Why a lawsuit against the Obama Administration will solve absolutely nothing.
Conservatives (mostly those on the absurdly far right end of the political spectrum) have made a systematic and unceasing effort to discredit the Obama Administration from the moment it assumed power. This effort extends into every facet of governmental operation. For the nearly six year tenure of the administration, Republicans have looked for any and all possible reasons to attack President Obama.
Recent rumblings over the possibility of a lawsuit against the president and other members of his administration seemed to stem from a notion among conservatives that Barack Obama has somehow failed to faithfully execute his duties as president of the United States of America.
On July 30, the US House of Representatives voted 225-201 to allow Speaker John Boehner to bring a lawsuit against the Obama Administration alleging that alterations to the Affordable Care Act overstepped the bounds of presidential authority. No House Democrats voted in favor of the measure and five Republicans voted against.
These conservative claims generally take two forms. The first type is normally a contention that Barack Obama is somehow virulently “anti-American.” The ridiculousness surrounding the controversy over the president’s birth certificate should be ample enough evidence alone to show the lengths to which this absurd hissing and moaning will go.
The image of president Obama being “anti-American” is often one promoted by those on the right. In truth this is nothing but a surface result of political maneuvering. Those at the head of the conservative ideological block generally know that these ideas are nonsense, however they view them as highly-useful tools for making the media war with “the liberal.”
The second type of contention that is generally made pertains to Obama as being a “usurper” of American Democracy through his “tyrannical” acts. Is Barack Hussein Obama (the full name generally used by propagandistic [and very possibly racist] conservatives for no other purpose than to alienate the president from those they wish to sway) a usurper of American democracy?
Well, what is it that defines a “usurper”? Certainly, in a sense, the current American political-ideological structure is, indeed, in the process of a usurpation of sorts. With this being so, no single human entity (in this case president Obama) can be unilaterally responsible for very long term systemic changes.
As the system evolves there will necessarily be ups and downs, recessions and booms, however the most important underlying factor is the big picture. If one defines a “usurper” as one who seeks to topple the system itself, then it is clear that any individual who brands president Obama as being a member of this category needs a reality check.
If, hypothetically, the best leader possible is put in charge of a failing state that has few geo-political variables sitting in its favor he or she will almost out of necessity not do anywhere near as well as a mediocre or even poor leader would do with material factors reversed in a mirrored scenario.
If one looks at the tenure of president Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, one can clearly see that no president is entirely free from abuses of power. The Bush administration also helps to demonstrate the long- term economic and social ripples that can be created when incompetent, sluggish, and plutocratic administrations wield the power vested in them by the US constitution.
In fact the argument that many conservatives make pertains to the unilateral use of power by president Obama (of course president Bush would never have taken such tyrannical measures, that is, at least in the minds of many deluded conservatives) through executive orders. They claim that the manner in which the president has (in some ways) taken the law into his own hands has made him opposed to the old, historic, American social order.
An impeachment of the president on the grounds that he has failed to uphold the laws as laid down in the US constitution will most likely not occur. This is a term, once again, thrown around by those who stray to the far right. If it does, it will be almost purely the result of artificial political dealings and will have little to do with the real efforts of the Obama Administration during its tenure in office.
An analysis of conservative’s attempts to dislodge their liberal foes both in Congress and the White House shows quite clearly that the low level rhetoric of these individuals is not necessarily believed by the most influential among them. People like John Boehner know by now that no good will come from an impeachment of president Obama.
In fact one can easily see his acceptance of the stupidity surrounding the Obama lawsuit as a type of appeasement (in other words, a somewhat juicy morsel of meat thrown to rabid conservatives in the hope of a return to relative political sanity).
Barack Obama is not any more of an enemy to Democracy than other leaders in the western world. His power is largely dialectical (that in shaping the debate one can derive an acceptable outcome). Conservatives need to wake up and realize that suing the president for taking political action that one is ideologically-opposed to while there are real problems to solve makes about as much sense as stalling the repair of a vital dam because the engineers can’t agree on what shade of grey the concrete will be. Obama is not the problem, however, idiots seem to be becoming big ones.