Obama – 21st Century Citizenship

Exploring the Presidency

This year in government class I learned about the basis of our government through our six units: Civics 101, Foundations, Elections, Presidency, Congress, and Judiciary. I came into class barely knowing anything and was constantly confused when my brother and dad were talking about politics in front of me. Now, I have a greater knowledge of the government and I am able to participate in the various conversations my family has about politics. My favorite unit out of the last two trimesters was the presidency because I enjoyed learning about the specific duties and leadership positions that our president takes on.

Prior to this unit, I did not know the specific powers and duties the president has. All I knew is that he was the leader of our country. But, there is a lot more to the job than just being a leader. In class we explored the powers and limitations of the President through reading Article II of the constitution, Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and Clinton Rossiter’s The American Presidency. Article II helped me understand what the President can and cannot do during his presidency. Neustadt’s Presidential Powers discusses the informal powers of the President. Then, The American Presidency explores the modern roles of the President. These three pieces broadened my views on the presidency.

My favorite activity we did during class this year while learning about the presidency was fun with Article II. This made me analyze and take a deeper look into Article II of the Constitution. Instead of just reading through the article and retaining some information I had to closely read what the text is specifically saying. In the activity, we read eight hypothetical solutions and had to find out if they are constitutional or unconstitutional. This helped me explore the constitution in a new way that is more fun than simply reading it. One thing that I found interesting was that the constitution states that the president has to “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union”(Article II Section 3). While the president always gives the State of the Union address to the nation he does not have to. The president can just give the Congress a letter. The Constitution only states that he has to give the Congress information of the State of the Union not the whole nation.

The next step in exploring the presidency was looking at the modern roles of the president. Rossiter mentions ten presidential roles that the president has. These roles include: Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, World Leader, Chief of State, Chief of Legislator, Chief Diplomat, Protector of the Peace, Voice of the People, Manager of Prosperity, and Chief of Party. Personally I think the most important role of the president is Chief Executive. By reading Rossiter’s The American Presidency, I learned that as Chief Executive the president must choose federal officials, manage national affairs, develop policies, and enforce federal laws and court rulings. These responsibilities of the president especially affect the United States and the citizens. Then, on the other hand, I personally think that the least important role of the president is Chief of Party. While the president is the representative of his party, his commitment as president is not to his party but to his country as a whole. Before reading this piece I did not know about all the roles the president takes on when he comes into office. The president definitely keeps himself busy with all the roles he plays.

The last step in exploring the presidency is looking at his informal powers. Neustadt’s Presidential Power explores the informal powers the president has. In my opinion, the most important informal power Neustadt mentioned was the act to persuade. The president has to persuade people every day that what he is doing is what is best for our country. Persuasion is a big part of being a president and every successful president uses persuasion to prove that everything he does is in the nations best interest.

The presidency was my favorite unit because I explored things I never knew or understood before. Now I know the many different limitations and roles the president has as leader of our country. Overall, government class has taught me a lot about our nation and how it runs, specifically each branch of the government.

Presidential Cliff Diving

Throughout the two trimesters we have talked about like what president can and can’t do as well as what his roles as a president are. The president follows a certain set of laws just like everyone else does and sets an example for the rest of america to follow. Everyone has a different opinion on what the president should do and what he shouldn’t but what should he really be doing by moral standards. It is the duty as the president of the United States of America to protect and to serve his country as well as its citizens, but what is he supposed to do when there is no solution but only two options.
The president of the United States of America will be criticised regardless of how good his decisions are. This is so because who better to blame than the man running the country, and

it will probably always be that way. When making a decision as the president there are no grey areas and no “what if’s” that haven’t been explored. What should a president do, besides resign, when no one majority will be happy with a decision he is going to have to make. The “Fiscal Cliff” (NBC News) for example is something that the president will undoubtedly be criticized for the next two or three decades. The president has the choice of passing the problem to the next president, or attempting to fix the problem once and for all with the risk of failure and recession and possibly depression. This kind of decision seems unfair to a president because there is no easy or obvious solution to the problem. The cliff was the new year (2013) when the bush tax cuts expire and the “White House” had to make a decision on whether to raise taxes again or to make spending cuts. So far nothing significant has been done to solve this solution, other than a small dent in the deficit that still yields 6 trillion to the debt over the course of 10 years. The biggest question I and other people have is when is something going to be done so that my generation and those to come don’t end up paying for such a great debt. Unfortunately the first problem is that no one knows WHAT to do about 16.7 trillion dollars and a huge deficit. The biggest problem i see is that this sort of thing hasn’t occurred in the nation’s history. With virtually no experience with this kind of problem and no way to really solve it, people in the “white house” are left with nothing to do but stall for time and to try and figure something out.

With such a large problem on the table for President Obama and no solutions yet, he will be heavily criticised on the amount of time it will take to act and solve this problem. The president needs to act quickly if he is going to be able to keep this problem under control for much longer. Considering the fiscal cliff situation is out of control, President Obama needs to be very careful on his progression with his gun control proposals. With so many problems at a high severity criticism only rises with each passing day as more and more people grow tired of the economic situation and social tragedies. Finding a temporary solution to the fiscal cliff needs to be found soon in order to at least maintain the debt without increasing it, unlike the solution now which raises the debt limit. Gun control proposals as well as other suggestions by President Obama will eventually be drowned out by the noise of impending economic crisis.

In order to maintain his title as “President” of the United States of America President Obama must act quickly and with wit to fix, or at least somewhat fix, the problem with the fiscal cliff. His criticism is hindering him especially with his new gun control proposals that are only causing controversy with the NRA. While the solution choices seem dim President Obama should be able to work something out in the peoples favor that won’t tap out the middle class but will still be fair to the higher earning people. This situation is the toughest i have seen and most worrisome i have heard about because it is effecting everyone and a solution needs to found quickly to ensure the safety of this nation’s economy.

Promises of the President

Government in the first and second trimesters has been a huge learning step for me. Not only are my eyes so much more open to the political world, but to the world as a whole. Growing up, I never bothered to care about politics, all I knew about the president is he was the man who lived in the White House and the one who always spoke in front of millions of people. Obviously, it is much more than just that.

As our leader, commander, and voice of our nation, the President of the United States holds many grand responsibilities. As part of being our leader, he must promise to uphold these responsibilities in everything he does. Today, they are known as the 10 Modern Presidential Roles. They are simply the roles that the President must commit to, for example, most elect Chief Diplomat as the most important role. The role of Chief Diplomat is a mixture of having people skills and being involved in international relations. Without international alliances, we are simply one against many. In my opinion, the president to play the role of Chief Diplomat the best was President Jimmy Carter. President Carter attempted to create a diplomatic framework for coexistence and cooperation among the nations of the Middle East. From September 5th to September 17th, 1978, Jimmy Carter met with President Anwar al-Sadat and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel to negotiate a peace settlement. The agreement provided that Egypt would not attack Israel. It also set conditions to bring other Middle East nations to the peace table. This would be considered one of the best examples of a president exemplifying the Chief Diplomat role as it would help create peace in the Middle East. Another role the president must play is the Protector of Peace. As Protector of Peace, the president promises comfort and safety to the citizens of the United States. Obviously, the president can’t protect everyone from disaster, but can issue comfort and aid to the families that are affected. Several examples where Barack Obama exhibits this role is after Hurricane Sandy as well as Hurricane Irene. Obama went and visited the affected, doing a great job during and after the storm. Another example is the 2009 oil spill in the gulf. Obama failed to react quick enough after 11 people died, an awful example of Obama showing he acts as the Protector of Peace. Decided as the least important role of the president is Chief of Party. The overall goal of the Democratic Party is to win elections and the president does his best to assure that no matter the position, the democratic party will win. All he must do is help members of his party get elected as he helps prove the positive in his party. This has absolutely no affect on us, as the citizens of the United States, but more on the democratic party as a whole. The New York Daily News posted a great article on the promises Obama made, yet is unsuccessful in accomplishing most of them.

These three roles aren’t necessarily roles that affect us, as the people, but more as us, our government. Because in the end, if our government is affected, then we will indirectly be affected. You can look at the different roles and determine which is most and least important, but in my opinion, the role of being a good leader and leading us in the right direction is the most important role the president must offer. Out of everything we have learned in class, I have found learning about these roles the most entertaining and eye-opening. A big thank you to Mr. Ostroff, for all the time he takes teaching and showing us the rights from wrongs politically.

Money Causing Hazy Elections

We are all aware of the massive deficit that spending habits and tax cuts has placed America in. The money that our President spent on his election in 2012 does not help his case in fixing our debt crisis. Through burning cash on his campaign, Obama spent nearly one billion dollars on his last election victory (NY Times). Two billion total dollars were spent on an election while America spent 3.54 trillion and only received 2.45 trillion in 2011 (Budget Challenge). Though two billion dollars is less than one percent of a trillion, cutting these funds would do more than Obama has accomplished in spending cuts. The spendthrift qualities of a candidate cause me to question the already ambiguous character of a politician. The capitalistic approach of the American dream has tainted the democracy and morality of elections.

Since the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, Political Action Committees have become a way for candidates to bank off of big money corporations. The case declared “government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.” PACs are developed “for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates”. These PACs raise tremendous amounts of money that allow the wealthy to support their favorite candidate and help him or her gain a competitive edge. Many have questioned the power of money; including Ezra Klein when he claims the committees give “the rich too much sway” (News Week). Although the donation of money has been protected under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment can also argued as broken. In no way do the mega donations from the wealthy give the poor an equal right to express their opinion. Thus, elections are skewed to the preferences of only one group of people and are not necessarily democratic.

Elections are no longer a competition of who has better leadership virtues, but rather who has more money. These prodigal habits seem necessary for victory considering 95% of House candidates who outspend their opponent win (Business Insider). However, the vulnerability of American voters allows campaigns to grow obsessed with outward appearance rather than inward character. At this point, morality of elections is at its ultimate low. Candidates now spend more time advertising themselves than actually creating a reliable plan. Once he or she is elected, there is not a well thought out plan that a representative can resort to. With money in elections, equivocation of politicians has hit its highest point and the running of the government has become even more unpredictable. Sen. Evan Bayh, a democratic Senator who has chosen to retire from politics, claims that candidates spend “90 percent of their time raising money, that’s time they’re not spending with constituents or with public policy experts” (News Week). The problem with money in elections is that the candidate who spends more time with his constituents and policy experts than his advertisement manager will not win the election. PACs cloud candidates who are morally true and exemplify those who are more publically involved.

Money in elections today has created an unfair balance for the rich candidate and voter. The burning of billions of dollars on elections while America is in debt yields an increasingly skewed playing field . An unlimited budget and a capitalistic economy do not add up to a leveled competition in today’s society. The inequitable advantage screams for change. As Americans, we must reduce susceptibility to advertisements and demand a policy that creates an equal, democratic, and ethical playing field in politics.

Is America Still the Land of The Free?

When America was first created, it was seen as a giant melting pot. A place where anyone could go to and be welcomed with open arms. A place of freedom to do what you pleased when you pleased it. But, America as we know it today is not as welcoming as described in the history books. Although we have over 11 million illegal immigrants who have merely been doing their jobs and not hurting anybody, Americans seem to have this idea that all illegal immigrants are bad and are trying to take down the United States. This reasoning is why congresses’ attempts to make these immigrants citizens have been so controversial. The plan to take these people and make them legal citizens of the US would take time and effort, ensuring these people just truly want to live in the Land of the Free.

Right now, in order to become a United States citizen, you must either have been born in the US or had parents who were citizens when you were born. If you do not fit either of these groups, you can apply for citizenship through either “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents, or you can apply for naturalization. The naturalization path is usually difficult and requires being interviewed and taking a test on English and on Civics which is composed of US History and Government.To take the naturalization test, you must be a “permanent resident for at least 5 years, be a green card holder, be able to read, write and speak English, be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles or the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order of happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law”(US Citizenship and Immigration Services). In other words, you must be a good person and have positive ambitions for living in the United States.

Illegal immigrants in the US are not green card holders, so they are not eligible to become a citizen through naturalization. Now, most citizens think, “Why can’t the government just kick out all these illegal immigrants?” Well, they cannot do this for a variety of reasons. One, if we did so, we would be losing a large percentage of our workforce. And two, we can only deport people who are violating laws. There is no reason to deport a family who is minding their own business and not hurting anybody. Since they aren’t hurting anyone, why not just make them legal citizens? This is the issue members of congress are dealing with right now. In the attempt to get more than 11 million illegal immigrants their green cards, the White House leaked an immigration bill draft on Sunday, February 17. The leaked plan called for an 8 year process in which the 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” visa, increased security funding for borders, and expanded E-Verify systems for employers to check employees legal status. This bill was created by all democrats and was widely disputed by republicans. Senator Marco Rubio released a statement saying, “This legislation is half baked and seriously flawed” and that it would be “dead on arrival” if it were to be sent to Congress. This bill could have been the President’s way of saying Congress is moving too slow in figuring out a bill for this. He said in Las Vegas, “if congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal…” It has been released, however that Obamas’ proposal is a “plan B” if the congress cannot come up with its’ own proposal.

Illegal immigration has been a big issue in the US for quite a while, and legislators are working hard to solve the issue. While there is a “Gang of Eight” who have dedicated much of their time to solving the issue of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants, they are still not going fast enough for President Obama. The hope is to get a plan by March, but we will see what happens, and how congress decides to deal with the current situation.

Author: GOV_NicoleH

Gun Control: Obama’s Time to Act is Now

The two extremes in the gun control debate must find a middle way in order to assuage the heat of the debate. Following the mass murder in Newtown Connecticut, the debate has grown to be volatile. Since the massacre, President Obama has presented his rationale in supporting steps to more controlled gun policies. The President understands that complete gun control is impossible because the Constitution is nearly impenetrable. The second amendment states, “the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). A bill that does not violate the second amendment and is still effective requires strenuous work in Congress. As of today, 2,033 people have been murdered by guns since The Newtown tragedy and certain liberal states are becoming impatient, while the republican states are becoming aggravated (Slate). For the President, the time to act on gun control policies is now.

With the majority of Colorado siding towards democratic policies, gun-control bills have already been passed. According to MinnPost, the Centennial State has “hosted to two of the worst gun massacres in recent years” and is now seeking action against guns. The Colorado House of Representatives passed four bills on February 28, 2013 that will limit gun ownership in Colorado: “ammunition magazines limited to 15 rounds; a requirement for background checks for all gun transactions; a requirement that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks; and a ban on concealed guns in stadiums and on college campuses” (MinnPost). The Senate, who is mostly democratic to a lesser degree than Colorado, has not yet voted upon these four policies. The President has proposed similar gun legislation in his State of the Union of “an assault weapons ban, background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines” (Fox News). If passed, those on the side of gun control will have won a battle, but not necessarily the war. If one of the policies were to violate the constitution, federal law would trump state law and the policy would be declared impossible. While some states have leaned toward gun control, others are taking the exact opposite approach.

Missouri, a southern conservative state, has a few extremists who want to take action towards banning gun control protests. Though

this law is practically assured denial, a “Missouri lawmaker is proposing to send colleagues to prison for introducing gun control legislation” (Fox News). It is not the attempt of lawmaking that is important, but rather the point that Missouri will not tolerate gun control. In fact, every attempt to create a bill has an equal and opposite reaction. Missouri’s “Republican-led Legislature has taken a different approach — more guns, not less.” One Senate committee is even trying to broaden the gun laws by declaring the right to bear arms “unalienable.” The policy would reflect the Constitution’s Preamble, however would no make much sense. The founding fathers did not consider the right to bear arms unalienable. If they did, the second amendment would not be necessary. I do not think a law to extend the rights of gun owners would be beneficial to the morality of America. However, the increase in weaponry could alleviate the Federal deficit. A country that prioritizes its economy over its integrity is a country doomed for failure.

The President has laid out his plans for America’s gun legislation, now it is up to Congress to decide the extent of the power of a bill that is to be passed, or any at all. There will always be tension between those for and against guns, but the only fair way to act is to find a median that minimizes opposition. The two extremes’ propositions are practically impossible to pass in America today. Thus, the only resolution to such a complex problem is through negotiation and acceptance by both sides through warranting leeway for the greater good of the USA.

Obama Violates the Constitution

On January 4, 2012 Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations

Board while the Senate was on vacation for the holidays. This allowed him, in theory, to make the appointments without having the Senate’s approval. The Republicans argued that this was a violation of the Constitution because they weren’t really recessed; they held Pro-Forma sessions every other day. Pro-Forma sessions are when the Senate or another governmental body holds a very short period in session in order to avoid letting a president make recess appointments. On January 25, 2013 news reports stated that the US Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit had ruled that the appointments that Obama had made were a violation of the Constitution.

The court defined a recess as “only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of congress, not just any informal break when law makers leave town.” When Obama made his appointments, the Senate was on extended holiday break only and this, according to the Constitution, did not qualify as an opportunity to make recess appointments. Furthermore, “the president can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.” The vacancies on the labor board that Obama filled had been open for months before he chose to fill them leading me to assume that he waited to do this only to avoid any input from the Senate.

The Constitution was written to create a framework for the United States. As we have discussed in class, the Constitution allows for an Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch. The Constitution specifies how laws should be passed, how appointments should be made and how courts should be run. Interpreting the constitution in such a way as to manipulate the meaning so that it benefits only the party in power directly contradicts the intent of the Constitution.

The checks and balances created by the Constitution are something that should not be ignored. Republican’s and Democrat’s views have become so extremely different that the checks and balances system has blocked much of anything being accomplished but it is still an integral part of the Constitution. No one seems willing to compromise and the opposing party refuses to approve their policies. Obama’s response to this was to manipulate the system so that his choices would not be subject to the approval of the Senate. As said by Chief Judge David Sentelle, “allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers.” Other presidents have used the same tactics to appoint their own choices to vacancies, but the practice has evolved to such a degree that our leadership is straying from the original intent of the constitution.

If we want to remain a Democratic society, we need to observe what the intentions of the Constitution were when it was written. The constitution created a back up plan for when vacancies occurred and a Senate was not available to approve the appointment. Obama used the back up plan to avoid following what the Constitution intended, almost as if he wanted sole power like a dictator. If this ruling stands, more than 600 board decisions over just the past year could be invalidated. Isn’t it time that we go back and read the Constitution and consider how this country was founded in the first place? Looking for loopholes in the Constitution is not how we should run the country!

Taking the Power to Persuade Too Far

We have studied in our Government class the powers of the Presidency. The modern presidency requires use of different powers that are not outlined in the Constitution. He uses this power while in office communicating to Congress and the House, but he also needs to use it while communicating to the public. The President must use the Power to Persuade in order to gain the support of the American people. During speeches, addresses and debates he has to appeal to the public’s needs. With his power to persuade he is able to rally and gain voters and supporters. Although I understand it is necessary to do as much as you can to please voters, I do not think stretching the truth should be an option.

The President has to appeal to his supporters and the majority of the citizens in the US. With that, there is a chance that he may stretch the truth in order to please the majority. Sometimes, “The president sets soaring expectations, but doesn’t meet them. His broken promises, failed veto threats, and reversals…” (Chandler). Not only can a President promise things that will not happen, but he also can exaggerate or even say the wrong thing in front of the whole United States.

Regarding my topic I wanted to find parts of Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address where his words, facts, and numbers were not completely right. As I read through two articles [Washington Post and Fox News] I noticed that even the smallest change in words can alter the whole context of what the public hears. There are many cases where President Obama does not say what is actually correct because he phrases his speeches, debates and addresses in wrong context.

Obama giving his State of the Union Address 2013

For the first example fact Obama states in his address he mentions jobs. Obama says, “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”

Obama is generally telling the truth but he counts the number of new jobs from the point in his first term when job losses were at their highest. He ignores the around 5 million job losses up to his first term. With regard to other factors and elements he technically had an increase of 1.2 million jobs.

Next, Obama states that, “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”

The drastic assumption that Obama makes is not right. We are not even close to doubling the distance we go on a gallon of gas. The deal that the Obama Administration made with automakers will create an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. So, Obama is definitely stretching the truth in this statement.

Obama also says that, “We buy … less foreign oil than we have in 20 [years].”

There really is nothing that relates the decline of foreign oil consumption to Obama’s presidency. If anything the decline started 2 years before Obama’s presidency. To show the decline Bloomberg says, “In 2011, the U.S. relied on imports for 44.8 percent of its petroleum consumption, down from 60.3 percent in 2005, according to EIA data.”

The United State’s citizens listen and learn from what the President says and promises. I feel it is the job of the President to provide facts, numbers and statements that are true to the entire United States. How can we grow as a nation when we are not given the correct information from our own leader? US citizens are becoming less informed and interested in government and Andrew Romano says, “Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up.” Citizens definitely do not have to know everything about government and the system but they need to be informed about the state of the US and what challenges we are facing. Because the President is a main source of information it is necessary that the info he says is accurate and reliable. Pleasing the public with what they want to hear does not help the United States as a whole and can cause confusion and agreement to decisions that can harm us as a nation.

When President Obama is addressing the United States’ Citizens, should he please the people by saying the things they want to hear or should he stick to the cold hard facts. Obviously he has to persuade voters by saying the things people want to hear, but does that hurt the US as a whole? Is it the job of US citizens to know about all the topics that the President talks about and decipher when he is not exactly telling the truth or says something wrong? Overall, I definitely think the needed use of persuading the public and voters can cause a skew in the line of fact and truth being told the public.

President Obama Campaigning: Persuading Voters

Sequester: Here We Go Again…

sequester_breakdown — A chart showing specific government cuts.

A repeat of the fiscal cliff is dawning upon us. By the first of March, $85 billion will have to automatically be cut. Known as the sequester, these cuts will mainly affect federal workers. An approximate 800,000 workers are to expected to face 22 unpaid days, spread out, but end up being very close to about 20% in pay cuts. Congress needs to make a solution to the problem they already created. This solution must not hurt the economy in anyway. From the executive branch, POTUS is still pushing for a combination of tax increases on the rich and increase in spending cuts. It is now Congress’s turn. Congress must either choose raising taxes or increase spending cuts. As Secretary of State John F. Kerry stated, the “price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant.” He means that if the government were to continue with spending cuts, then we would lose a lot of money that were meant for monitoring terrorist activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is even more important because of the “recent rise of Al Qaeda-linked militancy in North Africa.” This is why Congress and the President can not even consider of allowing the sequester to occur.

The United States needs these government programs to protect our citizens. The solution must be based on the middle class. Assuming that this solution will not make anyone happy, politicians must look at the benefits versus the costs. Congress must find a way to pull large amounts of money from the 1% of Americans and from large corporations and put that sum back into the middle class. The obvious solution is to raise taxes on the rich. However, after the fiscal cliff, raising taxes on the rich couldn’t even solve the budget crisis for one year. In his State of the Union address, President Obama stated that he wants to push the minimum wage to $9.00. This is a very necessary step to put more money into the pockets of the middle class and reduce the incomes of monopolistic companies. These are actions that Congress and the President could take to help rise the middle class without imposing spending cuts.

A Time to Lead

Gun violence, and the movement for gun control and how it relates to the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution has been a simmering issue in our country for decades. It was not until the tragic school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut that this issue received an emotional burst and was thrust back into the national debate. There is no doubt our country’s divided political ideology prevents most from taking an objective approach to the complicated problem of gun violence. I believe our Nation’s culture needs to change in order to solve this problem and, from what I have learned in our Government and Economics class; sometimes it takes a true leader to break through the national political scene to make positive changes for the future of our country.

The mere fact that the Newtown shootings sparked the gun control debate, enflamed gun rights and 2^nd Amendment advocates as they believe the more liberal gun control advocates politicized this tragedy. As a means to push for tighter gun restrictions, the American public may be more vulnerable and quick to get behind a so-called solution that would only cause people to “feel better” but yield no meaningful results.

Parties from both side of the gun control debate cite compelling statistics often times taken out of context to bolster their respective arguments. According to factcheck.org gun murders are at their lowest rate since 1981, gun aggravated assault are at the lowest rate since 2004, gun robbery is at the lowest rate since 2004, non-fatal gun injuries are at the highest rate since 2008 and gun suicides are at the highest rate since 1998. What do these figures mean? How does gun violence in our country related to other countries? Regardless of what statistics are used or how they used, it seems evident that both sides of the debate refuse to think more broadly in an effort to make our country less violent while protecting our Constitution. Does gun violence alone account for the violent crimes in our society? Is anyone interested in how we care for the mentally disabled, how we embrace the violent nature of our movies and video games, how parents have lost control of their children? Are our problems related to broken families, poverty, ethnicity, and people unwilling to be held accountable for their own actions, people who do not value human life. Where is our leader?

ap127770430055__large — Source: Illinois Public Media

Great leaders present a vision and develop a compelling reason to change the culture of a Nation. Our President had the opportunity to show the Nation and world he has the characteristics of a great leader during his recent State of the Union Address. He had the opportunity to begin to change our Nation’s culture by outlining his vision for widespread change with regard to violence in our country. He had the opportunity to compel people to collectively begin answering the many questions posed above. He had the opportunity to transform the gun violence issue from that of a purely political matter to a problem that only Americans could solve, not a single political party. Unfortunately our President missed that opportunity and chose to take the easy way out: to be a politician. When President Barack Obama gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, “gun violence will be center stage, both literally and politically” (Bresnahan and Gibson). He invited several victims of gun violence to be his guest during his speech. He then framed the portion of his speech that addressed gun violence by saying “Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children. “ He then went on to use the victims of gun violence to call for a vote from Congress to pass certain measures related to gun control. He named certain victims and events, then, in a campaign chant meant to evoke applause from his political party, repeated that each victim “deserved a vote”. The obvious ploy was to gain popularity for his gun control plan (his party’s gun control plan). As usual, “Obama’s remarks were short on evidence that his gun control proposals would work.” His evidence mainly was “sorely lacking” (Carlson).

One of the cornerstones of the success of our country is based on the debate of differing opinions, in an effort to compromise, gain consensus and develop laws and policies that are best suited for most Americans. How we act as a people, our culture and values cannot be negotiated in the political process. We need to be inspired to act better, do better, live better and treat each other with more respect. Our President missed an opportunity to be impactful and the American people will most likely be the victims of such inaction.