There have been promises and prophecies, allegories and allegations, not to mention a lot of buzz around Barack Obama. Problem being, most of it is biased in one direction or the other. Here are six things, from the absurd to the practical, that both sides hope and/or fear for, that won’t be coming true by 2012.
The months leading up to this past November were marked with many prophecies and promises from both sides. While some seemed well founded and others a bit more far fetched, all the rhetoric slung one way or the other was meant to do one primary thing: stir up hopes and fears.
Now that the votes are all tallied up and the transition is underway, those that voted for the next President of the United States may see their dreams coming into clearer focus while those that adamantly voted against him may have the prickling feeling that their worst nightmares are coming true.
But whether you view Obama as the liberal messiah or the bogeyman, there is some writing on the wall that is likely to be baloney.
Here’s a quick sample of some of the things that are unlikely to happen once Obama takes the helm:
One surefire way to win a popularity contest in the 2000s was to stand against republican President George W. Bush. Both political sides offered a veritable all-you-can-eat buffet of change (”Change We Need,” “Change We Can Believe In,” “Ready for Change!”) which made many voters assume that Obama will work to undo one of Bush’s most unpopular moves: The War in Iraq.
Though President-Elect Obama’s campaign website asserts that action on Iraq will be taken “immediately upon taking office,” the rest of the wording is a bit more wishy-washy. The rest of the promise goes like this: “Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. Removal of troops will be responsible and phased.” With so many caveats and qualifiers, the sentiment would have been more succinctly stated: “We sure would like to end the war in Iraq.”
Who is to say what qualifies as “responsible,” and how long a “phase” will be? (For example, I know some people who have been in the “phase” of adolescence for decades.) And regarding “successful,” we know from experience how effective simply declaring a mission accomplished prematurely can be. It’s unlikely that the next administration will make the same mistake, and will instead opt to stick to their guns until victory can be declared unequivocally (a seemingly impossible task in itself).
But the real bugger to those who voted for peace will be the fact that Obama hasn’t been shy about his plans to trade one war for another, possibly more. In speeches during his campaign, Obama promised to “shift the focus of the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan,” where our troops would attempt to engage Al Qaeda more directly, according to a Politico news report from July 15, 2008.
So while the right wing opposition may have mocked Obama for being “too soft” on terrorism, and the left had its hopes up for a full withdrawal, the likely scenario will be neither/nor.
American’s are prone to buy when they panic. And when rumors started circulating that Obama was going to put an end to those salad day’s when getting your trigger-happy paws on a gun was as easy as signing up for a checking account or buying a car, well, let’s say some of us panicked.
According to a CNN report from November 11, 2008, the FBI received “more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers” the week Obama was elected, which was “a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007.” Anticipation of our new Democratic administration caused a bigger spike in boom stick buys than fear of a digital apocalypse, impending terrorist attacks and cataclysmic natural disaster, a gun shop owner told CNN.
So what’s scarier than all that? What do American’s fear more than threats against our cities, Casio calculators and the well being of our families and colleagues? Taxes.
A little bird (i.e. the NRA) began whispering (i.e. spending $15 million) to the public that Obama was “a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.” One favorite shocking factoid that loves to get forwarded in emails is that Obama “endorsed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.” Wowzers.
(By the way, the comment was to raise the tax by 500 percent not to 500 percent. So, that would be boosting the current federal rate of 10 percent to 50 percent. By comparison, the $2.57 tax on a $4.00 pack of Pall Malls in New Jersey is a 64 percent tax.)
So, what appeared to be a hostile taking up of arms against a historic shift in power was really, in a way, just Americans sniffing out bargains as usual. Rumors of tax hikes simply made firearms the next Wii Fit or Tickle Me Elmo.
Only time will tell what Obama will do about ammo taxes, but according to his presidential campaign, it seems like it’s likely to be “not much,” mostly on account of bigger fish needing to be fried. The NRA cites a December 13, 1999 Chicago Defender article for the 500 percent figure where Obama did indeed comment at an anti-gun rally that, among other measures, he was “seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm ammunition.” However, Obama wasn’t even running for president at the time, as he was just beginning his second term as an Illinois senator. In a more recent Q and A from OnTheIssues.org, during his run for president, markedly less radical standpoints were taken on gun control and the 500 percent hike hasn’t been specifically mentioned since.
Read the rest of this article at Primer Magazine.
