As usual I was browsing the news today (yes, it is thanksgiving, but I am over 2,000 miles away from my family and my adopted family hasn’t woken up yet) and I ran into this interesting article.

Just some basic concepts I pulled from the article.

  • Although creativity is rarely a prerequisite from the presidency but it should have been in Mr. Obama’s case. By promising change, Mr. Obama was promising somoething new or atleast newer (because it is assumed that the old establishment cannot change). This would require creativity to look outside of Washington and find competent staff members who can fill national level positions. However, this creativity and change doesn’t seem to be happening.

Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a campaign in which he promised change.

  • Mr. Obama doesn’t have a “New” plan. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama always said he had a plan, but never mentioned to show it. At the end he started listing steps of action that sounded a whole ton like core conservative values, however, no real plans, just promises to every person on welfare. Now, we are receiving evidence that he has no plan. As my point above mentioned, a plan for change would include reaching outside of Washington for influence and ideas. However, Mr. Obama is simply falling back on the core of his party, the Clintons. Hmm . . . is Mr. Obama a leader, or a mouthpiece?
  • Despite the appointments of Rahm Emanuel (the single most dangerous person in the Democrat party) and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s party is still claiming he is center-right. What is scary is that they are saying this about their most liberal member. I believe that the Liberals believe that this last election, and the huge turnout, gave them a mandate (a word the Conservative movement started using first) to drag this country down to European standards. However, a closer look at the election will tell a different story. In fact, the turn out at this election was much less than expected. The turn out this election was only about 10% higher than 2004 while the 2004 turnout was about 17% higher than 2000. Also, once again, youth did not vote. In fact, the majority of the increase in voting was because people who had already voted before, but hadn’t recently, voted. On top of that, these “liberal” voters, voted for traditional marriage in every state where it was being contested (though now the California Supreme Court is deciding whether a Constitutional Amendment is Constitutional [um . . . duh . . . it is the Constitution]).
  • One last point I really want to make. There are over 40 million people on welfare who can vote. Those people most likely voted their pocket books (which candidate will give me more), but, as my last point makes, I find it hard to say this about everyone else. I do though think I know why they voted. Here is my argument. Mr. Obama was constantly labeled as a great communicator (I am not sure how true this is because communicators actually communicate information). He was someone who spoke to the voters and kept them informed. The voters loved to listen to Mr. Obama, and I believe this is the Republican parties fault. The basics of leadership dictate that a leader must communicate with his followers. The leader must let the followers know what is happening, where they are going, and what they are to do. If a leader does this, they are halfway to success. This what Mr. Obama has done. He has said that the Democratic party needs to get to the White House, has to battle the Republicans, and needs support. Compare this to the Republican party. In the election we were told, we dont’ need the conservatives (till they realised that the conservative vote was their only vote), we dont’ have an enemy (after all, we want this to be a civil election), just get the White House, who cares what we do after that (maybe we can do what we have been doing, it has worked so far). However, even before the election, we the voters have not been led. After all, what is really happening in Iraq? And who is telling us what has happened? Oh, the media, why can’t the President tell us? Communicate with us and let us know that he needs our support? There was no communication about the financial crash. The Washington Insiders just got together and came up with a plan without communicating the situation to the voters. Sure, the Republicans have challenged the Democrats on their policies, but have they told the voters about the Democrat policies and how they could be countered? Although I do loath Mr. Obama’s rash of news conferences (he is not the President yet), he is fulfilling people’s basic needs, communication.

One thought on “Creativity”

  1. George Bush sure failed to communicate.

    As simplified as Ronald Reagan's speeches and Oval Office televised talks were, they explained to the people some things he cared about, and he knew the people cared about too, and often used charts and graphs to explain to everyone why they needed to contact their congressmen and help him get a bill passed.

    So I am not sure what's worse, Obama communicating, but substance is little, or Bush's silence, like we didn't have a right to answers behind his policies.

Leave a Reply