Nomenclature≠Political Success, Results do.

Democrats. Republicans. Matthew. Charlie. These are simply identifying nouns—names. Nothing special. For someone to say you’re not a true Democrat or a true Matt is just silly. After all, these titles alike are relative. To a staunch republican, a moderate may be viewed a ‘communist.’ The opposite is true, some out there left wingers may look at a moderate, conservatively lenient and think they are true fascists. So, can we actually coin someone a bad republican or bad democrat? No. However, we can assess what a political figurehead says they are going to do versus what they actually do. In other words, what people elect them to do (because of the promises made) and their actual political effect on the issue.

President Barack Obama had some pretty heavy, promising language in his campaign toward the presidency. I have personally heard that people are somewhat dissatisfied with how non-liberal Obama has been. I sympathize for the man. What a hard fricking job. In addition, every single citizen wants him to focus on the issues they care about—that’s a lot of issues and a lot of different points to focus on.

Anyways, here’s what he wanted to do…

Starting all the way back with the democratic and presidential debates we see the classic responses out of Obama. “Create millions of jobs,” “green technologies,” and pollution control. His websites says that
“[Obama] will work for tougher regulations on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to prevent air & water pollution.” SOURCE He was also discussing nuclear waste in his early debates and proposed “I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure people that they’re going to be safe.”SOURCE Furthermore in his second state of the union address on January 27, 2010 he said that "We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow," Obama said. "There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products SOURCE

Let’s see how well Obama has followed through:

Obama’s budget proposal this year included $10 billion for the EPA. SOURCE This is an increase from G. W. Bush’s $7.3 billion allocated funds. Obama put high stress on some key environmental issues in his campaigning, at least it is good to see he is financially supporting his goals thus far. Obama, upon his immediate swearing in, halted all pending regulations of Bush’s administration for his own assessment. SOURCE He also repealed a rule from the Bush administration that diminished the protection of endangered species such as the gray wolf and the polar bear. That rule also allowed mining to take place 100 feet from flowing water, which had the serious potential to negatively impact the environment. MSNBC reports “The new President ordered the Department of Transportation, now led by Republican Ray LaHood, to bring the nation's auto fleet fuel efficiency in line with a 2007 Congressional mandate of achieving 35 miles per gallon by 2020 or sooner. These new efficiency standards will start with cars released in 2011.” SOURCE. SOURCE

Obama is definitely accountable for his campaign promises. As a near democracy, or a representative republic, it is imperative our leaders do what they were elected to do—the will of the people. People voted for them because they liked what the candidate stood for. However, at one point, a president or any leader must prioritize his policy agenda. If the environment is a lower item of importance, I can see why nothing extremely dramatic has happened. I’m not sure that that is entirely excusable; but, there are things that can hinder this. The threat of terrorism is an issue that overwhelms our government. While we are jacking up airport security, we are completely ignoring the undeniable effects of carbon emissions heating up the atmosphere.

The Constitution of the United States is the source of power for our government. However, very little reference is ever made to the regulation of the environment. This absolutely blows my mind. Not only with regards to the environment, but everything else. Think about it… How can the government do anything it does (that is not an enumerated power)? Interpretation, my friends. Through court cases and ambiguous clauses in the constitution, the United Government runs our shit. And we got a boat load of stuff to run. Every single person’s paper work, personal documents, post office, the entire executive bureaucracy etc… It’s outrageous. Most importantly the Necessary and proper clause—that which allows government to do anything necessary and proper for stable government—gives way to the government regulating the government in order to protect the people’s health, economic interests, and overall well-being.

I think that is really the only time the government ought to be interpreting the letter of the law to this extent. Any further and it becomes mildly dictatorial. The spirit of the law extends only so far. I am concerned that the environment problem will grow bad enough that it will merit an extreme solution; It could go so far as to allow the government to break its constitutionality to fix the problem. That’s not chill.

I think Obama, considering the huge range of problems and concerns facing his administration, is doing the best he can with regards to the environment. People have a right to be unhappy. However, they should not be unhappy with his strides of progress (or lack thereof—depending on your personal opinion) but rather, they ought to be unhappy with their high, unreasonable expectations. I believe with the aforementioned legislation, he has definitely shown commitment to the environment. Quite simply, his performance has been nowhere close to what he promised throughout his campaign. I did not vote for him (because I was unable to vote); but, he has been surprisingly bi-partisan. Potentially, so much so, he isn’t accomplishing all he and/or his dems want…Mr. Obama: Get it together and make something happen or stop dealing with it at all. (Note: Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that only the NYTimes can call him Mr. Obama and every other network has to say President Obama? )