MAAS: Master Program in American Studies
  • Home
    • Events
  • Courses
    • Overview 2015-2016
    • General courses 2015-2016 >
      • Methodology of Trans-Atlantic American Studies
      • American History, Politics, Economics I & II
      • American Culture : Regions and Ethnicities
      • U.S. Law and Justice in an International Context
      • Master Thesis
    • Electives 2015-2016 >
      • The American Way of Religion
      • Literary Journalism Across Cultures
      • America and the Challenge of Terrorism
      • Postmemory and Postmodern: Third-Generation Jewish American Trauma Narratives (MA English)
      • European Union Trade Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Agricultural Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • European Common Foreign & Security Policy (MSc in EU Studies)
      • Internship
    • Course Schedule 2015-2016
  • Staff
    • Professorial staff >
      • Gert Buelens
      • Philippe Codde
      • John Dick
      • Ken Kennard
      • Rob Kroes
      • Isabelle Meuret
      • David Woolner
  • Housing etc.
  • APPLY
    • Overview
    • Admission requirements
    • Request an application form
    • Additional application materials
    • Submit your complete application
  • FAQ
  • Testimony
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Blog

Game On...

22/11/2014

0 Comments

 
Last week after losing control of 'the hill' to the Republicans and then having to go the through the resultant political parlour game of pretending that Boehner, McConnell et al would now work with the President, Obama caught his opponents off guard by deciding to go onto the offensive via the sensitive issue of illegal immigration. Undoubtedly the President had been holding this particular card in his hand for some time but at last he decided to play it drawing out into the open his opponents holding on issues they would have rather have kept from view until 2016. Firstly, the same suit issue; what is the Republicans position concerning the 11 million odd illegals ? Secondly, the more nuanced play; who holds the will to mend a society that is increasingly fractured by issues surrounding economics and identity ? Thirdly, the trump card; who holds the power to deal with this changing domestic environment, the President or Congress ?

The Republicans instinctive reaction to the President using his executive power to push through legislation that would offer approximately 5 million illegals - mostly Hispanics - the opportunity to come out of the shadows and become visible for tax and residency purposes was informative. They angrily accused the President of acting like a dictator or even worse a King. They accused him of undermining the nation's notions of democracy and questioned the legality of his move.  Of course, there are many other parts to this power play by the President. Firstly, the Republicans newly in control of both the Senate and the House thought they could just freeze out the President for the next two years, in other words, by doing nothing the Republicans would make sure Obama could or would not leave any lasting legacy, thereby damaging the Democrats chances in the next Presidential race. Secondly, they believed that Obama would not dare step over the 'red line' of political convention and take unilateral executive decisions, thirdly, they also thought they could now control the game by just running the clock down and nullifying any chance of a late Presidential score.

Unfortunately, for the Republicans underpinning this game plan was the belief that this lofty, careful, slightly unworldly White House man who to date had spent far too much time trying to make decisions by looking for consensus would just continue with the same approach and therefore, would become even more frustrated by the intransigence of Washington politics. However, always be careful of someone who suddenly has little to lose. Obama, increasingly trapped by his lack of incisiveness and instinctiveness, by the 2010 mid term swing for Republican control of the House, and finally by a Congressional 'full court press' of last week has decided to play hard b
all at last. What makes this change of tactics even more interesting is it strikes right at the heart of the key societal issue; who are the contemporary Americans? Are they still largely those citizens that originated from the white Anglo-Saxon protestant tribe ? Or has their beliefs and understandings finally been altered and out gunned by the power of immigration and the notion that this particular ethnic group that has dominated the US political elite since independence will relatively shortly become a minority ? As we all know the United States was built, gained strength and became pre-eminent because of immigration. However, this process has always been controlled by the 'originating tribe', but Obama's latest play has suddenly suggested otherwise, not that this crucial, elemental game is up but it is certainly now ON.               

KK
     
0 Comments

Politics always ends in Failure ! 

9/11/2014

0 Comments

 
It has been a long standing observation that political careers inevitably end in failure. The politician however high he or she rises eventually finds themselves defeated at the ballot box, having lost the trust and support of the electorate, their party or both. Some aware of this impending result, resign or retire but the notion of having failed to succeed in all that they set out to achieve is somewhat ameliorated by what they have managed to change. However, how do you cope with this condition when you rise relatively quickly to the dizzy heights of the ultimate political office but then do not fundamentally change anything but instead just highlight the huge differences and difficulties that sits within your community?

I began considering this question well before the US mid term elections but have refined my thoughts having reflected on the recent results and the position that Obama now posits. This was a man who was charged with changing American society, or to be more accurate he was the person that was going to signpost and manage the societal changes that his nation-state was already going through as he took office. Domestically, the idea of what it is to be American is altering fundamentally as the changing demographic make up of the US induces subtle but substantial adjustments to religious, cultural, political and economic views within the nation-state. Internationally, the facility and ability of the US to stand alone as the pre-eminent power is waning - and will continue to do so - as the cost of this position becomes increasingly untenable (The financing of a military complex that is strategically and logistically prepared to fight two large conflicts simultaneously).  These two challenges are huge and therefore, for one man to be given this role, which he willingly accepted, was from the outset ludicrous. Moreover, the enormity and hubristic nature of this task should have been clear to Obama, his party, his advisors and friends. This situation was damn clear to his adversaries since in the run up to the 2008 Presidential election, realising that Senator McCain did not stand 'a cat in hells' chance of winning especially after selecting Palin as his running mate, heaped expectation after expectation on the 'new wonder kid' of US politics - already the Republicans were preparing and looking to 2010 and the mid term elections to wrestle some political control away from Obama and his 'yes we can' team - the more you promise the greater chance of failure. As we now know this tactic worked as the House went red in 2010 and so to November 2014 when the Senate also decided to blush.

Well, social inequality caused by the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in the nation-state, the unhealthy and mendacious relationship between Wall St, Big Business and Congress plus the little matters of Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel were all impossibly topics for one man to tackle, especially when this person maybe an articulate and erudite analyst of situations and events, but he is not a domestic or international statesman - he is not a modern day Roosevelt (either TR or FDR).  The difference is clear, an analyst takes his/her time to assess and sift the evidence, looks for consensus amongst his recommenders/doubters and not until this condition is agreed and cemented will he or she move. In contrast, a statesman is not only ignited my evidence but by insight- some call this vision or instinct - moreover, this type of political animal is not afraid of risk although mindful of it, and crucially, when required will move quickly, decisively, and if necessarily, unilaterally(independently) of others. In other words, an analyst is attracted by information and agreement, a statesman is motivated by an inner belief that his/her picture of what is needed is the way forward. That is why an outspoken conviction always seems more attractive if not more legitimate th
an a planned, carefully sculptured move. After all, hadn't Obama noticed that the people who did support and vote for him are human beings and conviction is an emotional extension of ones intellect, while the need to analysis suggests manufacture, artificial and therefore, paradoxically it is not so natural to trust.

Sadly, it is Obama's character that has let him down, he needed to step into the White House and move swiftly, deftly and confidently, hiding any understandable self doubts and match the outpouring of political emotion that got him into the Oval Office in the first place with a statesman's skills, but for all his initial powerful rhetoric he moved far too slowly and therefore, the reactionary forces of conservative America encircled their new executive trapping him in a sea of intransigence and torpor from which he has never escaped. Consequently, his handling of  health seemed clumsy and careless while his approach to foreign affairs suggested a lack of  understanding in the the mystical world of international relations.  Therefore, Obama's legacy fairly or not, will just stay rooted to the obvious ethnic nature of his iconic Presidency and not as he had wished and his supporters had desperately desired as a President who defied the natural laws of 'political failure', leaving the White House having succeeded in changing the nature of the United States future.

KK



             
         





             
0 Comments

    Author

    Dr J Ken Kennard Professor of Politics and History - Master Program in American Studies - Universiteit Gent

    Archives

    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.