president obama – 21st Century Citizenship

Expectations of the Presidency: Overload or Overachieving?

The American voters have very high expectations for The President of the United States of America. They expect him to protect their homes from domestic and foreign invaders, lead the executive branch and provide guidance for the legislative branch, provide funds to promote job creation and economic growth, and to provide funds for those who can’t (or won’t) provide for themselves. This a lot for one man and his staff to juggle. Before you judge the disappointing presidents before Obama, remember what they had to deal with and ask yourself. Are our expectations of the president just according to the office he holds?

Ever since 9/11, our defense budget has increased by 114 percent. Our armed forces have bases that hold an area greater than that of D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey combined. That is a lot to manage. Not only do American citizens, but the world expects America to be the first to respond to a crisis. So far during that time period, we have. We have spent countless hours in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to create an environment in the Middle East that is hostile toward Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. We spend an enormous amount of money to maintain this force to protect not only our shores but also those of other nations.

The president also is the head of both the Executive branch (naturally) and the Legislative branch. He is expected to carry out all the tasks in an Executive Branch that covers: the military, foreign relations, economic matters, public safety, and relief. He is responsible with the task of maintaining the largest military the world has seen. This branch also has the task of not using that military with maintaining exceptional international relations. It also deals with domestic matters. It bears the blame or reward of the economy the branch produces. It is also responsible for relief. With Super-storm Sandy, states have been pleading for extensive relief packages. Obama has an extra duty to asses as well. With Newtown he is taking on a greater role of public safety as well. The president is also expected to be a leader in congress. He negotiates and bargains to get the bills he supports passed. He provides helpful suggestions for Congress to consider or approve. Apart from the Judicial Branch, the president has to manage almost the entire government.

The American people have also put the responsibility of the economy on the presidency. He is now responsible for jobs as well as the GDP. If you look at previous presidents before the Great Depression, all policies were hands off. Now after the horrors of the Great Depression, Government is supposed to consistently have their hands on the economy. With this consistent hands-on policy, the presidency takes whatever blame comes its way for a poor stretch. With this policy, not only does the government take the blame for a poor stretch, they take the fall for unemployment, falls in stock prices, and lowered GDP. If you look at the last two elections, much of the heated debate was about addressing the problem of unemployment, the low GDP, and the lowest stock market since the Great Depression. It seems odd, that it were the corporations: who packed up and moved factories to China, who let go workers, and who diminished manufacturing presence in America, go away without a scratch. Yet all fingers point to the oval office.

With the poor times that this country has faced in the past 5 years, our Government has been forced to take on a major role in entitlement programs. Since 2000, entitlement spending by the federal government equally matched the tax revenue. This means that the President has to supervise Federal programs that is 18.25% of the GDP. This involves Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare programs. Each of which has more that tripled since 1993. These programs have now become an essential part in debates and presidential satisfactory ratings. People have lost faith in businesses to create jobs, they now rely on the Federal Government. They have forgotten that businesses are the force that create jobs. They have asked the government to create jobs. Yet it is only until now that we have asked it to be run like one.

Are these tasks we have put upon the president a just call for fixing the flaws in society, or are we putting too much power and too much responsibility on one man? In the revolutionary period, we were dead scared of a king. One man who had absolute power and authority. Flash forward 233 years later and we have a man we is responsible for maintaining peace over the entire globe, supervising not only one branch of government but also having an ever stronger influence in congress, bearing the burden of mitigating a recovering economy, and being the shoulder to constantly lean on in times of need. Are we asking too much of the president? Are the requests that we make just compared to the powers this office has? Does the executive branch have too much power? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves in 2016. We don’t need to ask where my paycheck is, or will my children be able to go to school. We need to ask ourselves are we putting the best man in office that will create an environment that is best for the America of tomorrow.

Obama Takes a Stand Against Gun Violence with New Propositions for Gun Control

After the Sandy Hook shooting, gun control has been a hot topic issue in modern America. According to a Reuters article on Obama’s speech, Obama says that he “can’t put this off any longer” and vows “to use ‘whatever weight this office holds’ to make his proposals reality.” Obama uses quotes letters from children that were affected by the shooting saying “Guns shouldn’t be allowed.” He wants to use this tragedy to help the gun control laws get passed easier and quicker. The President has taken several important steps to protect everyone from something like Sandy Hook happening again. One of his main points is to have more intense background checks before anybody buys a gun. This rule is criticized heavily from gun owners because they say that this rule won’t do anything to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook because the gunman got it from his mom, who got the gun legally. Obama also wants to ban military style guns, like the ones used in the Sandy Hook shooting. This law is more likely not be passed because the majority of Congress are Republicans and will not give up their military style guns. Another one of Obama’s pushes is to allow federal funded research on gun violence, along with 23 more steps that he plans on doing without Congresses approval. A main critic of these upcoming laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA wants more security for schools, better counseling and mental illness help, and to ban violent video games.

In my opinion, I think both sides should come to an agreement. Though I don’t think we should ban guns all together, I believe that some gun control laws should be put into action to protect everyone’s safety. Guns have been an influential part of our American history, but at the same time people have to see that gun violence is a serious and very pressing issue in America today. I also agree with NRA that there should be a better mental illness system, so that insane people can get help easier and faster. The old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a vital part to the NRA’s argument, and I agree with that. Although it’s easy to shoot someone, you have to start at the source of the pain and suffering of the shooter to completely stop these massacres and get those people help so they can get better and live normal lives. I think that we should definitely have better security for our school and better counseling for our children and teens to prevent shootings and massacres from happening in the first place. Security could also be a huge help in preventing tragedies like these. This also goes back to the old “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” in that if America starts helping the sick and mentally ill to begin with at a young age, then everyone will be safer.

This article can be directly related to our class in many ways. President Obama is wearing two hats in his speech, Legislative Leader and Chief Executive. Legislative Leader is an important role in this article because he is looking to get several laws passed by congress because he cannot pass them by himself. Chief Executive is equally as important in this article because he is reassuring the people in that he will He also is needing to go through Congress for his actions, vowing that he will use “whatever his weight this office holds” to make these laws a reality. This article really shows the President’s viewpoint and his ideas on gun control, while also making balanced by showing his critics.

The Roles of Our President: Too Little or Too Much Authority?

The course that our country takes, whether it is good or bad, is based off of the role that our President takes on. The United States is made up of many branches and parts such as the Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive branches. The politicians that work in these government branches, and the common citizens that work and run businesses, are the backbone of our country, but the President is what are country is judged by. The decisions, remarks, and actions by the President are constantly being judged by those inside and out of the United States, and it is these judgments that can allow or prevent our country from making strides to peace.

President Obama has the responsibility to maintain the status as the United States’ leader, and is forced to make important decisions at any time. No one knows when our Commander-in-Chief will be called into action to make an address to the country or another country, but what we do know is that our President must be able to do it successfully. This has not always been this way though. The Founders of the Constitution wanted to make sure that an executive would not have too much power, so they put in checks to keep the power under control. Over the past century, however, the power of the executive power has expanded. With society and government evolving in the United States and the world, the President had no choice but to expand his role as a leader to continue to display his positive authority. To expand on this issue of the roles of the President, Cornell political scientist Clinton Rossiter, offers his views that a President must be willing to embrace the roles and power that comes with being President in order for the authority to be embraced correctly. In his work, The American Presidency, Rossiter explains the roles that he believes the roles of the President include Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, Chief Executive, World Leader, Chief Legislator, Protector of the Peace, Chief of State, Manager of Prosperity, Chief Diplomat, Voice of the People, and Chief of Party. While all are important roles of the President, my opinion is that the most important role is Commander-in-Chief because it deals with the safety and well being of the nation. The United States was founded on principles that guarantee the protection of citizens and their rights. Since these fundamentals are the backbone of the country, protecting them is essential. There is no better person to be in charge of these priorities than the person the country elects and trusts as their leader: the President. The role of Commander-in-Chief is most important to the people, and is the most important role of the President (Modern Presidential Roles).

President Obama congratulating military officers at banquet as Commander-in-Chief

This role is mainly associated with the category of military, and while the President has advisors and other politicians to help with running the nitty-gritty parts of government, this is a role that gives the President to make decisions, and no one else. Rossiter explains that, “ In peace and war he is the supreme commander of the armed forces, the living guarantee of the American belief in the supremacy of the civil over military authority” (Rossiter 201/1). In any time of war, the President has the call of where, when, and how many soldiers will be sent into battle, no matter the size, to defend the Constitution and our freedom. On the other side of this coin, the least important role of the President, in my opinion, is that of Chief of Party. This role seems to be less important because, it is just an obvious fact that requires minimal attention by the President himself. If the candidate that wins the election is a Democrat, it would only be logical that he his also the leader of the Democratic Party. While the President still controls the selection of other party leaders, serves as a motivator, the President also has many others people that help him in the running of the party, so the President may address other more important issues. Though the party of the President partakes in a major role in the government of the United States, it is not always fully on the shoulders of the President to make sure the party runs smoothly, but also along others who are appointed in the party to continue those duties. The role of the Chief of Party is just a small block in the foundation of the President’s duties that serves its own importance, but is the least important of all of his roles as President” (Modern Presidential Roles).

President Obama has the responsibility to keep the country under control

While this is still a necessary role to the President, it seems to slip in importance because is can be handled by other people besides the President, but nonetheless, the President must still make the, “selection of top party officials” (Rossiter 207/3). While the President may not have the power to address all issues that may arise, the roles he does have suggests that most situations should fall under the place of at least one of them.President Obama has endured a traumatic presidency starting with the beginning of the recession, and most recently the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The roles that he has obtained by being the leader of our country has allowed him to make decisions and actions, with the help of others, to continue to persevere through it all. Only the continued usage of all of his roles can ensure that the United States is in proper form to face any obstacles that may arise in the country, and only a strong leader can be capable of managing/assessing the situation, and making the decisions that will continue to lead our country onward to liberty and freedom.

President Obama on Gun Control in State of the Union

Recent massacres such as the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton and the “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado have raised awareness on gun control in the United States. Liberals feel as if new laws should passed as to which kinds of guns are legal to sell. On the other hand, conservatives see to it that restricting which guns they own affects their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the debate between parties,the country does recognize that something must be done to prevent such shootings in the future. Christina Wilikie’s article in the Huffington Post reports on President Obama’s State of the Union speech in which he addressed the issue of gun control in America.

To begin his assertion, President Obama stated that this is not the first time the United States has labeled gun control as a concern. In spite of this, he declared that the Newtown shooting in which 20 innocent children and 6 adults werekilled demands that subject must finally be dealt with accordingly:

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans -– Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

One of the ways Obama is trying to manipulate gun control is by placing a ban on all military-style weapons, such as automatic weapons that carry extremely large magazines. However, the National Rifle Association feels as if their Second Amendment rights would be violated if such a law were passed. The Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The text obviously supports that weapons can be possessed, but the argument arises from what the text does not say; there is no indication that all arms are legal, nor any sign that certain weapons are prohibited. The liberal side to this argument is that simple changes are eligible to be added that can simply imply restrictions to which arms can be owned. The flip side of the argument (the conservative side) cherish their right to own any weapon they please. As long as they pass the standard background checks, or even more intense improvements to the background checks, there is no reason they should be stripped of their assault rifles.

President Obama, being a liberal democrat, wishes to restrict the weapons that can be owned. The president’s point of view is clearly controversial, but through one speech, Obama “disarmed the argument… that no law can eliminate all gun violence,” Wilikie wrote. Obama was able to dismantle the opposing opinion and gain significant amounts of supporters by exploiting Neustadt’s theory of a president’s power to persuade. As Neustadt declared in his book “Presidential Power”, a president is able to use his “status and authority to yield bargaining advantages.” Obama, knowing he would have the nation’s full attention, focused the majority of his State of the Union speech on gun control. After addressing the issue at large and his solution, Obama made an emotional appeal about one of the many victims of gun violence:

“One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.”

U.S. House Speaker Boehner and Vice President Biden stand to applaud as President Obama delivers his State of the Union speech on Capitol Hill in Washington — President Obama receives a standing ovation at the conclusion of his State of the Union Speech

Obama’s telling of Pendleton’s story was an excellent method of executing Neustadt’s theory. He enflamed emotions throughout the audience, which left people yearning for change. The touching anecdote resulted in a standing ovation and overwhelming support for Obama’s gun control bills. Through his words, he was able to convince his people that protecting the children is more important than owning a fancy gun.

While Obama’s State of the Union speech undoubtedly put pressure on Congress to vote on new gun control bills, the debate still fumes as a conclusion has yet to be reached. Meanwhile, the nation impatiently awaits a contentious resolution to the gun control issues that are plaguing many cities in the United States.

An Urgent Deadline, an Apathetic Response

After the New Year’s Fiscal Cliff situation many Americans were in a panic. What was going to happen to my lives? What will change? How will I live if we fall off the Cliff? While many other people were dreading the day, my government class and myself where anxious to see what Congress would do about the problem. Our class was doing a project that allowed us to make our own solution and I (along with many others) were wondering if our solutions were close to what Congress and the President would come up with. After many hours of watching the TV, waiting for updates the solution was released to the public. There were higher taxes, as expected, but not the spending cuts that needed to happen. Instead Congress delayed the decision until March 1^st. Now it is close to the deadline, again, and Congress is not working, as they should to solve they problem they left to do later. Though Congress leaders know that there is no definite deadline when bills need to be passed. Instead leaders say that the “cuts can be phased in over time” says Alan Silverleib and Ted Barnett from CNN. But with how opposed to each other’s ideas the two parties are, Washington will need as much time as they can get to finally reach a decision.

Spending cuts in national budget — Photo Source: Conservative News Central

Though Congress might not be as urgent as they should be, neither are the people of America. Is the $85 billion necessary spending cuts not important? There are not stories on every news channel about the March 1^st deadline. Instead the new is filled with stories about other events that everyone would rather listen to. There are more significant things in the eyes of the public, such as gun control, Oscar Pistorius’ homicide trial, and other more recent news. If the public is not interested, the news channels and papers will not publish much on some topics even if it needs to be talked about. “Congress isn’t even in session this week” revealed CNN, why would they not be in session when time is running out?

Though Congress is not meeting, there is no doubt that there is talk of solutions. There are Committee meetings, and President Obama probably has the topic on his list of things that need to be talked about. But the two parties have probably not come together to talk of a solution that will satisfy both sides. President Obama expresses his want for collaboration between the two parties at a White House event when he addressed the Republicans asking them if, “they [were] willing to compromise.” Obama and his administration want to There need to be meetings now, so another repeat of the December Obama and Boehner discussions that didn’t end well for either side.

As a student, reading an article about Congress not worried about a deadline makes me confused. Now, in my high school career, deadlines and due dates direct my life. When I hear of this attitude about an important subject it confuses me. But I then it makes me think of all the things I have not learned yet about the “real world” that is thrust upon a young adult after he or she graduates high school or college. Even when I learn these things there will still be things I don’t know about the world of politics, which keep changes through the years as new events occur every day. Though there may be things I have not learned yet, there are many things that I have learned in just the passed year that have changed the way I view the world around me. Now that I have an understanding of government I have my own views, instead of just agreeing with everything my parents say about current events. I now can develop my own opinions and tell them to the world. As updates come out about the March 1^st deadline, there is no doubt that I will be there to insert my own ideas and see how the people in Washington solve the problems of today.

What the Gun Control Debate Teaches Us About Government

President Obama speaks after the Sandy Hook shooting

On December 14, 2012, a shooting occurred at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, claiming the lives of twenty young children. Soon after the tragedy, the United States became captivated with one question: What can be done to reduce gun-related violence? The ensuing debate about gun control has helped display many of the concepts that we have learned about in our government class. The Constitution, the pathways of action, and the powers of the Presidency have all come into play during the last few months. The current gun control discussion is an excellent real-life demonstration of how the government works together to deal with issues.

The first, and most basic, way that the gun control debate intersects with our government class is through the Constitution. During our learning, we have been asked to take on several case studies of the Constitution. We must interpret a Supreme Court case (real or fictional) and decide whether the events that transpire are constitutional or unconstitutional. In terms of the gun control debate, the second Amendment to the Constitution reads that“[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). Obviously, this brings just as many questions as answers, but the interpretation that the law has used for most of American history until now is that American, adult citizens have the right to purchase and keep guns. However, in a government heavily influenced by John Locke, a major duty of government is to protect both its citizens’ lives and liberty. Thus, when certain firearms go well beyond the necessary stopping-power needed for protection, many believe that the government must implement gun control in order to keep Americans safe. On the other hand, there are great deals of people who argue that the government attempting to regulate guns violates the Second Amendment and interferes with the liberty that the government is meant to preserve. Because of the dichotomy of views on gun control, any potential legislation will likely have to be a compromise, that both ensures the safety of American citizens while not infringing too greatly on the rights of gun owners.

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre gives a statement on gun control in the midst of protest

Another area in which our class and the real world have overlapped is the pathways of action. In the wake of Sandy Hook, the largest pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) made their official statement regarding gun control. Instead of conceding stricter gun laws, the NRA argued for increased protection, including armed guards within every school. Pro-gun control groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have also had their say. Additionally, individual Americans have attempted to create change through grassroots mobilization. Through the Internet and social media, getting the attention of many people has never been easier. Facebook posts, a variety of Twitter hashtags, YouTube videos, and whitehouse.gov petitions have all been used to try to create momentum for both pro and anti-gun control sentiments. Finally, a few politicians and leaders have attempted (albeit with little success so far) to enact cultural change. Many believe that American culture is too overtly violent, and some legislators have attempted to change that by adding potential restrictions on the depiction of violence in movies, television, and video games.

Finally, both the formal and informal powers of the President have been prominent throughout the last few months in the gun control debate. President Obama has strongly navigated the roles of Chief Legislator and Voice of the People. As Chief Legislator, Obama created a task force to explore all options available in the fight to reduce gun violence, and to make propositions about what needed to be done. During the State of the Union, Obama became the Voice of the People, concluding his address with a moving segment meant to stir up the American people and demand change. The President made use of Executive Orders after his initial proposal, and continues to play a key role in the discussion of the topic between Republicans and Democrats.

In the end, our government class has trained me to not just see the end product of a passed bill, but to also see all the work and effort in both directions that goes a nationwide policy debate such as the current argument about gun control. While the way in which our government works as a whole can be quite complicated, having knowledge of civics and government allows me to break down each component of change and progress. I believe in gun control policy that both keeps the public safe while respecting our freedoms and rights; government class has allowed me to make an informed opinion and analyze the situation.

Guns in America: The Rise or Downfall of American Society?

Whether we like it or not, gun violence is everywhere. It is in the movies or TV shows we watch, the video games our children play, and worst of all, it is right outside our homes. Now don’t get me wrong, police and military must use violence to protect and serve our country, but it is still violence nonetheless. According to Science Daily, more than 30,000 people are killed yearly in America by guns, which is about 85 people per day.

Some people have gone to the radical side and say that guns need to be removed from American society as a whole. This is not a rational and plausible solution to solve gun violence for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that is a second amendment right. The Constitution clearly states that, “ the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Amendment II). It is also not reasonable because in order for the public to be protected, the proper authorities (i.e. police, military, etc.) must have access to guns for them to have sufficient power over criminals. The other side of this coin is that other people are demanding even looser gun restriction laws in America. While people do have the right to have guns in America, there must be certain rules and restrictions that come with trying to possess one of these killing machines. While there is still a lot of negotiating to be done regarding guns in America, the only way to come to a plausible solution is to compromise from both sides of the equation.

The argument that involves a person’s right to own a gun is not the problem that we are facing today. The second amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms, and if a gun is their choice, they have the right to own it. This is a common point that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and many Republicans use to protect their right to own guns. While not necessarily pointing towards eliminating guns completely, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have headed a special teams of experts working on solving this ever-growing problem of gun violence.

Republicans and Democrats will have to work together in order to get the ball rolling on gun control

The Democratic side has leaned towards more of a “cutting back” approach, rather than a “fully cut” method for a solution. Jeff Mason of Reuters explains some suggested ideas this team have included, “including the assault weapons ban, and a measure to ban high-capacity magazine clips” (Reuters). This idea would not only help reduce gun violence that is based off of these particular aspects, but could also start a movement to have even more restrictions on guns in order to prevent more horrific tragedies that are caused by guns today. Without a doubt, there is an uphill battle for new gun control laws to be passed in Congress, but that only way to make it happen would be for both Republicans and Democrats to come to a median, and do what is best for the safety of our country, and not what is best for each party in the upcoming elections. The Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the Senate along with the President will have to sacrifice some of their own beliefs, and conform their policy around something that they may not feel comfortable with in order to create some sort of solution, or to at least engage in a stepping block to get there. Mason also refers to the democrats will try to compromise by the reason that , “Obama will need to get his proposals passed” (Reuters). The proposals that Obama has begun tinkering with, besides the reduced magazine clips and assault rifle ban, are the increased background checks. These new and improved background checks will be more strenuous in their processes and will give more support to the efforts in keeping some of the world’s deadliest machines out of the hands of those who are not fit for them.

The increase of gun usage in America stems from the core of what we believe in as Americans. Since we have the right to bear arms, many Americans have decided to exercise this to the fullest, and purchase way more guns than any human being would need. Others have decided to stay away from guns because they have seen what they can do. According to Slate, 1,793 people have died from guns since the shooting in Newtown. The aftermath, though, has been quite astonishing. While the politicians and gun experts are trying to solve this gun issue, more guns are flying off the shelf.

The weeks following the Newtown shooting have brought some of the biggest times of profit for gun stores and exhibitions. While most people believe and buy these guns for protection and recreational use, the other reason is because they know that in the near future, they may not be able to buy these guns. They know that at some point the United States government is going to restrict their rights, and they want to be prepared for it. These people are exercising their fundamental rights and beliefs in order to protect themselves from not only criminals on the street, but also the government that has sworn to protect them. The citizens of the United States must learn to live with guns because whether or not we like them, we will be seeing, hearing, and responding to them in the time to come.

Just Another Campaign Strategy?

Same sex marriage is one of the most controversial issues in society today. On May 8, 2012 North Carolina was the latest state to ban same sex marriage. The following day, President Obama openly admitted to his support of same sex marriage. This announcement has caused many people to question the authenticity of his stance. With the next presidential election just months away, is it possible Obama suddenly supports same sex marriage in order to appeal to a wider variety of voters? It is openly known that Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, strongly supports marriage between one man and one woman, and so it is possible Obama’s sudden support of same sex marriage could be focused on gaining votes. With the possibility of a close presidential election, Obama’s announcement could be the deciding factor between a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

In government this trimester, we have studied different strategies presidential candidates use to attract voters. Many presidential candidates gain the attention of their voters through campaign commercials. These commercials are often geared toward gaining the attraction of younger voters. Just as campaign commercials are aimed at attracting votes of the younger generations, Obama’s support could be geared toward attracting the support of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Or Transvestite (LGBT) members of The United States. According to a poll taken by CBS, roughly thirty eight percent of the population believes that same sex marriage should be legalized. Although this is not a large percent, these are votes Romney will certainly not pick up in the presidential election. Generally Democrats identify themselves as supporters of same

sex marriage while Republicans typically do not support this belief. Since Obama most likely has the support of the Democratic candidates, and Romney the support of the Republicans, this announcement is focused more toward gaining members of the Independent party.

It is also entirely possibly that President Obama’s announcement will not affect his reelection campaign at all. In an ABC interview, President Obama openly admitted that his support of gay marriage might hurt his reelection campaign. According to US Today, sixty percent of people agree that President Obama’s support of single sex marriage will not affect his reelection campaign. Out of the forty percent that said it would affect their votes, twenty six percent agreed that Obama’s support of same sex marriage would make them less likely to vote for him in November. Although Obama’s motives for announcing his support of same sex marriage may never be known, it will be interesting to see what the outcome leads to.

President Obama Supports Gay Marriage: Why He Did It and What It Means

Recently, it has made headline news that President Barack Obama has announced his support for the marriage of a LGBT couple. I know that a lot of my fellow classmates have already spoken about this but hopefully I will be able to keep this interesting and shed some light on the subject. In our government studies this year, several topics have caught my eye but one has been the use of campaign commercials and the relationship of the political parties. Hopefully I can examine the reasoning behind his decision to support gay marriage.

Vice President Joe Biden also came out and supported gay marriage three days earlier than . When I heard President Barack Obama’s comments, I had a few thoughts. I thought that maybe Barack Obama felt pressured into also supporting gay marriage just because his vice president supported as well. I also thought that maybe Vice President Biden stole President Obama’s thunder by supporting gay marriage just days before the President. It turns out that both the former and the latter might be true. According to The New York Times, Vice President apologized to President Obama for, “hastening him into an endorsement of same-sex marriage, several people briefed on the exchange said Thursday, even as the White House sought to capitalize in the campaign on Mr. Obama’s long-awaited expression of support” (1). The campaign of President Obama really wanted to be progressive and support gay marriage but Biden called a press conference first and his views were much different than Obama’s views. Even though President Obama’s support has been highly analyzed, Biden made the headlines first and some people have questions about President Obama’s motives. I don’t doubt that President Obama supports gay marriage, but I think he was forced into saying it by his fellow party members.

President Obama is now the first President of the United States to support gay marriage, but it does not necessary mean anything for the legalization in America of gay marriage. Sean Eldridge, senior adviser at Freedom to Marry, told Yahoo News, “Today is more about moral leadership and less about policy. I don’t think his statement will immediately translate into policy since marriage still is for the most part a state issue” (2). Eldridge brings up some good points. If marriage is mostly a state issue, it would take a while to make the 6 states that allow it to become 50. The President has shown support of LGBT in the past; this statement didn’t come out of nowhere. He ended the ban of openly gay members to be in the military. He also, “supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and he ordered the Justice Department last year to abandon the law’s defense” (2). Now that President Obama supports gay marriage, he is the best hope for the LGBT community to earn the right to get married. Although it could be just a political ploy, it seems like President Obama is trying his best to allow gay marriage in America even though he may not be ready to cope with the thought of it yet.

Obama said that he recently changed his mind when he spoke with openly LGBT members of the military. He has a track record with being supportive of gay rights and equality for all, but it is still unclear whether this is a political ploy or a truthful acknowledgment. Well, it’s both. The timing is good for his campaign and Joe Biden also came out and supported it, both signs that it could be a political act. His track record, however, proves that he does in fact support gay rights. Honestly, it is up to the reader to decide what his ulterior motives are and what he truly believes.

1.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/politics/obama-campaign-tries-to-capitalize-on-marriage-issue.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share

2. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-gay-marriage-views-policyabout-moral-leadership-advocate/story?id=16314661#.T7JenZ9YthM

Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage: Championing a Change or Ploying for Reelection?

Today, the issue of same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial topics in the UnitedStates.After North Carolina passed Amendment One on May 8th, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, President Barack Obama backed gay marriage later on May 9. With the upcoming election, such a significant decision begs the question, is the President truly trying to make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, or is he trying to gain votes from supporters of gay marriage? According to the Huffington Post, Barack Obama says that, “I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian American should be treated fairly”, however, the article also states that the President’s decision will have little political impact because the matter is still being discussed in different lights in many state courts.

Throughout our government class this past year, we examined strategies presidential candidates use to help their campaigns and get elected, including convincing campaign commercials and targeting a young demographic. This study leads me to reexamine the President’s recent support of gay marriage. Just as candidates target a demographic of young voters, could President Obama be using this announcement as a strategy to target the demographic of LGBT voters? The President is well aware that passing national same-sex legislation would be nearly impossible, especially due to the amount of states that have banned same-sex marriage (29 states total) greatly outweighing those that allow it (9 states total), according to the graph seen below from the Pew Research Center. During the President’s first run for office, he only supported civil unions between same-sex couples, so it could be argued that his “change of heart” could have the purpose to gain more votes in the race against Governor Romney, which is predicted to be an incredibly close match up.

Despite these inferences of President Obama’s intentions when it comes to his stance on same-sex marriage, his declaration of support may end up not making a difference to voters whatsoever. According to a poll taken by USA Today, 60% of voters say that the President’s announcement will not make a difference on whom they vote for come November. Only 13% of voters say that his support of gay marriage will make them more likely to vote for him, as opposed to 26% reporting that the President’s stance will make it less likely for them to vote for him. Nevertheless, this historical announcement will make for a very interesting election this fall, and if the President is reelected, I will be even more curious as to whether he chooses to take action on his support of gay marriage, or rather abandons a route of action for a change.