very pressing matters, I agree. But they appear, as Stewart points out, to be papier-mâché over a system that continues to teeter and sway without addressing the underlying causes and concerns.

It could be argued that I am nothing more than another victim of political and social idealism in a long history of generations rallied, used and discarded to achieve the goals of a politician. But the grim set of the president’s mouth suggests otherwise to me. He looks like a man who has encountered realities – such as the unwillingness of opponents to adopt bipartisanship despite presidential reprimand – and allowed these experiences to beat him down into a submission brought on by disappointment and perhaps even his own disillusionment. I remain convinced the president would seek alternative, progressive solutions to these issues. It is his failure to rally against the pressure of the political status quo and continue to seek that alternity that has engendered my dissatisfaction with him.

Maybe we all had our expectations too high?

The utmost effort has gone into making this post sound moderate in its criticism. Similar to Stewart, I feel restrained in my discussion of the failings of this president to produce the necessary reforms. The blunt truth is that when I read articles about the continuance of certain policies, or the reversal of a progressive stance because political compromise is easier, or worst of all, the sanctioning and expansion of policies for which we vilified the last administration, something in my chest burns white hot. My patience with lack of political bipartisanship gave way to frustration with passive compromise, and finally, fury over overt flouting of the reversal of promised reforms. I want to be in Stewart’s seat. I want to demand answers and would refuse to be hampered by pre-established appropriate topics and presidential immunity. I want to ask, “President Obama, why are you doing this? We believed in you. I believed in you.”

And you believed in us.

You can say that sounds like the naïve supporter of idealism waking to find harsh realities impede any real progressive action. The idealism of the Obama campaign, however, was based on an actual pragmatism. When even hope reliant on a pragmatic perspective encounters only disappointment, it is not a matter of naivety or idealism fallen short of reality. It is something much worse.