FEEDBACK

A gentle reader has informed your Wandering Gentile that it is impossible to believe that A: President Obama is acting in the best interests of the United States of America, and B: That the nation is well on its way to losing constitutional protection.

Were this an anonymous individual lacking credibility as a reasonable human being, one's first response is to suggest- rather vehemently and sarcastically- that no further credence be given to Glenn Beck. This is the tack one chose when his meal was interrupted by a Tea Party enthusiast at a truck stop in Nebraska.

But the individual is a friend with whom I disagree. That makes things complicated.

President Obama could stand to be a bit more forceful and yield less on his policies. Indeed, some of his measures have been more Moderate than Progressive. This is to the President's political benefit. It is also frustrating, and sadly necessary.

To suggest that Obama does not have the best interests of the nation at heart is to buy into the belief that he is the puppet of a conspiracy to bring down the United States. After the Bush family's international entanglements (Prescott-Nazi Germany, George H. W.-China, George W.-Saudi Arabia), a more compelling argument could be made for their disinterest in the future of the United States.

What is most truthful is that any public figure has any number of associations which could be construed as harmful to the wefare of the nation in general. The time has come to compare actions as opposed to associations. Just because one knows someone, professionally or personally, is no guarantee that they share values or ideas. This leftover from the McCarthy era deserves a very loud, very public Viking funeral.

With regard to the protections of the United States Constitution, it somehow seems that President Obama, a scholar, lecturer, and professor of Constitutional law would be an ideal candidate for protecting them. The Bush administration was culpable for egregious abuses of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments.

We may not like the accused that the Constitution protects. We also may agree that they are guilty as hell before the trial. But if no protection existed under Bush, the same level of disregard can be countenanced under Obama. One has argued repeatedly that the key difference between Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh is the alphabet used in the Holy texts that they carried.

No effort appears to be underway to deprive the right of trial and human decency to those for whom the teachings of Jesus Christ and violence against their fellow man can cohabit with utter tranquility.

With regard to health care reform, and the Constitutionality thereof, it has not been embraced as fulfilling the desires of the core of either political party. However, it is a positive step. One waits (with bated breath) for someone to point out any key differences with the plan signed into law by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. While there is no guarantee of health care in the Constitution, neither is there a guarantee of an organization reaping massive profits while denying care to those in need.

The interest which serves the greater welfare of the nation is curing sick citizens, not making a small number of executives a bit more wealthy.

Ultimately, we anticipate some sort of re-regulation of the financial services industry, immigration reform, and a new, young, progressive Supreme Court justice to take the place of the retiring Justice Stevens.

One hopes that no offense has been inferred. Some of the conservative speakers are compelling and entertaining. However, they are not acting so much in the interests of their audiences as they are those of the small number who sign their paychecks.

The behavior of President Obama is the same, but with a much larger number of people signing his check.