Do you know who the first President was to receive such harsh criticism and attack that he strongly desired to leave office? That's right, el Presidente numero uno. Washington was used to criticism as a General of the Continental Army; heck, some of his people tried to sabotage and replace him. But it wasn't until he became the first President of the United States that he really got hit in a way he never expected. It's odd to think since he is a lot of peoples favorite present today. Lincoln is the only other one that really gives him a run for his money. The funny thing is that Lincoln was even more hated while in office than Washington was. Washington at least at his supporters. Lincoln had detractors everywhere! So if you are a person who believes ludicrous, over-the-top attacks on the President are a new thing. Please try reading a Presidential biography! Any of them will do.
As a guy with a degree in political science, I often wonder what it is about politics that causes people TO LOSE THEIR FREAKIN MINDS! There are probably several people out there who completely avoid the topic because they can't express an idea without someone jumping down their throats. It's surprising that not even religion can cause this kind of debate. I almost believe we all could search the world over and not find a single person that agrees with us on every single issue. And while some of us realize we have no right to hate someone just because of the way they look, we still haven't realized we can't hate someone because of the way they think. Unfortunately, hating the way someone thinks makes it even more contentious; there is an element of choice to our thoughts that cause us to be more defensive of them.
Recognizing a perceived wrong is no good unless you can recommend a possible solution. Lucky for me, I have read biographies on both Washington and Lincoln in the past year, and I can offer their example as the solution. This is my challenge to you: if you come across a person that strongly differs with your political ideals, focus on the common ground! You WILL solidify a person in their ideals if you insult them for it, NOT change their mind. No one understands that better than Lincoln, and if he could have a meme to throw out into the world wide web today, I think it would be "Unite! Addition is easier than division" (That last part was all me. Pretty catchy, huh? ;) Then from a common ground, you can have an honest, respectful, intellectual conversation about your differences.
Batten down the hatches, I'm about to discuss a political documentary. Here's how this is going to work: Everyone is more than welcome to comment, but if you are one of those people incapable of civil discussion just go back to your coloring book and let the big kids talk. If anyone says anything rude, not only will I delete your comment, I will than add a comment saying "So and so was too ignorant for civilized conversation, he/she will return when he/she graduates to pull-ups. 'Mommy, wow!'" As for me, I probably won't respond beyond this post because hopefully I'll have said all I desire too. Isn't it sad I needed that long disclaimer?
I am usually pretty hesitant with documentaries in general. There are some crazy stuff people trying to prove themselves out there. My brother-in-law recently told me about one he'd watched that tried to convince people that Paul McCartney died in the '60s and the man pretending to be him now is a fake. But as a conservative guy who likes to keep up with politics, I felt kind of obligated to go see 2016: Obama's America. Going in, I was actually a little hesitant. But I was actually surprised by how reasonable the movie was. I would definitely recommend it to all my conservative readers.
For those of you who haven't heard about it, it's a film that traces Obama's history and applies his history to suggest he is anti-colonialist. In the attitude of unbiased fairness, there are three points that I scratched my head over. First of all, one of the instances that Mr. D'Sousa uses to explain Obama's actions in office is the fact that he returned a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British government. His point is that this action is proof of his anti-colonial tendency. However, after the movie I did a little research and (can I just say) it is dang hard to get to the truth of even small things in Washington. The best narrative I can give is that the Brit's offered to let Obama keep a bust they lent to Bush, but he refused and sent it back. However, the argument becomes a little weak when you realize there is almost an exact replica somewhere in the White House that's still there. Conclusions... I'm confused by the whole thing and came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter.
Second, D'Sousa visits Obama's half-brother (George) in Kenya to prove the similarities between Barrack and Barrack senior. While there, he brings up that George lives in extreme poverty and the President won't send any aid. But the thing that stood out to me here is that George doesn't blame President Obama for that. He says in essence that Barrack has his own family and nation to take care of and as a half-brother he isn't owed anything. In my mind, if George doesn't attack Obama for this, then no one else has the right to. It is interesting that with a little research I found George did ask D'Sousa for money a few months later because he was desperate.
Finally, the only idea presented in the movie that I disagree completely with is the idea that if Obama abandons Israel to the Middle East than a United Muslim Nation will arise. I'm sorry, but it's going to take A LOT longer documentary to convince me that the Sunni's and Shiite's will ever agree enough to form a joint government. One could reasonably argue an absences of U.S. influence in the Middle East would make a strong Muslim community but not that they are suddenly unite just because they get to kill of the Israelis. However, for an hour and a half of documentary, only seeing one substantive flaw is way WAY above par.
Now for the reasons you should go see it. First of all, it is so refreshing to have a critique that can't be labeled as racist. I can't stand that accusation anymore, that anytime someone says something negative about the President the accuser has to be racist. Do I really need to remind everyone that every single President has been attacked (most of them harshly) since number one and it had nothing to do with race?! The movie brings up a quote from Jesse Jackson (if I remember right) where he says that racism is still around. It's just not overt anymore and is therefore more dangerous. ..are you kidding me?! The racism that used to lynch poor innocent boys is more dangerous than the kind that allowed an African American to become the President?! So stop calling me a racist just because I disagree with the President's fiscal policy.
Furthermore, this documentary is more scholarly than most I've seen. It takes Obama's biography and applies it as an explanation for his current actions. I had to do that EXACT assignment in one of my Poli Sci classes. (Well we could do it for any President. I choose Jefferson. ;) It's hard to argue with half the things said in the film because half the movie consists of direct quotes from Obama's autobiography. It's hard to say Obama wasn't influenced by his radical left wing father when he says, "I was really influenced by my father. In fact, here are the dreams I got from my father." (No, not a direct quote.) What's more I actually felt an element of... dare I say sympathy for the President. Mr. D'Sousa shows that this poor guy was dragged all over the place and had very few consistent role models (all of them left-wingers) in his life. As a result, he idealized his father whom he never really met and later found out was not such a nice guy. Towards the end of the film D'Sousa suggests (based on Obama's on words) that he is reconciled with his father based on shared ideals. It's an extremely compelling narrative, but one that definitely makes you question the Presidents current motives.
Another thing I liked is that the conclusions D'Sousa draws can't be argued with either. He argues three things will happen if Obama is re-elected. First, Israel will lose support from the U.S. allowing for a more dangerous Middle East (Israel has been snubbed more times than I can count by Obama.); second, our nuclear arsenal will be reduced to below average (Obama has already signed the treaty that no one else is following. At the same time there's a quote in the movie in reference to Iran where he says no country has the right to control the nuclear program of another.); and third, overwhelming debt that goes unheeded until the system fails. (Do I really need to point out that this is happening?) Furthermore, it's hard to argue with the films message that Obama will be more aggressive in his second term when: a. most Presidents are, and b. we have him on tape, when he wasn't expecting it, telling a Russian ambassador that he would have more room to do what he wants after the election. That's a little scary after we've seen what he's done with his first term.
Finally, what I actually loved most was a statement Mr. D'Sousa gives at the beginning of the film. He says when he came to America, he was excited to live in a country where you can construct your own life and not have it constructed for you. (Being from India, he knows a lot about that.) It is so true. I love this country. I love the liberty that I have here. I love that I am able to construct my life and that often means if I make a mistake I have to learn from my own consequences. I fear that ideal is slipping away. I can't one hundred percent for sure say who President Obama is but this film makes a very compelling argument that he's willing abandon people's right to construct their own lives in the attempt to make everyone in the world equal. I don't want that. But I guess everyone has a right to "construct" their desires.
The cinematography is beautiful, the music is great, and the is narrative compelling. If your interested, please go see this movie and than ask the honest questions.
Now for the reasons you should go see it. First of all, it is so refreshing to have a critique that can't be labeled as racist. I can't stand that accusation anymore, that anytime someone says something negative about the President the accuser has to be racist. Do I really need to remind everyone that every single President has been attacked (most of them harshly) since number one and it had nothing to do with race?! The movie brings up a quote from Jesse Jackson (if I remember right) where he says that racism is still around. It's just not overt anymore and is therefore more dangerous. ..are you kidding me?! The racism that used to lynch poor innocent boys is more dangerous than the kind that allowed an African American to become the President?! So stop calling me a racist just because I disagree with the President's fiscal policy.
Furthermore, this documentary is more scholarly than most I've seen. It takes Obama's biography and applies it as an explanation for his current actions. I had to do that EXACT assignment in one of my Poli Sci classes. (Well we could do it for any President. I choose Jefferson. ;) It's hard to argue with half the things said in the film because half the movie consists of direct quotes from Obama's autobiography. It's hard to say Obama wasn't influenced by his radical left wing father when he says, "I was really influenced by my father. In fact, here are the dreams I got from my father." (No, not a direct quote.) What's more I actually felt an element of... dare I say sympathy for the President. Mr. D'Sousa shows that this poor guy was dragged all over the place and had very few consistent role models (all of them left-wingers) in his life. As a result, he idealized his father whom he never really met and later found out was not such a nice guy. Towards the end of the film D'Sousa suggests (based on Obama's on words) that he is reconciled with his father based on shared ideals. It's an extremely compelling narrative, but one that definitely makes you question the Presidents current motives.
Another thing I liked is that the conclusions D'Sousa draws can't be argued with either. He argues three things will happen if Obama is re-elected. First, Israel will lose support from the U.S. allowing for a more dangerous Middle East (Israel has been snubbed more times than I can count by Obama.); second, our nuclear arsenal will be reduced to below average (Obama has already signed the treaty that no one else is following. At the same time there's a quote in the movie in reference to Iran where he says no country has the right to control the nuclear program of another.); and third, overwhelming debt that goes unheeded until the system fails. (Do I really need to point out that this is happening?) Furthermore, it's hard to argue with the films message that Obama will be more aggressive in his second term when: a. most Presidents are, and b. we have him on tape, when he wasn't expecting it, telling a Russian ambassador that he would have more room to do what he wants after the election. That's a little scary after we've seen what he's done with his first term.
Finally, what I actually loved most was a statement Mr. D'Sousa gives at the beginning of the film. He says when he came to America, he was excited to live in a country where you can construct your own life and not have it constructed for you. (Being from India, he knows a lot about that.) It is so true. I love this country. I love the liberty that I have here. I love that I am able to construct my life and that often means if I make a mistake I have to learn from my own consequences. I fear that ideal is slipping away. I can't one hundred percent for sure say who President Obama is but this film makes a very compelling argument that he's willing abandon people's right to construct their own lives in the attempt to make everyone in the world equal. I don't want that. But I guess everyone has a right to "construct" their desires.
The cinematography is beautiful, the music is great, and the is narrative compelling. If your interested, please go see this movie and than ask the honest questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment