Obama will likely take political advantage of this moment in history - so what? by Bill Gee
(centrist)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The President and the First Lady will be traveling today to Tucson to attend a memorial service for the six slain victims of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. There, he will have the opportunity to connect to the American people in a way that he has been unable to do so far in his first two years in office. If he does a good job, which he likely will, the President can reasonably expect his poll numbers to rise. In fact, this event might even be a turning point in his Administration that will eventually lead to his reelection in 2012.
Many of Obama's two-term predecessors had similar moments that allowed them to turn their political fortunes around. Here's a quick list:
2001 - After a contested election, George W. Bush was looking like a "one-term lame duck" until the worst act of terrorism on American soil assured him a two-term Presidency and control of both Houses of Congress for most his time in office.
1995 - After losing his own fight for Healthcare Reform and very poor poll numbers, the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City gave President Clinton an excellent opportunity to make a connection with the American people, which translated into a second term in 1996.
1986 - With voters starting to lose faith in President Reagan's handling of defense spending and his economic programs, the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger gave the Administration an opportunity to connect to our sense of adventure and the risks that come along with that spirit. While President Reagan was not running for re-election in 1988, his Vice President, George Bush Sr., did and won.
Libertarians* and Conservatives are already attacking President Obama for making this his "Oklahoma City Moment". They seem to be making the suggestion that it is somehow morally wrong for a politician to take advantage of these situations. What they seem to forget is that it would be even more morally wrong if the President simply stayed in Washington and ignored this horrible tragedy.
As the leader of a nation, the President has a moral obligation to address, console and make sense of national tragedies as they occur. The fact that they can boost his poll numbers is irrelevant to his obligation as our leader.
Commentary Response:
*When I mention "Libretarians", I am speaking specifically of George Dance's commentary, which seemed to suggest that Democrats will "pounce" on this tragedy like a pack of hungry dogs and Larry Warrick's commentary, which seems to absolve all of society from the notion that what we say in the media can have unfortunate consequences. Tragedies like these do not exist in a vacuum nor are they the result of careful political planning by a corrupt government. As parents, teachers, writers, and citizens, we have to take care about what we say and how we say it. Psychologists have proven that an adult mind cannot fully understand the concept of right and wrong until they are in their late twenties. Therefore, it is the responsibility of those of us who are mature enough to understand the difference to communicate in a manner that promotes civilized behavior, not anarchy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bill Gee only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bill Gee is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
