Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


Obama’s Chances in 2012: A Season for Reason

posted by Admin

On all fronts there are efforts to energize the Obama converts who have lost a little faith, or a lot, over the past three years.  Despite the oft-repeated fact that no sitting President since Roosevelt has been re-elected with unemployment over 7.4%, it’s also true that incumbents retain a huge advantage and that Obama’s presidency has been unique from the day a black man won the election.

 

From now until next November his candidacy will be like a fragile patient who must be checked on every day. Or in the case of modern media, every hour.  Bombarded by polls, statistics, and punditry, the forest is disappearing behind so many trees. But perhaps some major trends can be spotted, and when they are, a voter can decide which trend to back.

 

Reason vs. Unreason:  This is the major contest, leaving all policy details aside. The New York Times pointed out that the various Republican hopefuls were outdoing themselves in extremism, making claims and charges against Obama “that would be laughable if they were not an insult to intelligence and the President.”  One can make light of seeing one right-winger after another bob up to challenge Romney’s all but certain nomination. As one late-night comic said, “How many more clowns do you have in that car?” It has  been a circus of irrationality.

 

Unreason tells a host of fabrications as part of its twisted narrative.  There’s the deportation of all illegals, for example, which has no chance of ever happening. But even the moderate alternative (moderate in this surreal landscape, that is) of Mitt Romney goes further into irrationality. Whether he means it or not, Romney vows to allow states of make abortion illegal, to lower taxes for the rich even further, to double the size of Guantanamo, reinstate torture, and gut both Obamacare and financial regulations.

 

Each voter must decide which trend to support. Even if, as suspected, Romney reverts to being a Massachusetts moderate Republican, he will have to contend with the ultra-ideologues in the House and Senate. There is a widespread shrug of the shoulders among many Democrats, taking the attitude that “Romney wouldn’t be so bad.” but this in essence is a silent vote for unreason and a kick in the teeth to President Obama and his complete loyalty to reasoned policies.

 

Futurism vs. Reaction: Obama has made clear that the best way out of the current stubborn recession is by envisioning a productive future; thus his policies on the environment, infrastructure, and alternative energy. The Republican candidates, to a man, hit the drumbeat of restoring America to its past greatness. They are trying to parrot Reagan’s optimism, but in effect they are preaching the erasure of every progressive reform won over the past three years.

 

Globalism vs. Nationalism: The Republicans, having promoted two egregious, expensive wars over the past decade, have now retreated into isolationism and America first.  They are hostile to globalism, a form of blindness that will undermine our future and every other country’s as well. As difficult as the challenges are from China and Islamic extremism, Obama sees that partnership with China is inevitable and that terrorism can be dealt with absent a massive standing army.

 

Science vs. Prejudice: A host of issues, from stem cell research to global warming, finds the right wing playing the part of the ostrich with its head in the sand, pandering instead to religious dictates and assorted faith-based myths.   There is an utter absence of respect for the facts, and even topics that should be settled, such as the right of privacy when it comes to sex acts and birth control, are insidiously attacked. Obama restored the government’s position to one of respect for data and research in many areas; that needs to be upheld.

 

Tolerance vs. Intolerance: A democracy is upheld through mutual toleration. This includes tolerating people who are in favor of intolerance. Through thirty years of reactionary conditioning, we’ve allowed basic values to deteriorate. It’s tragic that the very word “values” has been coopted by the most intolerant sector of society, but ever since Nixon’s Southern strategy, the once admired Republican Party has decayed into a tent under which not just traditional conservatives but gun nuts, racists, religious fundamentalists, and the like find shelter. Obama has had only three years to try and counter such toxic conditioning; it will take more.

 

These major trends are worth mentioning in order to clear our vision.  I join millions of others mourning the fact that Obama hasn’t been able to pass the best kind of health care reform, that he lost several major battles on the Hill, and that the Republican minority in the Senate, using the threat of filibuster, has successfully opposed nominees for important offices, not to mention up to 80% of proposed legislation supported by the majority.  Democracy is being sold down the river; partisan paralysis has become an incurable condition.

 

But none of that should be our excuse for losing heart, much less turning our backs on the upcoming election. Trends are unmistakable, and every vote is a voice saying yes to one side of the trend and no to the other.

 

www.deepakchopra.com

Follow Deepak on Twitter



Advertisement
Comments read comments(2)
post a comment
paul

posted May 3, 2012 at 3:44 pm


Liberally biased much?



report abuse
 

Penny Farthing

posted June 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm


Another similarly themed article I found called ‘Who Would Jesus Vote For in the 2012 Presidential Election?’ http://progressplanet.com/eliza-wood/who-would-jesus-endorse-part-one/
Interesting because the answer might actually be NEITHER Romney or Obama!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

A Better Way to Approach Pain, and America's Pain-Pill Epidemic
By Deepak Chopra, M.D., FACP, and P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, FRCP, Professor of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina   You may have noticed headlines about the rise of prescription drugs as a major cause of addiction and death by overdose. Pain pills are ove

posted 11:24:03am Aug. 25, 2014 | read full post »

Naïve Realism, Or the Strange Case of Physics and Fake Philosophers (Part 2)
By Deepak Chopra, MD and Menas Kafatos,PhD   Scientists have assigned  the role of Mister Answer to science, the source of knowledge on every subject. This is peculiar because science does not accept a complete body of knowledge at any one time as final, therefore no answer can be final.

posted 10:14:04am Aug. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Naïve Realism, Or the Strange Case of Physics and Fake Philosophers
In a most unexpected way, physics has started to criticize its own sense of reality. Noted figures are speaking out against other noted figures, and heads are being knocked. A prime example: In the blog section of Scientific American, the highly respected South African physicist and cosmologist Geor

posted 9:54:26am Aug. 11, 2014 | read full post »

Is a Mind-Element Needed to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? Do physically undetermined choices enter into the evolution of the physical universe? Part 3
 By Deepak Chopra, MD and Henry Stapp, PhD Our previous two posts on the role of mind in nature have argued that rational analysis of the empirical evidence entails that the world is not only influenced by ideas, but consists of them. Of course, the everyday experience of a physical reality made o

posted 11:07:52am Aug. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Is a Mind-Element Needed to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? Do physically undetermined choices enter into the evolution of the physical universe? Part 2
By Deepak Chopra, MD and Henry Stapp, PhD The time is ripe for a theory of cosmic mind to be seen by all scientists, not as a speculative notion that conflicts with basic scientific principles, but as a necessary part of a rational science-based understanding of ourselves and nature. The earlie

posted 11:10:54am Jul. 21, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.