Political Views...an Outside Looking in Experience

I'm going to start with a metaphorical sort of question. If you had gone a while without a costly product you enjoyed, and knew you had a check of an indeterminate amount coming to you in the mail in the near future, would you go all out to buy the product anyway before you even knew the amount on the check? Or, would you move towards action in the polar opposite direction, and, knowing the natural dangers of overspending, isolate yourself and opt never to buy again until you had the exact amount of money you needed? (Knowing our recent economy and issues with overextending one's credit spending, unfortunately I think we'd go with the former, were this not an extended metaphor...)

Having the opportunity to observe America from Russia - which from my experience with Russians has been more or less a national pattern of apathy towards our country unless we're critiquing their foreign/domestic policy or giving them money - has been a unique one. It has allowed me, at the risk of making a dangerous political move, to be as objective as was possible when viewing our government and public opinion. I will state before delving into anything else that going into this election, I supported no particular candidate, Republican, Democratic or otherwise. I think it is relatively important to note that; otherwise, my claims at being objective could be called into such a level of question as to completely destroy my argument.

I forgot about the election quite honestly, until I received my absentee ballot. Then, I forgot about it again until around November 3rd. There was little or no mention of it in Moscow for the first several months of my study abroad. Finally, at the suggestion of a group of friends from the University, I attended an "Election Party" on the 4th at an "American Style Diner" in the south of Moscow. A majority of the group was composed of Obama supporters, or those like myself who were just interested in seeing the outcome of the election. The night itself (actually early morning in Moscow) ended in celebration with the victory of Barack Obama, which was announced at around 7am Moscow time. I was not aware that the event at the Diner was being run by a local Democrats organization until later in the morning, so I merely thought the cheers represented a tone of overall excitement.

As for my personal reactions to the election: I was pleased with Obama's victory. My reasons were the result of nothing particularly proactive or a leaning towards him as a presidential candidate. The previous administration had never struck me as anything truly evil or dictatoral, but rather extremely misguided and disorganized in the face of trying times. I stand by this from a historical perspective of "Time will tell how this regime or this president is viewed throughout history." For instance, the now constantly discussed Lincoln administration was (quite obviously) hated by half the country, and received a great deal of low approval in the North as well due to numerous socioeconomic issues. The Civil War took an awful toll on the entirety of the United States, and as a result, Lincoln was not very well liked as a President. Now he is one of our most beloved Presidents; savior of a severed country, liberator of a race of the enslaved, founding father.

With this in mind, I am hardly claiming Bush to be the next Lincoln. I am merely stating that history judges differently than present public opinion. My feelings toward the Bush administration can be wrapped up in one word: tiring. The war, the rhetoric, the underlying corruption issues, etc. all became tiring to hear about. Whoever would be elected in the 2008 election, as far as I was concerned, had to have a clearly defined path towards a change from the previous administration.

As Obama accepted his nomination as President, his rhetoric (at the very least) seemed to embody the concept of "change." This is not to say that McCain did not have rhetoric that hoped for change. Obama simply sold it better to the American public as was indicated by his victory. My feelings, however, were that with such a victory, it was imperative for Obama to transform this strong rhetoric into action. I was aware that this would not be immediate; however, if he expected to avoid the same sordid public opinion of his predecessor, he would need to do more than simply speak of change.

My worry is now the public explosion of emotions and taking of sides as a result of yesterday's inauguration. Even the day before the election, talk shows, news channels, and nearly every form of mass media held interviews and had discussions about the "change" taking place for the future. Oprah Winfrey, an adamant Obama supporter throughout his entire campaign, interviewed actors and actresses, singers, and others, all praising these "changes." Several artists even debuted a song called "America's Song," happily singing of the change to come, including the Irish humanitarian lead singer of U2, Bono (I am assuming to show the international impact of the "change"). Facebook was strewn with the gleeful anticipation of "change starting at noon tomorrow!" or the cheers of how students countrywide were "once again proud to be Americans."

Honestly, while attempting to be realistic, this all was a bit difficult to swallow. As "president elect," Barack Obama could physically change nothing yet- not the economic crisis, not the war, and quite frankly not even the furniture in the White House if he wanted to. All he could do was simply continue to promise to fulfill everything he spoke of while campaigning. Yet somehow, it seemed that he had changed nearly everything simply by being elected. I do not seek to underestimate or downplay the monumental historical significance of his election and inauguration as President. This is undoubtably a great "change" for the United States. Take the following example, however. A Wall Street criticism of George Bush was that nearly every time he made a major speech, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted. With Obama's promises for an economic turnaround, many believed - somewhat naturally - that Inauguration Day might stimulate the Market and cause the Dow Jones to go up, even if only for the day. Inauguration Day came; the Market fell nearly 300 points and Wall Street continued its struggle.

On the other side of the spectrum, however, the naysayers of the fresh administration have come out of the woodwork. Take for instance the following Libertarian article http://www.nolanchart.com/article5831.html (in advance, Gerolamo, sorry I stole the article from your facebook). This particular article accuses Obama of being actually worse than the former President, and offers a laundry list of preemptive political transgressions. This includes, but is not limited to imperialism, foreign exploitation, thievery and enslavement, and naturally the overall quashing of our freedom and liberties as citizens of the United States.

Frankly, there are some merits to both sides of this argument. Obama's campaign and election represents a great change historically, as well as the potential for great national and social change for our country. However, there are many things that President Obama may not be able to achieve quite simply by time limitations, legal limitations, socioeconomic limitations, and in some cases governmental opposition, apathy, or inability. Only time can determine the activity or inactivity, ability or inability of the new administration.
Or, to quote my father when asked his opinion: "Ask me about him in a year."