Change indeed

http://www.davidwoodall.com/2009/02/04/change-indeed/

Change indeed
Feb 4th, 2009 by dwood.
He came to us a great orator, promising unity, tolerance, and above all, “change.” He demonstrated a great ability to stir the masses; to excite the downtrodden; to captivate and mesmerize with his charismatic charm and youthful energy. In essence, he embodies “change” in so many ways; he is African-American; he is from a broken family; he is inexperienced and casual, but visible and active. He is as far from the prototypical President as were John Kennedy, Ulysses Grant, and Bill Clinton. He is different; he is “change.” And he is our President.

We watched with voyeuristic curiosity as he vacationed in Hawaii. As he planned and rested for the task ahead, we anxiously speculated and waited for the “change” he had promised. And we wondered; Would he truly unite us? Would tolerance finally become the norm, and not the exception? Could he actually make a difference, effect “change,” and relieve our economic, social, domestic and foreign dilemmas? Would he stand out among former Presidents in the stature of those such as Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and others who lead with brilliance and foresight and brought real “change” to our great Country? Or would he be just another in a long list of those who held the Office, more intent on creating a legacy and promoting partisan philosophies rather then truly leading a Country to a higher and stronger position of global significance?

While it is obviously too soon to judge, the early indications contrast sharply with those campaign promises of unity, tolerance, and “change.”

Young Jeezy and Jay-Z sung of “change” on the eve of the Inauguration:

“My president is black, he’s black, he’s half white/ So even in a racist mind, he’s half right/ So if you got a racist mind, it’s alright/ My president is black, but his house is all white”

and the crowd in attendance responded with the unifying and tolerant chorus of ”No more white lies, my president is black!” ”Change” indeed. And President Obama was silent.

Joseph Lowery wasted no time in defining “change” when, in his benediction at the Inauguration, he made it clear that tolerance meant that burdens would be shifted, and not shared. “Change” in that arena evidently means that the whites must sacrifice and acquiesce so that those of color (any color) may be lifted up through social and economic policy, rather than by the merits of their personal effort and achievement. Injustice and intolerance weren’t defined by economic or political affliction, but by the color of a person’s skin. And President Obama smiled. “Change” indeed; in effect, the problem will still exist, but he wants to change the color of it, not the impact.

A few days later, Robert Reich the former Secretary of Labor and current Member of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Council, qualified “change” with regard to the Presidents proposed stimulus package when he said:

And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

“Change” indeed. Drastic, radical, potentially dangerous change. I can’t speak for everyone, but what matters most to me when I drive over a bridge isn’t the color of the workers’ skin who designed, built, and maintain it. If there is injustice and inequality in the public infrastructure sectors, i’m all for “intolerance” there, if the cost of remedy is my family’s safety.

Then came HR1, and the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009. If we didn’t know the breadth of “change” before, the shocking realization was now in our faces and undeniable. Damn capitalism. Damn small business. Damn independence, liberty, and economic responsibility. Evidently free-enterprise has run its course, and “change” dictates that all must become reliant on the government in order to succeed; all but those who have already succeeded, that is. Now the President wants to dictate policy in the private sector, seeking to place caps and controls on executive pay and bonuses in non-governmental corporations. “Change” indeed, but something we’re already familiar with. Its called “socialism.”

And in the past few days “change” has come to mean “listen to what I say, not what I do,” as the President tries to explain away the repetitive, basic failures in his vetting process for Cabinet nominees:

“I’m frustrated with myself for unintentionally sending a message that there are “two sets of rules” for paying taxes, “one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks.”

“Change” indeed.

Don’t tell anyone, but the Emperor still has no clothes.

No change there.

Posted via email from David's posterous