A week or so ago, I posted a reply to a comment made by a News Journal reader to an opinion piece. The piece has since been archived, so I’m not going to link to it. But I did post a hyperlink to The True Facts to let him know that I’d be writing about his comment this week.
The man—his name is Ron—obviously does not like Barack Obama; he accused him of all sorts of atrocities, the main one of which was his blatant abandonment of, in Ron’s words, “the pure principles of our Constitution.”
Virtually every president has taken a liberty or two with the Constitution, and a few of them have taken EXTREME liberties. But let Obama take even a minor shot at it, and suddenly the man’s a blatant traitor who should be impeached immediately.
He also compared Barack Obama’s complete lack of leadership capability to the superb leadership capabilities of former President Ronald Reagan.
In my reply, I asked Ron to specify precisely which “pure principles” the President has abandoned, and I also asked him if he was defining the “pure principles” according to his specific inferential interpretation; or was he classifying them as absolute, implicit in fact?
He did reply, but other than adding several more items to his original list of reasons to dislike Obama—in Ron’s case, HATE would be more appropriate—he didn’t explain a thing. Nor do I have any idea whether he’ll be reading this, but I’m putting it out here just the same.
Nothing irks me more than the hordes of self-declared amateur experts on the wisdom, intentions, and motivations of our Founding Fathers.
In my opinion, our Founding Fathers were the political movers and shakers of their time. And, just like now, these folks were white male financially well-healed participants who could afford to play the game—although the race and gender demographics have improved a bit nowadays.
And while they penned a brilliant Constitution and Bill of Rights, both were based on contemporary experiences, including tyrannical realities they didn’t want future generations to have to face.
What made these men worthy of perpetual praise was their total willingness to put everything on the line, including their own personal fortunes, to fight a war of independence, thus giving birth to the United States of America.
They did an incredible job at penning a living, endearing Constitution. And it IS a living document because, unlike our Congress of today, our Founding Fathers knew that they didn’t know everything. So they made it possible to change it as circumstances change over time.
And even more astute on their part, they purposely made it difficult to change it because they, somehow instinctively, knew that every future political ding-dong with a political ax to grind and the money to grind it, would attempt to change it to suit their needs in a political heartbeat.
Now, as for the late President Ronald Reagan’s leadership capabilities, I don’t think his popularity had as much to do with his leadership capabilities as it did with his having been an astute politician who was in a virtual intuitive lockstep with his constituency.
And the two features that made him an extraordinary politician were his good sense to keep his bucket list of things to accomplish short and doable, along with his unique ability to speak TO, not DOWN to, the American people.
The man was a capable actor who was an expert at using FDR-like fireside chats to get his points across to hordes of hardworking Americans—only Reagan’s living room chats were in vivid color using the best broadcast special effects of the time.
I’m not critical of Ronald Reagan; I didn’t agree with him on about 50% of the points he advocated, but I respected him as the President of this nation. I voted for him in his first term as Governor of California—I didn’t live there when he ran for re-election.
As well, given the alternatives, I also voted for him—both terms—when he ran for President. But with the volatile, partisan no compromise, and personal attack nature of today’s political environment, he wouldn’t even come close to getting the GOP nomination.