Assignment #1
K. Tough
The author of “Radical in the White House,” Thomas Friedman, is a Pulitzer Prize winner in the field of commentary; so this may be interpreted that he is an excellent philosopher with a background it foreign-affairs and economics. Information from the New York Times, our professor claims is often (not exclusively), presented from a liberal point of view. Add to the fact that not only did this article appear in the NY Times, but is on the opinion page, and the conclusion can only be, sticking to the authors sports metaphor, another persons attempt at arm chair coaching. The media has taken the attitude that we, the American people, are incapable of discerning the intent or meaning behind the President’s inaugural speech; and therefore, need them to explain to, or clarify for, us what the president actually said. As a typical voter and citizen of this country I do not feel a need for this type of clarification; especially since the article appears to be directed at Republican voters while mainly white collar Democrat voters read the New York Times.
Mr. Friedman is attempting to inspire and enlighten John Q. Public with his vision of President Obama taking on a radical momentum in the White House. He describes the president as a ‘black man,’ yet describes a street vendor as an ‘African-American,’ is this to make a point about how extremely radical we the voters were to elect a ‘black man’ into office? I am not proud of our country for electing a ‘black man,’ yet I am proud of our country for seeing past stereotypes of age, cabinet appointees, years in politics, skin color, religion, etc. during our democratic process. We have had radical moments in the White House prior to this; for goodness sake look at President Carter! Can anyone remember the peanut farmer with the huge smile and beer drinking brother? Now, that was radical! The media in general, as did Friedman, continue to compare President Obama’s inherited US economy to that of Roosevelt in the Great Depression. These are just exciting political times for those of us who are looking at the present. As asked by our professor in this course; do we not require a complete understanding of our history to understand where we are politically at the present? Looking to other sources and other points in history and this is not as large a crisis in our country as it appears now. Having read the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand in High School as Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal did and we diverge from Friedman’s interpretation of our country’s state and remember the days of President Reagan. In Moore’s article in the Wall Street Journal, indicated by our professor to often (not exclusively) present from a conservative point of view, we see that the economic state of our country inherited by President Obama is not as bad as that inherited by President Reagan in 1981. So, while Friedman has my support and enthusiasm that we the people have been summoned and must be ready to serve as requested by our President; I must also quote Rand in stating that: “Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.” Let us not forget our history and remember that President Obama is not a virgin to politics; he too has been a politician sitting on his Senatorial seat responding to the crises of our country for the past decade.
