Partisan Pandering

I hear a lot of debate over the Stimulus Bill and the first Federal Budge under the new Obama Presidency. Here is the consensus opinion (from conservatives and liberals)talking points that I am hearing:

• The government should be doing something.
  
  
• I am uneasy about the amount of money congress is talking about spending.
  

It seems that only the biggest "fanboys" on either side of the congressional carpet are completely and blindly agreeing with a hard-party-line perspective. For example, ultra-conservatives would rather the government simply slim down and spend less, while some would see room for a more Ronald Reagan type of approach. Equally as true, there are folks like Obama who believe that the only way to pass a stimulus bill is to pass a high-priced spending bill, while some Democrat senators are making public announcements about the risk of saddling future generations with insurmountable Federal debt.

In a related note, recently I had a conversation with some company leaders about "career development." A number of ideas came out with regard to (1) career pathing, (2) expanding the scope of employee empowerment, (3) personal continued education, etc. After a bit of talking some of those leaders shared the fact that they had not previously imagined "career development" equaling anything other than climbing a corporate ladder (i.e. giving title changes and matching raises.) While most people probably aren't loosing any sleep over the title of their job, they likely wouldn't be opposed to receiving a raise. At the same time, money is clearly not the only motivator. I think that the facts bare out the idea people want purpose, personal growth and measurable movement that feels like progress. Assuming that you can survive on your current salary, are you more likely switch jobs for a moderate raise or title change? Or could your current company retain your interest and commitment if they focused on mutually beneficial opportunities that help you grow professionally and help you see how you work has purpose and results in measurable success and progress? All things being equal, I think the later could well be described as "career development."

Likewise, right now President Obama is showing the limitation of his understanding of what a Federal Stimulus Bill could be:



I find the fanboy "right!" remark at the end entertaining. To be fair, I have no idea what she said next, but it is that kind of lack of deeper introspection that plagues the President and the Democrat-liberal congress right now. Rather than truly examine what is being said by either side in an open and free discussion, the alternatives are being blown off by simple name-calling them "old" or "tired." Let's look at another example:



By simply listening to this video it almost sounds like a cross-section of America is chiming in to support these seemingly profound statements about how this bold move by the President is new or fresh, while any alternative yet-to-be-debated-or-even-discussed is blown off as tired or worn out. But are all those whoops and hollers coming from a cross-section of American people, or is this video-op really just a planned event with a hand-picked crowd? The Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this President is the most honest we have seen in years (how often are you hearing that right now?) But I recall President Bush and his press secretaries allowing themselves to make announcements across the room from people who were willing to debate them on the spot. Let's hear another perspective about this speech you just heard:



So, how is this really newly bi-partisan or more honest? It seems to me that President Clinton and President Reagan were more bi-partisan. To me, the point is that it seems that President Obama is more interested in motivating people to action through social pressure, scare tactics and name-calling than he is through real political discourse. I've said it before and I will say it again. This is a sound-byte president. He buys Op-Ed space in news papers and gets TV time to spin significantly non-substantive statements that simply render a "yeah!" response rather than encouraging people to engage in the topic at hand.

In conclusion, I will offer a piece of advice to challenge the logic of the rhetoric coming from the current Presidency: If the statement can be applied to both parties, then it is not substantive but rhetoric. Take the idea that President Obama is explaining Republican talking points as "tired" or "worn out." He clearly described these perspectives as such to encourage the American people to reject those ideas simply because they are old long-held ideals of the Republican mindset. So here comes the test. Is what President Obama proposing with regard to spending a new Democrat approach? Or is he proposing the same old long-held ideals of the Democrat party? Likewise, could we not then call President Obama's approach "tired" and "worn out"? Should we then also just reject them, out of hand?

Or should we stop the rhetoric and demand that politicians begin to engage in a real discourse with each other and their constituency about how to expand the limited narrow-minded understanding of what a Stimulus Bill could be?