It is hard to believe it has been a year since the historic 2008 election of President Barack Obama. The mood was electric on that November night and the country and the world had hope in this new and young president. And like with any momentous event, the media couldn’t get enough of it. Everywhere one looked after the election it was Obama, Obama, Obama. He was on the front page of every newspaper, on every television channel, on billboards, on the radio, on T-shirts, and of course on everyone’s mind. Some questioned the hype over such an individual and others couldn’t get enough of the man. But today, one year after this monumental election, the mood has subsided, the hope is dwindling, and there is only one thing on everyone’s mind: the health care debate. This issue has single-handily dominated the first year of Obama’s presidency. And although the U.S. is engaged in two wars and is in the midst of an economic recession, health care reform has become top priority for the Obama administration. But what is most shocking is how heated this debate over something long overdue has become. Between the town hall meetings, the tea-baggers, and Obama’s “health care speech tour,” this debate surely hasn’t fallen short of spectacular.

        But really, how civilized is this debate anyway? Are politicians debating facts truthfully and making decisions intelligently or are facts being slanted and politicians aiming for no reform at all? Whether you agree with reform or not, it’s hard to see this as a legitimate debate. There is no question the right wing sees this debate as a perfect opportunity to see Obama fail. People got sick and tired of seeing Obama everywhere and the positivity that was portrayed with it. They needed to get back at it all. But they couldn’t possibly criticize those two illegitimate wars or march against a financial crises-both which stem from the previous administration. They needed to fight against a new, fresh idea from this god-forsaken president. And like with any organization or movement, there always needs to be a strong opposition to vow against, and that opposition became health care reform. And to top it all off they found superb leadership in the media outlets of talk radio and Fox News. They took Washington head on and haven’t stopped since. The saddest part is they aren’t marching or protesting because they completely disagree with the Obama administration- now granted some of them actually do- most of them are so up-in-arms because they only want Obama to fail, and they won’t stop until he does. And this is where the essence of the two-party system has become skewed. People get so caught up on picking “sides” they forget the point of having two prominent political parties. Opposing viewpoints are supposed to create healthy debate where ideas can be discussed and compromises can be made. This current debate has left no room for compromise and this is why many have coined this health care reform objective as Obama’s Waterloo. The most unfortunate part is that is exactly what some people want it to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XbGIXsAg3Q

        And no Rush Limbaugh it’s not alright to want Obama to fail just like it wasn’t alright for CNN political correspondent James Carville in 2001 to want Bush not to succeed. Certainly, no one likes to see their opposing party in the White House, but presidents are elected by the people and that’s how President Obama became president also. He ran a fair and superb campaign in 2008 and won the highest position in the United States. Yet, today one year later Obama’s approval rating is 54% and falling and people are “fed up” with his policies and “want their country back.” So is this what the American presidency has turned into? We give presidents one year to fix all the problems and if he can’t then we want another one? Obama inherited a plethora of problems that can’t just be fixed with a snap of a finger; but not once has he blamed the previous administration for these problems, he has only looked forward. Fortunately, he still has three more years to prove these doubters wrong. The tea-baggers were a little too premature in protesting so early into his presidency. And President Obama was smart in attacking the health care problem right away, allowing at least four years to fix the problem. The American public is obviously impatient with presidents but they also have a short term memory. Let’s say this health care reform fails, but by 2011, voters will have forgotten about this and only be focused on current election issues. This “one-year memory mindset” can come as a blessing and as a curse. As just mentioned, one can see the blessing aspect of this. But if a president really messes something up during his last year, then that’s all the electorate will remember. So basically, a president only has to “behave” so to speak during the last year of his first term. All a president has to do is run another excellent campaign and be able to convince the public that they have done so much for the country and they’ll get re-elected. We saw this first hand in 2004 with Bush’s re-election, despite his outrageous foreign policy agenda. But this is wrong! To the American public the four-year term has turned into one year of attentive hope, followed by a year of apathy which ends with a prominent election which creates some concern for the future, followed by a “stagnant” year where the president is afraid to do anything too substantial which might hinder his upcoming re-election campaign, and ending finally with a heated re-election year where the president gets nothing done because he’s too busy campaigning. So basically, the president only has the first year to do anything and he must succeed in this or the American public will begin to write him off as a bad president. There is something inherently wrong with this type of a four year term. With presidential campaigns becoming longer and longer, it’s no wonder presidents rarely get anything done during their first term. It’s almost as if once a president gets elected, he immediately thinks about getting re-elected. So, why don’t we give presidents a chance anymore? Obama was elected to a four year term; so let’s give him a chance to govern before becoming so critical of his policies. If he’s such a horrible man, then he’ll fail on his own terms. To argue that marching and protesting is necessary because Obama’s a socialist is outrageous. Even if you didn’t vote for him, you certainly can’t believe the man doesn’t have in mind what’s best for America. His intentions may differ drastically from your own but not giving him a chance certainly enhances the idea that politics has become extremely polarized.

        This all leads back to the main point about health care reform and the two party system. Political polarization is certainly the main problem surrounding this health care debate. Each party has subscribed to a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality. And even though the Democrats have control over both houses, they still can’t get this reform passed because of fighting with moderates within their own party. It should be acknowledged that the Republicans are better organized and better about getting legislature passed. Whether it was good legislature or not, the Republicans pushed through and passed tons during the Bush era. And certainly today we can see the glorious organization of the tea-baggers. But there is a difference between exercising the right to assemble against something and assembling only to scare people into believing Obama is doing a horrible job. Most of these avid tea-baggers would probably not have a problem with some of the reform that is being proposed. But since it is a democratic objective it is automatically wrong. In fact most support reform that involves a single-payer option or is free-market based. But nowadays these tea-baggers have even lost sight of that and don’t even want any reform, mostly because those avid tea-baggers probably aren’t any of the 47 million Americans without health insurance. Despite all this, here’s the main problem: political parties have become so polarized that moderates are being left out and aren’t a sure vote for either party. Conservative think tanks and liberal writers have made moderates doubt the party they most closely voted with. But more importantly, all of this is eating away at the foundations this country was founded on. As aforementioned, the four year term is being shortened, the Presidency is being rushed, and debates have only become shouting matches; like this health care debate which has only turned into a further dissection of each party’s platform. This government needs to get past the politics, and look at the reality of things. On and off again attempts at health care reform have been tried for the past sixty years; however, this seems to be the president who might actually pass some reform. The reality is that nearly 20 percent of Americans are uninsured and it makes no sense to continue this startling statistic. And the only way to fix this statistic is to create some sort of government-run health care system that offers insurance to the uninsured and at the same time competes with the private insurers. This is the only REAL reform that can be passed. Anything else is “reform” that strives to keep the same system but says it is different and reformed. Furthermore, we must root against this illegitimate debate if we want any future debates to be civilized. We can’t stand for smear tactics and untrue propaganda. I still have faith in this President and believe that when the public option prevails, Obama will regain his status as a man for change. But this will not be his Waterloo; this will be the Waterloo of illegitimate debates. This is the end of that era. If we want to keep the foundations of America, we must stand up against political polarization and strive towards healthier debate.