There’s a tired argument that has been used time and time again by Republicans. “If Bush were president and doing the same things Obama’s doing, he’d never get a break.”
They’ve got a point. If there was no “D” next to the president’s name and instead an “R,” how would the public view the president?
Since the beginning of his second term, the president has progressed the drone wars, sustained the war in Afghanistan, admitted to executing American citizens without due process, continued mass surveillance efforts, and done nothing but talk about the torture at Guantanamo.
And that’s to say nothing about his issues with freedom of the press, the Snowden asylum dilemma, the queer aftermath of the Benghazi incident, the Syrian “red line” issue, etc., etc.
Obama was even fighting to stop the morning-after pill from being available over the counter as late as a few months ago.
There’s just so much that can be addressed. Bradley Manning, domestic drones, raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, etc. — again.
And Obama’s second term has only just started: It will end in 2017. Where will things go from here?
A classic response might be, “The president has a lot on his plate. He can’t address all of these issues.” The president does have a lot on his plate; maybe too much. In fact, all of these problems are caused in some way or another by the government itself being too big and playing a role in too much. The power of the executive branch in particular has grown far beyond what any single person can rationally oversee.
Who will take his place and inherit these powers when the time comes? Who will represent the Democrats and inherit that “D” as a candidate? Will it be Hillary Clinton? She stepped down as Secretary of State earlier this year, yielding the position to John Kerry. Did she step down to prepare for her campaign with ample time? If so, perhaps she also wanted to distance herself from the Obama administration’s dismal abuse of power.
In many ways, this country saw much better times when her husband was president. Sure, he had many flaws, but at least when Bill Clinton was president this country saw economic prosperity, a reduction in the national deficit, and a foreign policy that was a whole lot better than today’s.
In any case, it’s going to be a tough choice as usual: Column A or Column B, the lesser evil versus the greater evil. How can we trust any of the “D”s after Obama?
If the choices are bad enough, maybe we’ll look to the third parties. No matter what you believe, you have to admit that at least parties like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party stand on principled ground, much unlike the current parties. Or maybe they’re just as bad, promising us a world of good only to deliver quite the opposite.
We won’t know until we try.
