"It is true that President Obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. But he also came in with one-party rule, and the chance to do everything of his own choosing. The Obama economic agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed.
And here is what we got: Prolonged joblessness across the country. Twenty-three million Americans struggling to find work. Family income in decline. Fifteen percent of Americans living in poverty."
Among the assertions:
A concession: President Obama had a lot of problems, not of his own making.
A nice throw away. Mr. Ryan does not enumerate these problems. Let's help him with it. He is most interested in two directions, foreign policy and economic policy. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush the republican party's foreign policy has mostly been one that becomes more coalesced around the "Bush Doctrine," a preemptive form of military interaction with would-be international crisis. So, we exercise actions based on a suspicion that another will act. With economics we are quite aware of his stance of lowering taxes. We also saw a great deal of spending under a "one party rule" (in this case Republican). Much of this money was done with borrowing, and to grow non-government entities such as Halliburton. When the economy did collapse, the remedy first used was stimulus.
Assertion: Obama's plan failed. Because it was passed.
What does "fail" mean here? His foreign policies have not followed the Bush doctrine? Thus we have Afghanistan and Middle East troubles? Economically? His stimulus, largely repaid, has largely recaptured the losses of the stock market. But no jobs? Can that be consigned to his responsibility? Is it really shared by both parties and to outside influences such as businesses and global trends? Passage of Obama's policies? Which policies? Obamacare?
Assertion: His policies have led to poverty.
This assertion conflates with other voices. "Food stamp president", the derisive name for this president, underlines the beliefs that President Obama has somehow given the government over to socialistic forces. So, Mr. Ryan, we need a better understanding of how poverty correlates with Mr. Obama's policies. This appears to look like a cause effect argument. Much is spoken of a president who uses strawman arguments at every turn. This appears like an ad hominem argument. I am open to the evidence. Show the relationship between the 23 million jobless people and the 15% poverty rate and Obama's policies.
My own synthesis:
Mr Obama's policies policies have been largely a result of events outside of his control. Some are a direct reaction to the events that confronted him in January 2009.
Attacks by Mr Ryan make President Obama and the Democrats responsible for strengthening the negative forces of the Great Recession. The assertions are drive-by attacks. Instead of giving reasons for the assertions, Mr Ryan joins others in ad hominem attacks. He conflates many of the dissenting opinions. The rhetoric is partisan and nonspecific. The voter must look further, and the statements do not really help in making a choice for the 2012 election. This does not align me with Republican views, and it does not dissuade me from voting Democrat, so I think the assertions are simply neutral.
The Republicans don't have much room for criticism on the foreign policy front and the global backlash to our interventionism. Muslims aren't storming our embassies because we have a socialist in office. They don't like getting bombed (plus that movie thing). But this is merely an extension and expansion of the Bush doctrine.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Obama's economic policies have been a failure, but I don't think things would have been much different had McCain been in office. There is an academic discussion to be had on the efficacy of stimulus, but I don't expect anything other than cherry picking and point scoring one liners in the political debate.