"We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. … But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. … And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child’s very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won’t -- that we can’t always be there for them. … It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children. This is our first task -- caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? … I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. … We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. … We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"-- President Barack Obama, December 16, 2012, speaking at a prayer vigil held in response to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: But what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to change so as to reduce these tragedies? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
"On Friday, we learned that more than two dozen people were killed when a gunman opened fire in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. … As a nation, we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years. An elementary school in Newtown. A shopping mall in Oregon. A house of worship in Wisconsin. A movie theater in Colorado. Countless street corners in places like Chicago and Philadelphia. Any of these neighborhoods could be our own. So we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this. Regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 15, 2012, during the president's weekly address, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
"We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. … As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
"And by the way, what we shouldn’t do -- I just got to say this -- what we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. We shouldn’t be doing that. These so-called “right to work” laws, they don't have to do with economics; they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money. … We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. … So we’ve got to get past this whole situation where we manufacture crises because of politics. That actually leads to less certainty, more conflict, and we can't all focus on coming together to grow."-- President Barack Obama, December 10, 2012, speaking at the Daimler Detroit Diesel Plant in Redford, MI.
Comment: Obama is indulging in "politicizing" rhetoric. How is it "just politics" to support so-called "right to work" laws? Are there no legitimate non-"political" reasons for supporting such laws? It's not at all plausible to support them on the basis that they increase employment, or because they give people the freedom to hold an occupation without having to join a union? Maybe Obama disagrees with these arguments, but are they bad arguments to the point that the position itself can only be supported by people who are engaging in a crass version of politics? Of course not, that's a caricature. Also, it's a platitude for Obama to say that we want a race "to the top" and not the bottom. Of course we all want that, what we disagree about is which policies will yield that result. Finally, Obama indulges in "unify the country" rhetoric by calling for us to come together. How are we supposed to do that? In particular, how are we supposed to unify when so many people -- Obama included -- are engaging in name-calling?
***
"Again and again, the first term revealed Obama’s idea of bipartisanship: Dissenters are unpatriotic and must surrender. Compromise is a one-way street for him. As polarizing and ineffective as that approach was, he was rewarded with four more years. A different man might see that as a mulligan -- a second chance to get it right. Not Obama. His behavior now is even more troubling. That he’s willing to risk sending the economy back into recession and killing even more jobs leads me to believe his second term will be far more radical than the first. A stranger to humility, he thinks re-election confers a blank check. His demand that spending cuts and entitlement reform be put off, while Republicans give him the tax hikes and the stimulus he wants, suggests he’s not serious about facing the mountain of debt."-- Columnist Michael Goodwin, December 2, 2012.
Comment: Goodwin is complaining that President Barack Obama's idea of bipartisanship is wanting? Is that true? Has Obama called dissent unpatriotic and treated compromise as a one-way street? Goodwin is also accusing Obama of being divisive (by calling him "polarizing"), and indulging in "radical" rhetoric. In addition, he says Obama thinks he has a limitless mandate as a result of re-election, and that Obama is not "serious" about our debt problems. All this combines to create an unflattering caricature of Obama. Goodwin can criticize Obama's positions without resorting to this name-calling and demonizing.
***
"And one of the benefits of traveling and getting out of the White House is it gives you a chance to have a conversation with the American people about what kind of country do we want to be –- and what kind of country do we want to leave to our kids. I believe America only thrives when we have a strong and growing middle class. And I believe we’re at our best when everybody who works hard has a chance to get ahead. That's what I believe. … Now, on this last point, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk in Washington and in the media about the deadlines that we’re facing on jobs and taxes and investments. This is not some run-of-the-mill debate. This isn’t about which political party can come out on top in negotiations. We’ve got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country. … Let’s keep our economy on the right track. Let’s stand up for the American belief that each of us have our own dreams and aspirations, but we’re also in this together, and we can work together in a responsible way; that we’re one people, and we’re one nation. That’s what this country is about."-- President Barack Obama, November 30, 2012.
Comment: Much of this is platitudes, things that everyone believes, rather than beliefs that separate Obama from his opponents. Also, Obama is indulging in "unify the country" rhetoric without specifying in detail how or around what we should unify.
***
"Ultimately, conservatives must wage and win a war for our culture, not of traditional social issues, but one far more fundamental, of liberty versus tyranny. We must reignite those flames of freedom that once burned brilliantly with limited government and free-market capitalism, making America the most prosperous nation in human history. Where to start? We need voters. Our first step should be to exploit the natural divisions in the Democrats’ fragile alliance, starting with the one between those willing to work and those not willing. Retirees played by the rules and worked hard for their Social Security and Medicare benefits and certainly are entitled to them, at least insomuch as they were taxed for them. The real threat to their benefits is not Republicans’ reform of these programs for future generations but rather the squandering of those funds now on food stamps, “Obama phones,” disability giveaways and other welfare spending that all too often goes to people who sit on their sofas and game the system."-- Columnist Dr. Milton R. Wolf, November 28, 2012.
Comment: Wolf is engaging in "war" rhetoric. In addition, he is perhaps also engaging in "divisive" rhetoric by advocating that conservatives "exploit the natural divisions in the Democrats’ fragile alliance".
***
And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. ... I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We're not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.-- President Barack Obama, November 7, 2012, addressing his supporters while declaring victory in his race against Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: This is more "unify the country" rhetoric. We've long been the country that Obama describes, yet incivility persists. What will be different now? What is it that's going to change things and make us less divided? A newfound, self-critical commitment to civil debate? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
***
In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.-- President Barack Obama, November 7, 2012, addressing his supporters while declaring victory in his race against Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. Will Obama admit and apologize for his acts of name-calling in order create an environment where both sides can "work together to move this country forward"? Will Romney?
***
And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.-- Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), November 7, 2012, addressing his supporters while conceding defeat in his race against President Barack Obama.
Comment: This is more "unify the country" rhetoric, as well as "politicizing" rhetoric. What does it mean to "put people before politics"? Without specifics, isn't this an empty platitude? What is Romney himself going to do to put people before politics? Will he apologize for his acts of incivility during the campaign? Or is he just going to leave people with the impression that incivility is a problem created by someone other than himself (the "only my opponents" caricature)?
***
The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work.-- Republican candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), November 7, 2012, addressing his supporters while conceding defeat in his race against President Barack Obama.
Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. What is Romney going to do to stop the "bickering" and "posturing"? These seem to be euphemisms for incivility, which is something Romney (and Obama) contributed to in the campaign with name-calling and distortion, demonizing, etc. Will Romney admit to what he's done wrong in order to foster good will? Or is this just more empty rhetoric -- typical of politicians and pundits -- in which they lament incivility in the abstract without owning up to specific instances of their own misbehavior?
***
OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to make sure that we do it in a smart way and a comprehensive way and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue, and when we don’t have bipartisan support -- I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done. We have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all. And it’s time for them to get serious on it. This used to be a bipartisan issue.-- President Barack Obama, October 16, 2012, during the second presidential debate in Hempstead, NY, between Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Comment: First, Obama frequently touts his immigration reform proposals as "comprehensive", though one man's "comprehensive legislation" is another man's "holding one thing hostage for another" legislation. Second, Obama is indulging in "unify the country" rhetoric by accusing others of turning immigration into a "divisive" issue. Third, Obama is indulging in "bipartisan" rhetoric. Bipartisan ideas aren't necessarily good ones, after all. Finally, what counts as being "serious" about immigration (or any other issue, for that matter)? What is the proof, for instance, that Obama has been serious about immigration?
***
LEHRER: "And so I want to ask, finally here -- and remember, we’ve got three minutes total time here. And the question is this: Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected, in your case -- if reelected, in your case -- what would you do about that? Governor?"-- GOP presidential candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), October 3, 2012, during the first presidential debate between Romney and President Barack Obama.
…
ROMNEY: "As President, I will sit down on day one -- actually, the day after I get elected, I'll sit down with leaders, the Democrat leaders as well as Republican leaders, as we did in my state -- we met every Monday for a couple of hours, talked about the issues and the challenges in our state, in that case. We have to work on a collaborative basis, not because we're going to compromise our principles, but because there's common ground. … And Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need to have leadership -- leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together and get the job done, and could not care less if it's a Republican or a Democrat. I've done it before. I'll do it again."
Comment: Romney offers "unify the country" rhetoric without giving much in the way of specifics about how he'd unify people. Neither candidate says that he will refrain from calling his opponents names and will chastise his own supporters and members of his own party if they resort to name-calling.
***
"We know what we are up against. We know how desperate our opponents are to cling to power. But we are ready, and I hope you are too, because I know that we can do this. Whatever your political party, let’s come together for the sake of our country. Let’s put these divisive years behind us. Let’s give this effort everything we have. Let’s get this done, and elect Mitt Romney the next president of the United States."-- GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), September 14, 2012, addressing the Values Voter Summit.
Comment: It sounds like Ryan is implying that Democrats "will do anything to win". He is also using "unify the country" rhetoric without specifying what Obama has done to be divisive and what would be involved in uniting. For instance, if I don't accept the policies supported by Romney and Ryan, am I guilty of not "coming together for the sake of our country"?
***
"And here’s what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good, but what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation."-- President Bill Clinton, September 5, 2012, during his address at the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. How are we supposed to transcend our divisions? What sorts of behavior will bring that about? As often as people say they want to unify, they frequently keep resorting to name-calling and caricature, which tends to thwart efforts at unification, right?
***
"You see, the president cannot run on this record. He’s run out of ideas. And so that is why he’s going to be running a campaign based on envy and division, based on frustration and anger."-- GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), September 3, 2012.
***
"I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed. But his promises gave way to disappointment and division. … Today the time has come for us to put the disappointments of the last four years behind us. To put aside the divisiveness and the recriminations. … The America we all know has been a story of the many becoming one, uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness."-- GOP presidential candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), August 30, 2012, at the Republican Party National Convention.
Comment: This is "unify the country" rhetoric. How is it that we're supposed to unite and put aside divisiveness if we have different ideas about which policies are best for the country or for the economy?
***
"I'm the newcomer to the campaign, so let me share a first impression. I have never seen opponents so silent about their record, and so desperate to keep their power. They've run out of ideas. Their moment came and went. Fear and division are all they've got left. With all their attack ads, the president is just throwing away money— and he's pretty experienced at that. You see, some people can't be dragged down by the usual cheap tactics, because their ability, character, and plain decency are so obvious— and ladies and gentlemen, that is Mitt Romney. ... Whatever your political party, let's come together for the sake of our country. Join Mitt Romney and me. Let's give this effort everything we have. Let's see this through all the way. Let's get this done."-- GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), August 29, 2012, at the Republican Party National Convention.
Comment: Democrats are desperate to keep power? This is similar to the way that Howard Dean demonized Republicans on February 26, 2008. Ryan is also making the "fear-mongering" accusation as well as the "divisive" accusation (along with the "unify the country" appeal). I think there's an implicit "only my opponent does it" caricature here, as well.
***
"We win when we make it about what needs to be done. We lose when we play along with their game of scaring and dividing."-- Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), August 28, 2012, giving the keynote address at the GOP National Convention.
Comment: To say that it's the Democrats who engage in "scaring and dividing" and not Republicans is the "only my opponent does it" caricature. There's ample evidence that this is a game that both sides play. It's also another fear-mongering accusation, along with an accusation of "dividing".
No comments:
Post a Comment