What is Obama's Legacy?

David:
Hillary Clinton, now that polls show her as vulnerable to an upset, has come out with all guns blasting. Her most recent attacks against socialist Bernie Sanders argue that only she will uphold President Obama's legacy. But what, exactly, is Obama's legacy?

Doug:
It does seem that Clinton and Sanders are squaring off to have an argument for staying where we are, versus heading into more progressive territory, respectively. I understand both arguments (and either would be better than any of the Republican platforms). Clinton says that she doesn't want to re-litigate health care, but work with Republicans on constructive areas. Sanders is willing to go back to health care, and fight for even more progressive options (e.g., a single payer option).

David:
Which is why the Democratic National Committee has favored Hillary from the start. But maintaining the status quo is not the message the populace wants to hear this year. Bernie Sanders continues to draw large, enthusiastic crowds to his events, while the Clinton machine attacks. Every time she does, Sanders gets a boost.

Doug:
I think Clinton is delusional that a Republican congress would work with her. I just don't think it would happen. They would block her at every turn, just like they did Obama. Of course, they wouldn't work with Sanders either. But I'd rather have Sanders preach from the bully pulpit each week on the values of progressive positions. Then, maybe in future elections, there might actually be more progressives in congress.

David:
Republicans worked with Bill Clinton, because they found common ground on important issues, like welfare reform. There are many areas where the Republican Congress would work with either of those candidates if they would find common ground. President Obama never attempted to work with Republicans, and Hillary has promised to toe that same line. I can't believe you'd be hoping for more extreme personalities in congress. According to polls, most Americans would rather see fewer extreme members of congress, and more cooperation to solve problems.

Doug:
As we look back on the last eight years, I think that Obama will be seen as one of the better Presidents. Significant gains were made in equal rights for all with the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), legalization of gay marriage across the country, and the passing of the Affordable Care Act. All of those will have a significant positive impact on people's lives.

David:
President Obama certainly thinks he's one of the best. He said, during an interview, that he believed he ranked "number four" out of all presidents. I think that makes him number one on the "arrogant" list.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/21/white-house-hedges-on-4th-best/

But history will likely not place him quite that high.  Gay marriage was not his issue, but was an issue brought about through the Supreme Court, based on differing laws throughout the states. It was a decision that occurred while he was in office, but that isn't the same as saying he had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision.

Obamacare is likely to be more of an albatross, instead of a feather in his cap. History will certainly point to his tenure as the point where healthcare was altered.  Higher healthcare costs, higher insurance premiums, fewer options for patients as insurance is pushed to form narrower networks are all significantly affecting average American's lives. The ACA remains as unpopular as ever, and changing or eliminating it remains an election issue for both Republicans and Democrats.

Doug:
Time will tell. But his biggest legacy may be that he has shown that a black person can be President, and the country didn't collapse. Over the past 8 years, he has been a hero to US children (and adults) of all colors. He has been a great example of an intelligent, compassionate politician. It is sad that we see so few of those in today's politics.

David:
Once again, you astound me with what sounds like an outlandish racist comment. "The country didn't completely crash and burn with an African-American as president, so I guess we're safe to elect another one." I'm certain you didn't mean it to sound like it does.

Doug:

I'm certain that you have no idea what I certainly mean. The lesson that a "black President" is just a "President" is an important one for many people in our country. Acknowledging racism doesn't make one racist.

David:
Speaking of race relations, I feel the president missed out on one opportunity, which was to elevate the African-American community. Throughout his presidency, he was uniquely situated to challenge young, black Americans to stay in school, avoid pre-marital pregnancies, and follow his example for success. He and Michelle both studied hard, received advanced degrees, married, and have raised two fine girls. That's a path that far too few black Americans have followed. Instead, his words have further divided the country, and racial tensions are worse than they've been since the sixties. This failure, too, will be a major part of his legacy.

Doug:
Leave it to you to tell a black man how to be a better black man. That's The Audacity of Nope in my book. And you blame the first black president for further racial tension? I think you are saying: "If he had been the kind of black man I want him to be, things would be a lot more calm."

David:
I'm an American telling my president that he could do better.

I'm saying he is potentially a great role-model, and he's in a position to have improved the situation in a way that could help African-Americans and the country. He might have changed the trajectory of 12% of the population in a positive direction, with long-lasting benefits. But he hasn't.  His words and actions have made things worse. To argue that the racial climate is better is to deny reality. Encouraging the black youth of America to stay in school, and form cohesive families, is a statistically proven way to fight poverty and raise living standards. He could make that argument better than anyone else. I can't. (You're already insinuating my words are racist, because I'm not black.) But, he's chosen to demonize Republicans and police officers instead. That has made things worse in the country.

His extension of Executive Branch power will also likely be a part of his legacy. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will reign in his campaign of overreach or not. But, since he has procured most of his legacy through executive order, the next president may undo most of his legacy on day one of their presidency, through the same use of executive order. That's what happens when you bypass the Legislative Branch. You live by the sword, you die by the same sword.

Doug:

I don't know how you latched on to the idea that Obama overused executive orders. First, they are exactly part of any President's abilities. Second, Obama has been lax in his use of them, compared to Reagan and almost all of the last 20 presidents:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

David:
That's because he has chosen to name his executive orders "presidential memorandums" or "discretionary executive actions", which are synonyms and hold the same weight and function as executive actions. That way, he (and you) don't count them. When you add up all of his executive actions, regardless of name, he has far exceeded any other president.  Remember, he's a lawyer, surrounded by a bunch of lawyers.  His words are carefully chosen...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/25/obama-immigration-and-10-words-in-the-constitution-that-mean-mr-president-dont-be-a-king/

We'll probably have to talk about his legacy of doubling of the debt, and the disastrous repercussions  that will haunt our progeny for generations, in a separate blog.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/25/warning-feds-now-foresee-30-trillion-debt/

Doug:
Luckily, legacy lives on well beyond bitter Republican's active imaginations, swords and all.

How do you solve a problem like Trump?

Doug:
To many people---especially during this week celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day---Trump represents some of the most repugnant aspects of society, including racism, sexism, nationalism, and chest-beating machismo. How should we (and the media) deal with him?

David:
This is not the first time that a Donald Trumpian candidate has risen on the national scene. Back in the 1850's, there was the rise of an aptly-named splinter group called the "Know Nothings". They arrived on the scene and rose to some degree of prominence on the premise that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country. In an ironic twist, their actual party name was originally the Native-American Party, and then became the American Party. By 1855, they held around 50 seats in Congress.

Doug:
We should be careful about what we mean when we turn Trump into an adjective. He is so vague on so many topics, that "Trumpian" could be taken by a good many people to mean a host of properties. But if you mean the racist part of his rhetoric, then, yes I can see the "Know Nothings" as being an apt analogical movement. Also, George Wallace's movement in the 1950's and 1960's. But the Know Nothings won many seats, and had support over a vast swath of the country.

David:
They were not called the Know Nothings  because they knew nothing. (That would be Sargent Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.)  They acquired the name because they were initially a somewhat secretive organization. When anyone asked what they were up to, their answer was, "I don't know what you're talking about".  Hence, they became the Know Nothings.

But, as quickly as they rose, they disappeared from the scene, due to a split over whether or not to support slavery, the ultimate cause of the greatest rift this country has ever experienced. When the split occurred, half of the members went to the anti-slavery Republicans, and half went to the slavery-supporting Democratic party. This illustrates that the nativism of the Know Nothings was not a Conservative or Liberal ideal, but found a home in both parties at that time.

This Know Nothing flag, ironically, got it oh-so right....

Doug:
I'm not a historian, but I'd hesitant to say that just because one party or the other supports something, then that makes it one of their ideals. For example, over the last decade, there have been many ideas supported by Republican Party, but then abandoned by them once it was adopted by the Democratic Party. But yes, I agree that racism permeates our culture and political parties even today.

David:
In this instance, I'm saying that nativism was not exclusive to either major party. And nativism should not be equated with racism. They may share some components, but are not the same.

Doug:
If one believes that "that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country" then that sounds firmly racist to me.

David:
Maybe that's your problem. You believe Catholicism is a race.

Doug:
I'd describe the Nazis as being racist against the Jews in the same way. I use the word "racism" for those that have arbitrary discrimination against any people, based on any criteria. After all, "race" is not a scientific idea. But the Catholics weren't just Catholics---they were Irish Catholics, and the majority of Irish were Catholics. So, we could easily say the Know Nothings discriminated against Germans and the Irish, which are categories much more in agreement with the common ideas of race.

David:
You could say that, but then, you'd be wrong. It doesn't follow that saying because the Nazis were racist,  then someone who is opposed to German immigrants is therefore racist. And, being against Catholics doesn't mean you hate the Irish, just because many Irish are Catholic. You are against any Catholic from immigrating, no matter where they are from.  Sheesh!

Doug:
No, you have the analogy and causation mixed up:

• The Nazis despised the Jews, and that makes them racist.
• The Know Nothings despised the Catholics, and that makes them racist.

But the Know Nothings were specifically targeting Irish Catholics. In any event, I consider all of those actions racist.

David:
And that is why you throw around the word, racism, so carelessly. Racism is discrimination based on race. You water it down when you expand it to mean discrimination against any one for any reason.

I think we can see some of these same ideas today expressed in the rise of both Bernie Sanders and of Donald Trump. If you Google "Know Nothing Party", you'll find a litany of recent articles from both the right and the left diagramming the parallels between the Know Nothings and either the Democrats (from the conservative blogs) or the Republicans (from left-leaning authors). It's fairly easy to see the Know Nothing platform alive and well in the Trump rhetoric.

Doug:
In what way could Bernie Sanders be seen as being like the Know Nothings?

David:
Not just Bernie, but the Democrats as a whole, have adopted a strategy of opposing free trade. The deal that was supposed to be President Obama's "pivot" to Asia, has instead come under harsh criticism fro all of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary, who helped to author the original agreement).

Doug:
I think one could have some issues with some of the recent trade agreements without being compared to the Know Nothings.

David:
It was one of their rallying cries.

In addition, one of the Know Nothing ideals was that we should not engage ourselves in a robust foreign policy, but should be more isolationist. Bernie, Hillary, and Donald all support these moves.

Doug:
I would not call any of these candidate's positions "isolationism." Today's economy is a world economy. Any President will have to deal with very different pressures than we did 150 years ago.

David:
To answer your specific question about what we should do about Trump, I say we do nothing. The folks who support Trump and Sanders are fighting against the establishment. They despise the way Washington has messed things up. They look in the news everyday, and see corruption and government foibles (or worse, government abuse), and they want to fight back. They want to cheer for their team, but believe the coaches and owners are ruining the game. So, they're calling for a new coach. When the media and the establishment attack Donald or Bernie, their supporters see that as proof these men are the antidote to what ails us. Otherwise, the power-brokers wouldn't fight against them.  The more we complain about them, or try to bring them down, just seems to bolster their support from their own brand of Know Nothings.

Doug:
Doing nothing does not seem to be a good alternative. I wish that the media would make such comparisons between Trump and past racist movements, where appropriate. More people (especially Republicans) should speak up and say that they are not happy having a Know Nothing-like candidate leading their party.

There are other similarities between Trump and Sanders, but they have to do with their populistic approach, not their racial attitudes. I think Sanders would make a fine President.

David:
Sure. Another 15 Trillion in debt, and more government programs and agencies to deal with. What's not to like about that?

Doug:
If you think that you can sum up anyone's entire Presidential platform in a sentence, you may want to study their positions a bit more. There are some real, interesting differences between Saunders and Clinton.

David:
Absolutely! I think he truly believes everything he says, and means what he says. That's the biggest difference between them. I think his prescription for the country is completely wrong, but I believe he is honest and trustworthy. At least as much as a politician can be...

Doug:
I agree that that is the general perception.

David:
You continue to use the word "racist". That's a label that is used too lightly from the left. Any time liberals disagree with someone about a racial issue, they are quick to accuse the other side of having racist motives. Donald Trump is certainly a nativist, and has said we need to build a wall "with a great big, beautiful door". I believe what is he insinuating is we need to have an orderly immigration system, and eliminate illegal immigration. That's a national security issue, not racism.

Doug:
One doesn't have to have "racist motives" to be racist. If you act, say, or behave in a racist manner, then you're a racist. Trump said “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” To me, that is racism, pure and simple.

David:
You're saying that the migrant workers coming here illegally are Mexico's best? That seems stereotypically racist.

Doug:
You're saying that anyone coming from Mexico is a migrant worker? And you're saying that Migrant workers are somehow less than others? And claiming that we should treat them all as individuals rather than rapists and drug addicts/dealers is racist?  How does that even fit with your definition of racism?

David:
I am definitely saying that the majority of the Immigrants crossing the border illegally are migrant workers, and most are not from Mexico, but from Central America. Check the stats and you'll find that  I'm right.

Doug:
I'm arguing that they are not all rapists and drug dealers---many hard-working people looking to start new lives. Finally, the only problem you have with Trump is that he is a nativist? But I don't even know what that means when applied to Trump. He is against Birthright Citizenship:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/trump-on-birthright-citizenship/

If Trump is not referring to Native Americans with his nativism, and he doesn't give a person any credit for being born here, what does calling him a nativist even mean?

David:
We've talked in prior blogs about Donald Trump before, so you know I have many issues with him. He's still only polling at 30-40%, which is more than any other single candidate, but as the crowd thins, and folks actually start voting, we'll see how he does. He may continue to surprise us.

The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out what "birthright" citizenship means, but the courts have weighed in repeatedly over the years, and Donald Trump is just wrong.

Doug:
Finally, Barack Obama can be considered a valid President! Of course, Obama was born in this country to a US citizen, whereas Cruz was born in Canada, and Rubio's parents weren't US citizens when he was born. I think we'll hear more about these cases and whether "Trump is just wrong."

David:
As I said, these issues have already been decided by the courts.  I believe he knows that Ted Cruz is an American citizen. In this instance, Trump may be a much better politician than I originally gave him credit for. He comes across as sympathetic to Cruz's plight, and claims he only brings up the issue to prevent poor Ted from coming to grief later on. What he's done is give voters a reason to doubt the viability of Cruz's candidacy. That's smart politics.

Doug:
Sounds slimy to me. I think "smart politics" are those that argue the points and merits of a policy, not that those actions that treat elections like entertainment TV.

David:
And again, you would be sadly and unfortunately wrong. Smart politics are the maneuvers that get you elected. It may be why we all think so poorly of politicians, but it remains that you cannot accomplish any legislative goals if you don't first win the election.  Political Science studies prove the point. Negative ads work.

Doug:
I think you mean that I am sadly and unfortunately correct.

David:
Which brings us back to this discussion. Apparently, there is a sizable number of Americans who are experiencing enough angst and anxiety about the continued sputtering economy, that an argument to protect America for Americans has some weight. When folks are scared, they tend to hold on tighter to what they've got, lest they lose it. Nationalism, nativism, protectionism, and isolationism are all in play for the middle class. Trump has played, and continues to play, the anxiety card very well. Sanders touches on those same themes, but with very different policies of course.

Doug:
I agree, except on the why. The economy isn't sputtering, but some people feel/pretend that it is. And the perception causes the anxiety.

David:
Perception is reality.  (And, reality is also reality.)  Both of these candidates are telling people, "I will take care of you. I will protect you. I will make your life better financially." They have chosen different villains, but the underlying message is the same.

Frankly, I don't believe candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders could even exist, if not for all of the groundwork laid by Barack Obama. The country has seen an explosion of debt, a sluggish recovery (from a recession that was present before he took office) that is more anemic because of his policies, more partisanship than ever before, and open contempt for both Congress and the Supreme court. The majority of Americans have had their health insurance costs rise, when they were promised to go down. Incomes have flat-lined. And scandals plague multiple agencies.  Outsiders who would never have had a chance before, are now leading the packs.

Doug:
Blaming Trump on Obama? No, I think we have to blame ourselves. We need to call out the racist carnival barker every chance we get.

David:
So far, that strategy has only served to make him more popular. Why? For all the issues listed above. But then again, What do we "Know"?

Oregon Invasion

Doug:
I suspect that the fact that men with guns have taken over a government building in Oregon is on a lot of people's minds this past week. Describing the event has proven to be challenging for the media. Is it a "peaceful protest" or "an armed attack"? It is hard for some not to see racial correlations between these actions, and other protests of late.

David:
This particular standoff represents a long-standing dispute between ranchers and land-owners and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). For decades, the BLM has placed ever-more burdensome restrictions on federal lands that had been used by American with boring properties. In many cases, local communities argue that the restrictions are hurting their economies. In some instances, the federal government has simply claimed ownership of land that has been land owned by families for decades, and then restricted the use of that land. That is an abuse of power.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/roots-of-oregon-land-dispute-stretch-back-decades-1452042408

Doug:
That is one way to view the issue. But not the only way. There are many "long-standing disputes" in this country.

David:
But these disputes out West are different than, say, a dispute over zoning, although it is in some ways similar to "eminent domain" issues. They even have their own historic name: The Sagebrush Rebellion.

This specific protest comes as a result of two ranchers (a father and son) who set fire to their land in an attempt to curb invasive plants, and to decrease the risk of wildfires. Some grasslands in the adjoining federal reserve also burned, and the pair were charged in federal court with arson. The father spent a year in federal prison, and the son spent several months in prison as well for this infraction, believe it or not. Well, recently, a federal judge determined that the two had not spent enough time in prison for burning some grass (thanks to mandatory sentencing guidelines), and they were sent back to prison for an additional 4 years each!

Doug:
As you pointed out, there was a court case, and they were found guilty. It isn't clear what their intentions were. Some claimed that they were covering up a deer slaughter on public land. They didn't burn the land once, but twice. Doesn't really matter in the court of public opinion. But note that the 5 year minimum wasn't a "guideline"---it was the law. The law states that they must serve 5 years minimum. If you want to argue against mandatory sentencing minimums, I'm with you 100%! I thought mandatory minimums were republican ideas. In any event, judges have to follow the laws evenly.

David:
Mandatory sentencing laws were bipartisan, and a bad idea, as we've seen play out. The push now is to turn those laws back, and rightfully so. This, also, is bipartisan. Judges don't have to follow laws they feel are unjust. Hence, the original sentencing. If the appeals judge  had also felt that the sentence was fair, he could have let it stand. (The only reason there was an appeal is the government lawyers called for it, even though they won the case.) 

Doug:
Ah, no. Judges have to follow the laws. Otherwise we would not need three branches of government.

David:
The executive branch is supposed to follow and enforce laws. At least, it was before President Obama. The judicial branch interprets laws.

Anyway, this action sparked some understandable outrage from the family's neighbors, and a protest was started. After the meeting, several protesters took over the federal building, which I believe may be unoccupied most of the year, and serves as a small kitchen and bunkhouse for federal employees when they are there. These protesters do not appear to be locals. They are armed, but they are also peaceful. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Doug:
I think you'll find some of those neighbors did not understand that understable outrage. Armed militia threatening violence if anyone attempts to remove them from public land is not my definition of peaceful. But then again, I make a big difference between kids carrying toy guns on a playground, and militia taking over public land.

David:
Right.  College professors calling for "muscle" to assault a reporter, or marching protesters chanting for the killing of police officers is your idea of peaceful, because they don't have guns. You have to remember that out West, many people outside of cities own a gun, and keep it with them. That doesn't make them dangerous.

Doug:
I don't condone advocating for violence. Yes, indeed: I see people with guns as much more dangerous than those without. 

David:
And that is why you and the President feel we need to ban them.

Doug:
Pretending that you understand your opponent's position leads to a caricature rather than to a useful discussion. I think you would find that my position on gun safety (and the President's) is much more in line with your own. Suggestion: whenever you start to write "you feel..." instead try writing "how do you feel about...?"

David:
I can't fathom how you could possible tie race into this event, but then again, you tie racial discrimination into everything that happens in the country. This is a specific protest about land use in the Western states, which has been going on for decades. The issue has been coming to a head in  the past 10 years, however. Just look at how much land the federal government holds out West:

Doug:
I didn't say anything about discrimination. I think some people find it ironic that there have been so many black children killed recently for possibly having weapons, when compared to a group of armed, white men taking over an area brandishing their weapons. But I'm not claiming anything here.

David:
You falsely claim that "so many black children have been killed for possibly having weapons". Many black children are killed by young black males in urban areas during shoot-outs between gangs. I know of one child whose toy gun resembled a real gun, and was shot as a result, and that was a tragedy. The last time I checked the Constitution, it was legal for these ranchers to carry rifles, whenever and wherever they want.

Doug:
We need a constitutional amendment that gives kids a right to carry toy guns, then we can both fight for justice.

David:
I would have assumed you'd be more inclined to ban toy guns.  And real guns, too. At least I feel that you feel that way...

Doug:
You probably shouldn't assume so much. I don't think this is a cut and dried liberal vs. conservative issue. My friend Christy Davis has done some original research on the materials. Here are some of her references:

1. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/pissed-as-hell-rancher-blows-up-at-bundy-militants-im-not-going-let-some-other-people-be-my-face/
2. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2016/01/steve_duin_rage_reconciliation.html
3. http://usuncut.com/news/oregon-militia-descends-into-fist-fights-chaos/
4. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/05/how_the_u_s_media_would_cover_the_oregon_siege_if_it_happened_in_another.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_bot
5. http://audubonportland.org/news/audubon-society-of-portland-statement-on-the-occupation-of-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge
6. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-bundys-occupy-oregon

I don't think I agree with any of these perspectives completely. Like most things, it is complicated. I wish these militants were more focused, though. I'd love to see a conversation about getting rid of the minimum sentencing requirements and the benefits of government, rather than watching their armed take-over fall apart because they didn't bring enough snacks.

David:
It's a big-government vs. small government debate. This AP article may be a little less biased than the view of the "Audubon Society" or "The New Yorker's" take on these matters:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dbc59443e1314d02b02312ba356a614f/key-things-know-about-federal-land-ownership-west

"The federal government also owns significant portions of California and Wyoming, at 48 percent each; Arizona, at 42 percent; Colorado, at 36 percent; New Mexico, at 35 percent; Montana, at 29 percent; and Washington state, at 28 percent." That's a lot of land.

Doug:
Whatever it is, it is not a debate. It is a lot of land that the government bought from failing ranchers. Much of it is in arid regions, not suitable for development. Some of it is wildlife preserves. 

David:
That's what the federal government says. The states in which that land resides feel differently.  Many of those states have filed laws in the past 2 years to try to force the feds to turn over their control of that land to the individual states. Who knows how to use the local land better, the individual states, or a bureaucrat in Washington DC? We've seen over and over again, how big-government agencies are failing US citizens. This is just another example.

Although, to be fair, this particular group of individuals (from the Bundy family), who are not locals, make for poor spokes-persons for the cause. Every time I hear the name "Bundy", I think of "Ted Bundy".  Creepy.

Doug:
I think of Al Bundy! Even more creepy.

David:
I'm reserving judgement for now, but as time passes, and their list of demands is not any clearer than the demands of the Occupy Wall Street group (or college protesters, for that matter), it makes them look more like troublemakers, than reformers.

Doug:
This is you "reserving judgment"? I don't think "angry at the government" is a cause, and I agree that they have no idea what they are fighting, nor what their demands are. I encourage everyone to send those peaceful, angry, armed, white dudes some glitter and old VHS tapes of "Married With Children." Let's not speak of these people again. 

David:
Speak about who?

Doug:
Good! 

Resolutions for 2016

David:
Did you make any resolutions for the new year?  Perhaps "Listen to my brother more, because he's always right" might be one to put at the top of your list...

Doug:
Your niece suggested that I should make a resolution to do the opposite of what I would normally do, and that I might be better off.

David:
I second that motion!

Doug:
Here is an idea: imagine that you are the United States of America. What would your top 5 resolutions for yourself be for the next year? Now, you have to prioritize these, as you only have 5. What would they be, in order?

David:
If the US were a person, statistics indicate that they would most likely make a resolution to lose weight. A correlation would be for us to tackle the debt. Under the current president, we racked up a new 8 trillion dollars in debt. As a comparison, a 200 pound man would need to more than double in size to 450 pounds. Our number one resolution should be to reform entitlement spending to get this under control, and subsequently start bringing the debt down. All of my other resolutions would work together towards this goal.

In keeping with the idea of tailoring the government's resolutions to common resolutions that average Americans make, here are my top 5:

1. Lose weight (Decrease the debt)
2. Be more productive (Encourage the economy by reforming taxes and reducing  the regulatory burden)
3. Get organized (Decrease the size of government agencies,  so they will be more accountable and effective.)
4. Stop smoking (Stop blaming guns, and seriously start addressing the violence, and the reasons for violence, exhibited by young men in our society)
5. Be responsible (Hold government employees and appointed officials responsible for wrongdoing. Be more transparent, which is what was promised, but never delivered by the current administration)

What are your resolutions for the government?

Doug:
These resolutions don't have to be relegated to the government. But, as the government is just made up of people, my resolutions should work for them, too. My top 5 recommendations:

1. Think for yourself, and discuss.
2. Meet new people, and listen and share.
3. Have fun where and when you can.
4. Learn something new.
5. Don't hurt people.

As I look over your list and mine, I see some similarities and differences. First, just the basic idea of a resolution is an idea of privilege. If you are working three jobs, one doesn't really have the luxury to think about other things, like the national debt or having fun.

David:
You've already lost me. New Year's resolutions are about improving yourself, or correcting self-identified deficiencies. Anyone can try to improve themselves, anytime and anywhere.  Someone who works hard could still make a resolution to get out of debt, or to spend more quality time with their family, for instance. Everyone can work to improve their flaws, even if they are the only ones who know what their flaws are.

Doug:
Ok. Anyway, both of our lists are aimed at those people who have the ability to think and act beyond the daily grind. We imagine the USA as ourselves, but the majority of the country is not as well-off as we are. What kinds of resolutions can one have if you are trapped? I don't know. But perhaps others can help. I think I'll amend my #2 to include "and help." This can include our own people, but also our neighbors, and people around the world.

David:
Wait a minute. First you say that resolutions are such a luxury that anyone who is struggling can't even worry about helping themselves (and we both can agree that under this President, too many Americans are struggling, with flat wages and a stagnant economy), but then you say they should be out doing more to help others?  Or, are you saying we should be like college students who are resolved that others should help them?

Doug:
Have you started your resolutions yet? You write "be responsible" but so far you have blamed the President, college students, young men, and government employees. My list is different in that I don't put any blame on anyone for anything. And there are big differences between our lists as well. Your list is a list of pre-determined solutions, and steps to get to those answers. My list is a more general way of coming to an understanding about what the problems are, and how we can work together to solve them.

David:
They aren't my resolutions, but resolutions I would suggest for Uncle Sam. If the President enacts an executive order, or regulates businesses in a way that hurts the economy, then he is to blame. And undoing those actions would be the solution.

New Year's resolutions are not designed to determine what the problems are. Resolutions are determinations to act to correct problems that are already identified, or to make improvements where deficiencies are found.

Doug:
I see. You are sort of the Resolution Czar.

David:
I believe The Resolution Czar is the only czar President Obama didn't create. But here's an explanation, and some suggestions of resolutions from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_resolution

There are some big differences in our lists, for sure. Here's some interesting statistics about resolutions:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/

If you combine our two lists for the US, they mimic the top resolutions in this survey fairly well. You'll note that only 8% of Americans are able to follow through with their resolutions, and the key to success is for resolutions to be "explicit".  In other words, identify specific goals and specific strategies to obtain them.

So, for instance, resolving to stop smoking by cutting down by 2 cigarettes each week until I've quit, has a much better success rate than saying I'm going to be healthier this year.

Your list is full of good intentions, but by the "explicit" marker, Americans who follow my list will be statistically 10X more likely to actually accomplish something, than those who try to follow yours. You can get more traction on concrete than you can on hot air....

Doug:
If you look at my list, I think that they are as specific as yours. But mine are specific about working on the process to a solution. I believe that finding solutions is the goal, not getting to a particular idea that is imagined to be the solution.

There are more problems that I hope my resolutions would help to address. For example, I didn't explicitly mention the environment, but I hope that we can work towards a solution to climate change (and pollution in general). That solution could be reached by listening, thinking, and acting to not hurt others (including our future generations).

David:
That's just my point. A resolution to "not hurt others" can also mean that you should not deprive 50% of the world's population, who have no access to inexpensive energy, from burning coal. While I agree that too often politicians set out to enact solutions without identifying the actual problem, once a problem is identified, you should be resolved take some action to address the problem. Sometimes, that solution may be to do nothing. Or the solution may be to undo something, like certain regulations. But to leave the resolution open-ended is more of a feel-good approach, rather than a means to an end that ends in accomplishment. If you want to work towards a solution to an environmental problem, then you need to lay out steps towards that end, if you hope to accomplish the goal of your resolution.

Doug:
I think I'll follow my first resolution, and think for myself, thank you very much. Also, it is a good idea for all to get out of one's bubble, and meet and talk to very different kinds of people. I see that you saw the research by Indiana University: Social media news consumers at higher risk of 'information bubbles':

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2015/12/social-media-bubbles.shtml

Also have fun, and learn something new (keeps the mind young). And, remember that it was our dear mother that said "Don't hurt people" (as the definition of a word in a game of Balderdash---the first time she played). Maybe "Don't hurt people" should be the first resolution.

David:
Perhaps we can combine our efforts, and suggest a resolution stating "Don't shoot people". That covers a few bases, and is very explicit.

I hope that all liberals follow your advice when setting their resolutions this year, and create happy, feel-good resolutions without specific goals in mind. I also hope that conservatives develop resolutions that have specific issues to change,  and explicit plans to accomplish those goals. Uncle Sam will likely be a better world-citizen if he tames his debt, and stokes the economy.  Or, we can all settle back onto the couch, grab the remote, and keep doing what we're doing now.

Doug:
I think if people don't (or can't) enjoy life, then everything looks scary. But if you read my list and interpreted that as having no goals, and watching TV, then I need to add another resolution: Write more clearly. I do think we need more action. But we need to talk and think before we know what that action is, and that action shouldn't hurt a large number of people.

David:
If you resolve to "Be happy", but have no explicit steps to reach that goal, by February 1st you'll find yourself exactly as you are now. That's all that I'm saying, and is proven by the studies and surveys of New Year's resolutions.

Enjoying life is a state of mind. Haven't you ever heard that money doesn't buy you happiness? Of course, in your Bernie Sander's mind set, you can only find happiness by taking it from someone who has it, and giving it to those who don't. How does it go? Rich, white people have all of the money, happiness, privilege, and everything else that's good or desirable, and it must be taken from them and distributed to the masses by the government... in the name of fairness. Got it!

I'd be happy if the President would listen and talk with Republicans who were elected as the majority to both houses of Congress. But he doesn't even talk to his own Party members. As we saw again just this week, he's going to go it alone, and push executive actions to get his way.

Perhaps you should suggest President Obama follow your resolutions. I'd certainly like him to follow mine...

Doug:
Happy new year!