Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln?

Barack Obama has for some time now been compared to President Lincoln, most recently because of his alleged commitment to a 'Team of Rivals" approach to building his administration. The term refers to a book written about how Lincoln brought former opponents into his administration and utilized their knowledge and expertise to better serve the country. As Obama has reached out both to Hilary Clinton and Republicans, it seems as though he may actually be following this same path. Interestingly, this ties in very closely to a part of our second exam. The question on groupthink popped into my head almost immediately after reading the headline of an article about this particular issue. If Obama does decide to include opposition and even former enemies in his decision-making group will this serve to build an administration with the very best ability to serve the country and make sound decisions (because of its diversity of opinion and background)? Or will we find that decisions become increasingly harder and perhaps foster feelings of animosity between members of the group which is clearly not beneficial for the American people.

Hopefully, having a diverse group that includes Obama foes will have a positive effect on his ability to lead. By doing so he would not only be increasing the amount of intelligence and opinion among his staff but he would also be fostering a bipartisanship that could help him should he need aid from Republicans in the future. Should a side of the issue be lost or ignored, I think we can be sure that in a bipartisan Cabinet, that option will be put on the table. In this way, Obama can also insure that his own power will not grow so large as to overshadow opinions and options that could be beneficial to the task at hand. On the other hand however, this choice could allow for decision-making to be mired in opposition and anger which would present a disunited front both to the American people and to governments abroad. Clearly, this is not the kind of image we want to display on an international stage, especially considering our precarious situation in the world at this moment.

Hopefully whatever choice Obama makes will be in the best interest of his country and will prove to be that which can help us fix the massive problems that we are facing right now. Also, I would hope that the phenomenon of groupthink could be abated by a decision to include diverse Cabinet members and thus avoid some of the pitfalls of past presidencies which have fallen victim to this tendency.

Here is an article about Obama's "Team of Rivals" and a wikipedia overview of the term "groupthink"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/16/obamas-team-rivals-approach-mirrors-abraham-lincon/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

GOP Breakdown?

Since Obama's historic win earlier this month, there has been what seems like a breakdown of sorts within the GOP. Not only has Sarah Palin embarked on a bizarre publicity tour that has done nothing but further cement her idiocy, but there have also been direct attacks on both the former vice-presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain. As most of us have surely heard by now, there have been a number of anonymous sources from the McCain camp that have personally attacked both Palin's personality and her intelligence. Leaking the budget for her campaign wardrobe and concentrating on her infamous missteps regarding Africa and NAFTA these sources have revealed a tendency that losing parties have to unravel from within once their campaigns have been disbanded and their immediate purposes have been suspended. Clearly, this kind of information would never have come directly from McCain's campaign during the election season for fear of jeopardizing the outcome. However, now that members of this group have seen the writing on the wall and have lost their chance at the presidency, they have not held back on their condemnation of Sarah Palin. And for those who think that this particular instance is just an isolated event, it would be important to also consider the fact that South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has recently and publicly come out against John McCain. According to this prominent member of the party, McCain betrayed certain conservative values in his quest for the presidency. Those particular principles were named as "freedom, religious-based values, and limited government." Don't even get me started on why religion-based values should have no place in politics after our long ago separation of church and state. Beyond this issue, the comments made by the SC Senator also attacked actual policy ideas held by McCain including amnesty for illegal immigrants and support of global warming. And while the truth behind these claims are irrelevant at this point, they prove that the seeds of dissension have been sowed within the GOP after this difficult and embarrassing loss. I think it is important to remember that this was not just a loss, but it was a defeat in which the GOP lost sections of its electorate to a Democratic candidate, some of which have been solidly Republican for decades. This tendency to place blame and face a breakdown is surely a plague that affects any party on the loosing side. It is clear, however, that much of what Senator DeMint has said was opinion and indicated nothing other than a GOP member voicing frustration over a significant loss. What bothers me however, is that these anonymous sources from the McCain campaign have apparently known for some time that Palin was less than ready for the job of vice president but were willing to let this slide if it got their presidential candidate nominated. This is not an opinion. Someone who doesn't know that Africa is a continent really shouldn't be holding such a high political office in this country and I'm sure that the campaign knew that. Is this any different than any other political deception? No, but the fact that people would be willing to leave our country to a candidate without experience or ability is extremely upsetting.

Below are a few articles that outline this issue:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/15/gop-senator-mccain-betrayed-republican-principles-2/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/07/palin-aide-calls-anonymous-campaign-charges-sickening/

Prop 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_ai2LrgJo

http://www.whatisprop8.com/

Above are two sites: one is a website outlining one group's definition of Proposition 8 and their support for it and the other is Ellen DeGeneres's PSA urging voters to vote no on Prop 8. And although not certified so far, this proposition has passed in California. I think that the controversy over this issue is unfounded. And while I understand the importance of religion in some people's lives we have to realize that if we want to preach secularism in our country, our laws cannot mirror religious beliefs. Yes, our Constitution is inherently religious in some aspects but it was also written at the founding of our country which is a far cry from where we are today both socially and politically. Clearly, everyone has a right to their own beliefs but when these beliefs encroach on other human's rights, they cross a line in my opinion.

If we want to extend democracy and human rights and freedoms to other countries (like we claim to want to) then we should be setting an example at home. We should be an open society for EVERYONE not just those people that our religions tell us are worthy of respect. I feel like this particular issue and the fact that it has passed in a country that just elected Obama president is a very strange contradiction. It seemed as though some people are selective in what minorities and alternative lifestyles they accept. But we cannot play judge and jury on other people's lives because we are all human and live together in a country that needs to be unified. And although there has always been racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, this cannot be a justification for its continuance.