What I Saw In Obama 2008 / Current Topics

Dynamic Approach, Factoring In Disparate Views, And Highlighting Dilemmas

Kevin A. Sensenig | October 1, 2012 | Updated October 20, 2012

Updates

[2012-10-20 Update: There is a very important correction in meaning in paragraph 3 under the heading “The Democratic Party”. I meant to write the sentence “It is my impression...” the way it stands now, and this was my original intent. I had omitted the assignment operator. Here I also added the ensuing paragraph, for clarification. There is another minor edit in point 2 under the heading “Current Topics”.]

Background

I voted for Obama in 2008. I saw problematic matters, but I thought that he brought a number of traits to the table that would be refreshing. I did not follow the 2008 election cycle very closely, and definitely not with the awareness that I’ve brought myself the past few years.

While McCain would have understood certain very clear things about the basic premise of individual liberty, I saw his campaign to be problematic, and especially in foreign policy, more of the same.

Dynamic Approach, Factoring In Disparate Views, And Highlighting Dilemmas

I thought that Obama brought a dynamic approach. I thought that Powell’s endorsement in referring to intellectual curiosity meant something. I thought that Obama would factor in disparate views, and that such an approach was what was needed in America at the right time. I thought he was dynamic enough to approach Republicans, describe what his base saw, apply corrective force, and provide a place for the Republicans’ own insight. I thought then that from that standpoint, Obama would have the insight to highlight certain seemingly intractable dilemmas in American life, and use his position to provide keys to insight.

The Democratic Party

It has been my perception throughout most of my adult life that the Democratic Party allowed one to breathe, in open and flexible debate, in acknowledging and working with various religious and philosophical/stance positions and views, in being particularly open to cultures from around the world, and in defending individual liberty.

The past few years have been disappointing.

On the Republican side, there is perhaps more awareness of the actual historical premise/outline in the design and structure of the Constitution. There seemed however to be inconsistent application of certain Constitutional principles and the Constitution’s premise, and a lack of awareness as to its implications, design, and definition; perhaps a more detailed debate at the high school level and on, of theory of government, economics, religion, philosophy, and liberty would straighten some of this out — various theories. It is my impression that the Republicans’ grasp of the design and structure, and the design and theory, of and predececent to, the Constitution, has been incomplete. One further note: too much emphasis may have been given to, extending precedent (there may be the sense, to stand by decisions, and leave undisturbed, implicit in stare decisis, that may be applied in an illuminative manner, perhaps) and not enough to “how things fit together, consistent with”, especially within a framework, seeking to complete the premise at each (discrete-time) step.

But this extending precedent seems to be a premise of the liberal democracy model, put in place also by the Democratic Party. Thus, and for other reasons already described, the term “Representative Federalism”.

Current Topics

1. A direct read of the Constitution yields insight, but you have to start _somewhere_. What this premise/foundation is, and how it is understood and expressed, is important.

2. I would express religious, individual, and economic liberty in a different way than President Obama.

3. During the voice vote on “God” in the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the pre-directed outcome negated the voice vote — the voice vote expressed repeatedly (details here). That is, the vote itself, and the vote was used, was overruled. Note that in my view there are several ways to approach religion in the platform. One is to acknowledge disparate religious views, and to leave it at that, clearly stated so, referencing the Declaration and the Constitution, as well as “natural rights”, the premise (in the United States). I suspect that this is what the voice vote was meant to convey; and that this was what was denied. A second approach is to start with “God” and also acknowledge various religious and philosophical views.

4. ObamaCare should have been a 30 page bill, factoring in insight from all over the place. This then would have served as a template for other matters.

5. Obama has established the continuity of the failed aspect of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party. It is peril. Rather than correcting the Bush foreign policy to democratic-expressed illumination, refined internal model, and (the Chinese model) mutual benefit, he has taken a path of peril and fails to understand the dynamic of _nation_, and the beauty of a variety of expressions. It had additionally been my thought that from the 2008 election, his apparent ability to work with a more profound understanding of a variety of religious insight would self-correct his foreign policy. This clearly has not been the case.

6. Obama is neither Marxist nor Representative Federalism. I don’t know Marxist theory and thought. But my read is that it’s too structured and permits too much reasonable debate. I have seen evidence of religious practice and policy debate in China. It has a 3,000 year history. The following must be acknowledged: Marxist A, Marxist B, Marxist C. (How many denominations, of Christianity, are there, here in the U.S.?) As far as Representative Federalism goes, it is too dynamic, and self-structuring, and self-arranging, and guarantees too much liberty and individual and corporate responsibility. I suspect that for both Marxism and Representative Federalism, the people and the state acknowledge that both the people and their leaders work with theory and practice, or expression, and working knowledge.

7. The environment is important. The stunning beauty and complexity and subtlety of the wilderness. The arrangement and aesthetic of the garden and backyard. The allure of the woods, and the need for careful awareness. The function of water and soil, and the place for houses and roads. The place for farms. The place for boating, fishing, and wildlife. The place for the wilderness. Then, the understanding, environment as _ecosystem_.

8. I missed Obama’s flat negation of coal, during the 2008 election cycle. There are apparent downsides to coal (and other forms of energy). But a realistic approach is needed, and one of the factors is, where we are, at the time. Careful analysis and description of factors goes far. This applies to natural gas as well — what about natural gas in its natural state as built-in earth-rock-crust-topology shock absorber? As far as drilling goes, do oil companies have clear parameters so that they can bring the best to the table in terms of safety, ecosystem protection, and engineering talent? That is what agencies are _for_. Also, the agency-private sector channel goes both ways. Structure and intelligence within the agency. Intelligence and awareness within the company.

9. As far as the economy goes, it’s not exactly stable. Fragile international dependencies, speculative bubbles that crash the entire economy, recession every 5 or 6 years for 140 or more years, persistent difficulty at the lower income levels, inflation that mandates investment in risky speculation, inflation that evaporates savings, GDP trajectory to infinity (bound with inflation) and the $1,000 sandwich. There is sound investment, toward durable product and reliable service, and toward varied expression; and there is the function of to see product, to buy product, to use product. There is the function of the farmer and the market. There is the function of the bank. There is the function of private capital. I disagree with the term “capitalism”. Here, the function of the natural form free market. Note the role of currency — it is just that. Currency. A means of exchange and record-keeping. “From a current” (current, stream, pool, or bucket). “A functional amount.” It’s that simple. From a grounded view — then one can step to finance, financial analysis, money flow, savings, and investment.

10. I’ll comment on the federal budget later.