College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Obama: Rousing the believers

By Matt Verghese

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

One year ago, the youth of this nation proved we were “fired up and ready to go” as 24 million of us turned up at polling places to overwhelmingly support a candidate who we thought would bring the change we could finally believe in.

I was among them.

Like countless young Americans, I readily drank the Change-Aid and convinced others to become hope-mongers. I enlisted in a movement that sought to heal divisions, empower people and transform this country. Casting my first presidential vote for Barack Obama was momentous. But my nearly blind devotion to the Obama campaign was a rational decision.

After eight long years of incompetence, unilateralism, corruption, partisan rancor and fear-mongering, something — anything — different was demanded. But what was different about Obama was that he was someone you actually wanted to vote for. Personally, you had to be impressed by his eloquence, intelligence, coolness, optimism and energy. But more importantly, he successfully tapped into a feeling that dreams no longer had to be deferred, that change was achievable, and that it was still possible to care and believe in something again.

Have I kept the faith one year later?

It is easy to be discouraged. Health care reform and climate change legislation languish in Congress, where Democratic leaders seem only to squabble and squander opportunity. Men and women continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, while homosexuals still can’t serve openly. The president may have the won the Nobel Peace Prize, but Iran is waffling on the nuclear deal offered in Geneva, and Israel and Palestine are no closer to peace. Banks are still getting bailouts and giving out billions in bonuses, while jobs are still scarce.

But I didn’t vote for a perfect man, and I definitely didn’t expect radical change in the first 300 days of his term. Governing is a slow and incremental thing, and requires a leader who is conscientious and not myopic, and builds consensus even if compromise is necessary. Obama has only proved to be a realistic agent of change rather than some idealistic ideologue.

My true disappointment does not lie with the president, but with myself and my generation. Our moment of empowerment seems to have been fleeting. We forgot that casting one vote is not enough. Our constituency is being ignored even when we are the ones who are lacking health insurance, feeling the sting of unemployment and the burden of debt, and dying in foreign wars. We have lapsed back into an apathetic status quo and refuse to become involved and engaged.

The movement did not end on Nov. 4, 2008. Obama’s message during the campaign was about understanding our individual capacity for change. Our votes changed the leadership of this country, and voices can continue to change our communities and push for the issues we believe in. Real change doesn’t come from the top, it comes from the bottom.

This involves voting in local municipal elections or calling your congressional representative about health care. It is not easy, but who said it was? The president needs partners if he is going to succeed in these difficult times, and it is time for those us who supported him one year ago to stand up again.    

Matt Verghese is a graduate student in public policy. He can be reached at verghese at umdbk dot com.

Comments

2 comments
POR Economy: Tanks a Lot!
Fri Nov 6 2009 09:47
10.2% UNEMPLOYMENT... welcome back to misery index courtesy of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate.

The POR economy kicked in during the latter part of June 2007, when its architects -- Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid -- decided that starving the economy of energy by refusing to allow more offshore drilling in the face of $4 gas prices was a winning political position. Pelosi claimed that because we couldn't totally "drill our way out of this," we shouldn't increase drilling at all. Reid put an exclamation point on Pelosi's stubbornness by insisting that fossil fuels are "making us sick."

This turndown has been much more severe than it should have been because of a serious breakdown in "the rules of the game." Why invest in, start up, or expand any kind of business if there's a realistic possibility that the government will aid your direct or indirect competitors, or otherwise radically and whimsically alter the playing field? This uncertainty has also taken its toll on consumers. Despite having billions of extra dollars available thanks to energy price drops and lower interest rates, their spending appears not to be ramping up proportionally.

The solution from the POR triumverate? More bailouts, leading to more uncertainty across the board. Another bigger "stimulus" and a less effective one at that. While tax "rebate" checks such as those sent out last year are not as effective as across-the-board rate cuts, at least they put money into consumers' pockets quickly. But the new "stimulus" package evolving in Washington is dominated by public "investments" that, even if justified, would take much longer to make their way into the economy.

Roosevelt tried massive public works programs during the Depression. All he did is prolong it for seven years. Japan tried government stimulus for 10 years running in the 1990s. It only resulted in "the lost decade."

What the POR triumverate should do is expand the tax cut element of the stimulus plan to include all incomes, ditch almost all of the alleged "investments," open up oil and gas exploration, and, eventually, watch the royalty money pour in. I know; that's way too much to "hope" for.

dat dude
Thu Nov 5 2009 11:00
Obama is a radical socialist who stated he wants to "fundamentally change America". Based on his associations with domestic terrorists such as Bill Ayers, former "green czar" and self described communist Van Jones, and among other radicals he has placed around and in his administration, I find it very hard to support such a person. It is only obvious that his plan for this country is to turn it into something that is similar to that of socialist Europe in which the government has a role in every aspect of our lives.

The government's role is to only protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. NOT to intrude on our freedoms. The power of the individual is something that this country has that is the envy of the world. Going along with Obama and his policies of increased government will do nothing but destroy our individual freedoms. Think about it this way, who knows what is best for you? In Obama's world, the answer to that question is government. In a free world, the answer is you.

The "change" we really need is to have less government.

Log in to be able to post comments.