This presidential campaign season is a time for clarification. If campaigns have any value over and above the megaphone effect of why one candidate is more desirable than the other, it is the chance to use a campaign as an educational forum. From my perspective, even silence or ambiguity can be revealing. In this season, President Obama has indicated the threat and direction of American foreign policy through ellipses.
In a recent book entitled Mismatch:How Affirmative Action Hurts Students Its Intended To Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, the authors identify reforms that could make a difference in dealing with this ticklish racial issue, reforms, as I see it, that are eminently sensible.
There has been much speculation about Romney’s private statement about the 47 percent of the electorate “who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
“Sequestration” is a government word that for those in the military has a synonym: castration. When a bipartisan committee was established by the administration to motivate Democrats and Republicans to compromise on limits for federal spending, it was assumed some understanding could be accomplished. One provision of mutual disagreement and a stalemate is sequestration or automatic budget cuts should stasis be the result of congressional deliberation.
As the winds of Islamism blow across North Africa yielding unsettling horror, the American version of Neville Chamberlain sits in the White House, incapable of real action, but immersed in rationalization. Yes, the president did repudiate State Department moral equivalence (i.e. “offensive” film equals justifiable homicide). But he is inert, a model of confusion.
The polls don’t indicate it and my colleagues don’t believe it, but I think there are many reasons to assume Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States. For one thing, the Romney candidacy is less significant than what is emerging as a referendum on the Obama presidency. President Obama has gone negative attempting to point out why voters should not support Romney, but he has not provided a narrative for his own support. In fact, with an approval rating of 47 percent he is losing the pro Obama constituents.
The Jewish community of Boynton Beach Florida has sponsored an event on who the Jews might support in the upcoming presidential election. Boynton Beach is not alone. Jewish communities all over Florida are in the process of deciding how to cast their vote. Although I am not a Florida resident, let me explain the conditions an American Jew should consider in entering that November election booth.
Although President Obama has indicated he is a staunch ally of Israel and speaks passionately of the bonds that cannot be severed, his actions reveal a different sentiment.
Bread and butter issues will undoubtedly be emphasized in this presidential campaign season. The unemployment rate, the need for jobs, the rapid growth in dependents, fiscal deficits and the enormous debt overhang will garner headlines in the weeks ahead. But there are other issues the nation must confront. While on some fronts the government cannot do much about them, campaigns are a venue for the airing of ideas, a time to educate and persuade.
The president’s words, “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” echo through the corridors of public opinion. It seems that every talking head has commented on this statement. Some assert the president was merely stating the obvious since business needs an infrastructure in order to get off the ground. Others contend the president has a tin ear and doesn’t understand the personal sacrifice that accounts for business success.
In the parlance of Orwellian newspeak words often mean the opposite of their seeming intent. The Internal Revenue Service is anything but a service. Now we have yet another government inspired contradiction. Social Security has been transformed into the “Federal Benefits Payment.” One might well ask how an insurance arrangement in which the recipient makes payments throughout his working existence is regarded as a “benefit.” Whatever happened to “earned income”?