The Audacity of Hope, Part #2

I have continued to read Barack Obama’s book. In the third section that I’ve been reading, Obama moves on to discuss the balance of power within government and the United States constitution. As a first example, Obama uses the government reaction to 9/11. He talks about the overreaching power of the White House. He describes how unnaturally large this portion of government has grown by saying, “When it came to questions of national security in the post-9/11 era, for example, the White House stood fast against any suggestion that it was answerable to Congress or the courts” (77). The problem with this is that it takes away needed checks and balances in Washington. From my point of view, this is most likely a direct reason for many of the failures of the Bush administration. As a whole, the country is hurt if laws and decisions are unbalanced. Later, Obama talks about the importance of the Constitution. He refers to widespread debate about what the constitution says. He describes this by saying, “We debate whether such basic common-law rights as the right to marry or the right to maintain our bodily integrity are implicitly, if not explicitly, recognized by the Constitution, and whether these rights encompass personal decisions involving abortion, or end-of-life care, or homosexual partnership” (86). In my opinion, any law derived from Congress should be able to directly link to the Constitution. If the meaning of the Constitution is twisted to benefit a certain ideology, then the Constitution will end up having no real meaning. Because the Constitution specifically talks about a division of power, then any attempt to enlarge one group over the others would be unconstitutional.

As I read deeper into the book, I am able to pick out a fourth section to write about. Obama talks primarily about the how politics plays a role in the capital. In this instance, the topic is money. He talks a lot about how much influence a lobbyist has over Congress. In comparing lobbyists to an average voter, he says, “Their influence comes imply from having more access to those officials (in government) than the average voter, and having more staying power when it come to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients” (109). Obama follows this by talking about the need for money in politics. He says, “Still, I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways” (113). A candidate needs money in order to campaign for office. This influx of wealth is a corrupting force. In my personal opinion, the need for candidates to have money is making our government in Congress a plutocracy. There needs to be stiff regulation for monetary contributions to candidates in order for Congress to be a meritocracy, where the people who should be in Congress are in Congress.

The Audacity of Hope, Post #1

My choice for outside reading this quarter was Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. In it, Obama discusses his own past as well as his opinions on the future of the United States. At first, however, Obama doesn’t talk about the immediate concerns of the country. He decides to first address his own life and how it has changed his interpretation of events. One of the first things he says in his book is how he came to be a senator from Illinois. Of course, Barack didn’t start out running for the US senate. Instead, he first ran for the Illinois state senate. He describes the lengths he went to get votes saying, “I went to block club meetings and church socials, beauty shops and barbershops. If two guys were standing on a corner, I would cross the street to hand them campaign literature” (1). Barack wasn’t some celebrity with hundreds of staffers. If he wanted the word of his candidacy to get out he would have to do it himself. I believe that kind of self-reliance is crucial to what he does in his current presidency. Luckily, he fostered enough believe in his constituency to have him elected to state senate. Later, though, he wasn’t so lucky. He failed in his first attempt at US senate. For his second attempt, Barack describes his efforts, “…I had to rely on friends or acquaintances open their houses to whoever might come, or arrange for my visit to their church, union hall, bridge group, or Rotary club. Sometimes, after several hours of driving, I would find just two or three people waiting for me around a kitchen table” (6). Obama didn’t start out with a massive following, but instead had to work for every last vote. As a result, I would say that Obama has a better understanding of the middle class because of his experiences along the campaign trail, and it was this understanding that helped him make choices in the senate.

Farther into the book, Obama expresses his interpretation of what is happening to the United States today. He starts off very quickly analyzing how party lines have split the country. Obama calls it a broken country saying, “It’s what keeps us locked in ‘either/or’ thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace ‘socialized medicine’” (40). Too many people are of the opinion that either we have a completely liberal way of thinking or have a completely conservative way. Rather than pick the most party-associated choice, the country should pick the best option for the situation. Looking at what he says, Obama’s future presidential staff will most certainly have a balance of opinions. He describes how ridiculous the stalemate that has come up between parties saying, “We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or a cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters” (41). All the negativity in Congress has had negative effects. The clash of liberals and conservatives, then, only helps to hurt the country. From where I stand, I have much more confidence in the politician who can make good decisions based on what is good for the country rather than an individual party.