President Barack Obama, This Time, I Want to See a Liberal Revolution
Published in Mainichi
(Japan) on 7 March 2009
by Yoshinori Nakai (link to original)
I am seeing two Americas. The gap between Democratic and Republican seems to have widened since Election Day. Their conflict over the role to be played by the government is rooted in the differences between conservative and liberal ideologies.
Last week, after President Obama’s speech to Congress, Louisiana governor Jindal, representing the Republican Party, refuted him.
“In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the National Democrats' view that says -- the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government.”
Here, intense distrust in the Federal Government is evident. Republicans want a government that protects individual economic freedoms without regulation or protection of the weak. Self-responsibility, free competition, and small government--these are their principles. Confronted even now with the economic crisis, conservatism is the philosophy that the Republican Party stands on.
After being elected, Obama shifted to the middle road and extended his hand to the Republican Party. During his inaugural speech, he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works,” turning away from the “big government” debate. These beautiful words were meant as overtures towards a bipartisan union, but it has not born fruit.
The Republicans of the House of Representatives were all opposed to the stimulus budget, while in the Senate; there were only three in support of it. A concordance of Republicans of Congress to obstruct the President has developed.
There are many people who consider Obama a realist and pragmatist. Apparently against conventional belief, I see him as a liberal. For example, at his first press conference (February 9), he touted government intervention. “I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem…” ”… government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy.” “But [the government] doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.”
Reagan, who changed America through the conservative revolution of the 1980s, said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Obama, who inherited the crisis, believes the exact opposite - that government can solve problems.
Concessions to the Republican Party are as important as the price of democracy. However, to solve this crisis, is this not the time for the Obama version of a Liberal Revolution? In the exit poll during the presidential election, Obama gained the support of 90% of self-described liberal voters (22% of all eligible voters), 60% of moderates (44%), and 20% of conservatives (34%). If the American economy does not recover while he still has the support of the liberals and moderates, the world will not find a way out of this crisis.
Revolutions turn over one’s values. It would be good to use this chance to change the American lifestyle of constant debt and consumption. I want an end to this era, where success in life is measured only by one’s earnings .
Last week, after President Obama’s speech to Congress, Louisiana governor Jindal, representing the Republican Party, refuted him.
“In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the National Democrats' view that says -- the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government.”
Here, intense distrust in the Federal Government is evident. Republicans want a government that protects individual economic freedoms without regulation or protection of the weak. Self-responsibility, free competition, and small government--these are their principles. Confronted even now with the economic crisis, conservatism is the philosophy that the Republican Party stands on.
After being elected, Obama shifted to the middle road and extended his hand to the Republican Party. During his inaugural speech, he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works,” turning away from the “big government” debate. These beautiful words were meant as overtures towards a bipartisan union, but it has not born fruit.
The Republicans of the House of Representatives were all opposed to the stimulus budget, while in the Senate; there were only three in support of it. A concordance of Republicans of Congress to obstruct the President has developed.
There are many people who consider Obama a realist and pragmatist. Apparently against conventional belief, I see him as a liberal. For example, at his first press conference (February 9), he touted government intervention. “I'm absolutely confident that we can solve this problem…” ”… government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy.” “But [the government] doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective.”
Reagan, who changed America through the conservative revolution of the 1980s, said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Obama, who inherited the crisis, believes the exact opposite - that government can solve problems.
Concessions to the Republican Party are as important as the price of democracy. However, to solve this crisis, is this not the time for the Obama version of a Liberal Revolution? In the exit poll during the presidential election, Obama gained the support of 90% of self-described liberal voters (22% of all eligible voters), 60% of moderates (44%), and 20% of conservatives (34%). If the American economy does not recover while he still has the support of the liberals and moderates, the world will not find a way out of this crisis.
Revolutions turn over one’s values. It would be good to use this chance to change the American lifestyle of constant debt and consumption. I want an end to this era, where success in life is measured only by one’s earnings .