Dealing with Vladimir Putin Means Doing Everything We Can Except Something Stupid

When political disagreements involve doing nothing in congress, (or as little as possible) you have political polarization.  As it relates to our current political climate, we can debate the root of it all day long, but it amounts to nothing more than the politicians we elect doing whatever we allow.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin is hardly concerned about a president who is not serious about his words.  He watches FOX news just like the rest of us do.  He knows exactly what congress and all of those who oppose this president are saying.  Putin is certain of very little except America’s unwillingness to support the decisions of this president, no matter what those decisions might be.

The common refrain from those who vowed to make Obama a one term president, is that he has not followed up on his warnings against certain nations with consequences, that includes Russia.    

When it came to Syria, it looked for a moment that the president was ready to strike, but congress quickly declared that America’s imminent threat was not involved.  In response, president Obama encouraged congress to vote on the matter, in which they abstained long enough for Russia to intervene and force a deal to be made.

President Obama could do what other presidents have done.  He could have moved on Syria and forced congress to stop him.  Given the characterization of the republican designed Affordable Care Act being  rammed down the throat of America, it makes a lot of sense that he would challenge the resolve of congress instead of adding to his dictatorial image.

Personally, I would have said to hell with congress and done what I believed to be correct, even if FOX news hardly needed another distorted story to help drive their ratings.  President Obama chose political expediency when it comes to Syria, but Barack Obama has always been a political pragmatist who most resembles the republicans that despise him. 

Barack Obama did not fight tooth and nail to save the food stamp cuts or the cancelled unemployment benefits.  Obama did lean far to the right on things like surveillance and the use of drones. Obama did not rush to join black organizations like My Brother’s Keeper when many of those who elected him begged for such support early in his presidency.  He is joining his support to his version of NAFTA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP which is seen as a clear challenge to American jobs and opposed by most of his party. He is driving down the deficit with his plan to cut the military, but in classic form, republicans are attacking him for cuts that they themselves have proposed.  He had the voting majority to install a single payer insurance plan but decided upon RomneyCare 2.0 instead.

President Barack Obama is a fantastic American.  He is Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King with a side dish of Bill Clinton.  Each of these great American’s, despite their awesome stature, are as humanly flawed as is every president who ever assumed the role.  Rather it be in deed or perspective, no president can make every decision, with such a vast list of them, correctly.

So now the decision on Russia and the Ukraine is at hand……..allegedly.  Whatever he does, Obama will have critics as most presidents do, but there is a right answer to this no matter what the critics declare.

Many will remind you that Bush warned Putin back when he put troops in Georgia without consequence just as we have now done in Syria.  As a result, Putin does not believe there is any consequence to his actions.  

When you raise kids and don’t give them consequence, you may inherit a problem much like Putin is to America right now.  Unlike children, adults, and nations of free adults are not subject to the consequence of a disapproving nation who dislikes your 19^th century diplomacy.  Ukraine fought over trade allegiance and engaged in a 19^th century governmental overthrow which Russia allowed without interruption.  If America can offer a billion dollar loan to the Ukraine without a duly elected government, Russia clearly has a duty  to support their Ukrainian allies (which they did not do during the upheaval) or insure a democratic Ukraine moving forward for the sake of their relationship with that future regime.  Like it or not, this is clearly a matter of Russian  geopolitical, and thus, economic concern.

Sometimes the proper consequence of 19^th century diplomacy is boots to the ground.  Our 21^st century approach may result in future boots on the ground, but it certainly should not begin there.  Absent of such a punitive response, Barack Obama is doing exactly what he can do, which is everything except something stupid.

Angry White Men: Did America Breed White Men To Believe They Deserve Power?

On the morning of September 4, 1957, fifteen-year-old
Dorothy Counts set out on a harrowing path toward Harding High,
where-as the first African American to attend the all-white school
she was greeted by a jeering swarm of boys who spat,
threw trash, and yelled epithets at her as she entered the building. 
#BlackHerstory Via For Harriet.

When Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology and gender studies at Stony Brook University in New York, released his new book, "Angry White Men" I had a serious Mitch McConnell image flash into my head.

Actually, I have had repeated Mitch McConnell moments every since he declared that the number one agenda of the GOP would be to make Barack Obama a one term president.  Over the years since he first declared this comment, it has been rationalized as a foregone conclusion of any opposition party, except no opposition party ever declared it in such an honest way.

McConnell was not simply doing his rightful duty as the Senate Minority leader, he was venting a frustration that had boiled itself into anger and his lid came off.  What McConnell was also expressing was a sense of loss that the electing of Obama

Click here to order 

represents to way too many white men who never expected the America that they've discovered in the last two elections.

Kimmel has done a timely release even if he does it a bit narrowly.  In his attempt to achieve a work that reflects the voice of the subject at hand, the angry white man, Kimmel interviews several of them and includes their stories as the framework of the book.  By the end, you would have wished he captured more Mitch McConnell and less white supremacy.

Despite the extreme examples depicted in the book, the topic speaks to the challenge of change within any nation experiencing a shift of power.  Up until now, there has always been a prototype depiction of the white man's  polar opposite's.  Oddly, black men, black women and women have made up the group seen as opposing to white male power.  Statistics would declare that women are the only opposing power base that all men encounter.  If this is a problem for you as a man, you might find yourself angry towards the growing power of women.  For a growing number of white men, this problem becomes displaced anger.  Anger towards blacks, and Jews and women and everything that seems to be challenging the heretofore unchallenged face of American power.

Just look at the history books.  If you spend too long on the page of presidents, you would think that white men are the only one's qualified for the job.  In some ways that may be true, because the process of perfecting one's leadership skills comes from on the job training.  The changing face of power means America has decided that we need to train all of our citizens for the opportunity to lead.

But is it more than that?  Have we gone down the road of white male leadership for so long that we have only one face to blame for our failures?  When congress had  approval ratings as low as 9% it was reflective of both their do-nothing decision and an American belief that congress no longer has our best interest in mind.  When you fall to 9%, it means that even loyal voters have lost confidence in your motives.

Motives.  To begin to speak on any man's motives is a slippery slope because it assumes a seat of judgement. My hesitation in producing this post was the danger of declaring the motives of another.  It took a dear friend to post the photo above of the young lady with the angry white mob behind her before I found  the words to share this post.

When I came across this picture, I noticed for a few seconds the powerful black woman that is the focal point of the lens, but I quickly found my eyes looking into the souls of all of the young men around her who felt justified to behave as they did.  Where did they gain this justification?  I would imagine it came from the angry white man that is leading this pack of terrorist.  In all of their expressions (even those smiling) I sense the spirit of fear. Usually anger is fear in disguise.

Kimmel does a great job in pointing out the generational impact of white male privilege upon white male anger.  The world that white men indirectly promised to their white son's is going away.  More and more the changing economy and the face of leadership is forcing everyone to accept the process of societal evolution, white men are simply the people most displaced by this change.  When you have a seat at the front of the crowd for so long, it becomes emotionally challenging to involuntarily share your seat with others.  It can get infuriating to take a seat in that pack or near the back like the rest.

Yet, the beauty of change is change itself.  This is the process that we ask for when demanding a more diverse world.  Power does not shut itself off or redistribute itself with better discretion.  This has to be done by an intentional, outside force.  Anyone approaching a source of power with the intention of taking it away or redirecting it had best proceed with caution.  

In other words, let us all pray for our angry white men and ease them through this change.