Obama's speech
Again, arguably one of his best ...
Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.
For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.
But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.
Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.
For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.
But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.
posted by Jmac at 8:30 AM
15 Comments:
This is your chance, JMac, to defend your boy with the pragmatic and principled political theory for which your blog is famous.
Assume that someone other than Ron Paul gets the GOP nom. Assume that I, and others like me, are considering voting for Obama instead of 'throwing our vote away' on a third party. Convince me to vote for Obama. In particular, Obama and Paul have both built their candidacies around this idea of 'change.' But since I'm a quasi-libertarian you're not surprised to hear that I am currently puzzled as to what this 'hope for change' really is that Obama is talking about. It seems to me that we've had governments imposing solution on us for a long time, and that especially since WWI our government has been growing at a steady clip while the social problems it tries to fix don't get much better (and in most cases get worse). Bush is one of the worst violators of this of all. Now I'm looking at a guy (Obama) who wants to be the chief of the executive branch of our national government, and he is telling me he's going to expand government even further. So I'm having trouble buying how that is real 'change.' We've been there and we've done that, haven't we?
I understand a good bit of Obama's rhetoric about change focuses on 'bipartisan cooperation' and the like. But, again, we've been there and done that, haven't we? This is what almost EVERY candidate runs on. It's been a democratic ideal for forever. So I don't see the real 'change' that is being suggested here. You can say that "Yes, but under guys like Bush and Clinton we didn't have genuine bipartisan cooperation. We talk about it, but it doesn't happen." I'll agree with that, but I'm not so sure what era you're talking about where we DID have bipartisan cooperation. Politics, and especially democratic politics, is inherently partisan. People don't agree, and politics is a process by which people who don't agree are forced to interact and try to put together some sort of policy program despite all the disagreement. It's the nature of the beast, so what is Obama really promising us here?
If he's saying that he will genuinely 'work with' people on the other side of the aisle, then does that mean, for instance, that he'll compromise on his health plan since a lot of Repubs libertarians and conservatives think it's a terrible idea? Or does 'bipartisan cooperation' just mean for Obama what it means for most politicians: everyone needs to cooperate in giving me what I want?
We ARE at a point where the two parties (and representatives of other factions and perspectives as well) sitting down and having an open and honest conversation would be a refreshing change of pace. That's a sad testament to the governing style of Bush the Second (a true 'isolationist'). But all that said, this seems like a rather surface 'change' for a candidate who is claiming to run advocate something more massive scale. It would be a change from the last 8 years, sure, but I'm not sure it's all that radial in the grand scheme of things to say "I want everyone to participate in the conversation about the solution." Heck even Bush used to say that sort of thing all the time, and he even seemed to mean it. Before 9/11, which (stop me if you've heard this before) 'changed everything.' Anyway, participating in the conversation is not in and of itself any kind of actual program for change in the way things are done, in the kinds of policies that are pursued, etc. It's just a progressive shibboleth--diversity if good!--that has to be paid its honor before the president does what it is that he wants to do.
I'm giving you my knee-jerk reaction to Obama so you have an idea of where I am coming from when you put your case together. You may feel free, as always, to focus on other things when you make your case, or to ignore my request that you make a case altogether.
1. Possibly less lying.
2. Possibly fewer wars started.
I believe those would be your reasons, and I'm sure they're among the reasons you support Paul (although Paul, not being in favor of government in general, no doubt lines up with you on many more issues).
Oh, and 3. Make Oprah happy.
3 may win over the majority of sheep, Hillary, but I'm a Montel man. Especially when he has Sylvia Browne on!
We're all waiting for the crucial Maury Povich endorsement ... followed by a paternity test to find out who's the real father.
Seriously though, I'm meaning to write up a post about my thoughts which address some of your concerns/questions, though they may not sway you (being a quasi-libertarian).
That was an edited version of #3.
Unabridged, it should read: 3. Make Oprah happy so she doesn't blow up the world.
Throw in SOMETHING about free market economics, and you might sway me. It can be totally random, like "March every man woman and child into a concentration camp and force them to watch old Oprah episodes until they say they feel happy on the inside. The free market allocates resources the best."
Reminds me, xon, did you sign me up for "Reason" mag? I'm not sure why I'm getting it, but it's kinda fun.
No, nicki, I don't have a subscription to Reason myself. Their recent cover with Ron Paul looks great, though, and editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie has become an unabashed Paul supporter (one of the few 'beltway libertarians' to do so) and defended him very competently on O'Reilly earlier this week.
It sounds like you have a friend or family member who loves you very much and got you an anonymous Christmas president you can really use!
Obama's speech was classic Bill Clinton and that means it was as close to perfect as one gets since JFK.
Hillary's speech was boring and Edwards' was slightly worse - I honestly don't know how boring it finally got because I had to mute the sound. And, I'm actually sort of leaning Edwards in my support.
So, did Obama's team hire Bill's speech writer? Of course, Obama can totally bring it when it comes to delivery.
I'm not getting into the platform and persuasion thing but I hope somebody will point out to Xon that there is no such thing as a free market and probably has not been any such animal since the first shopkeeper set up on the first public road.
Free Market Economy = Unicorn ;-)
Al
Here's one sign of change:
Obama was a constitutional law professor. So, he's probably not going to wipe his butt with the constitution like Bush does. I daresay he might even respect it.
Given the way the constitution has been trampled for over 7 years, that would be a pretty big change.
True, Al, there has never been an entirely free market (so far as we know), and much the pity. But some societies are closer to it than others. I say we keep moving towards it as an ideal.
It's a simple enough suggestion. In one scenario Bob uses some of his own legitimately-acquired money to buy a car from Tom at a price that both Bob and Tom agree to. (Which is not to say that Bob wouldn't have preferred the price to be a bit lower or that Tom wouldn't have preferred it to be higher). Both of them walk away better off than when they started, in their own evaluation.
On the second scenario, a third party uses force (either at the behest of Tom, or Bob, or perhaps without the behest of either of them) to somehow manipulate Bob's and Tom's decision. Either Bob or Tom gets screwed, and probably several other people in the economy gets screwed too (b/c inefficiency ripples). It seems nearly self-evident to me that the former scenario is preferable to the latter. Thus, the free market ideal: let's try to make the first scenario the norm.
But now back to Obama...
I read on my Wii news channel that certain primatologists are using market economics to explain how male macaques exchange sex for grooming with other macaques. If the number of market opportunities for sex increases, the frequency and duration of grooming decreases. So, the cheaper or easier the access to sex, the less involved and the less the quality of grooming. Where access to sex was decreased, the grooming sessions were longer, and more involved. Vote for Obama.
Sara, if Obama supports a national 'health care' policy, legislated by Congress and enforced by the executive, all without first amending the Constitution to allow for such a thing, then he is "wiping his butt with the Constitution" just as surely as Bush the Second has done.
Whatever.
Whatever whatever, dude. Don't forget to throw in the thing about free markets. Your thing on macaques didn't really count, and frankly I picked up on your racism. I like being nice to my friends, so I'm not calling you out here in front of all these people, but I'll do it if I have to. You used to be a credit to your people, but now you throw around words like 'macaque' without hesitation. We're tired of it, frankly.
Charles, racism is a petty and pitiful ideology. But we still love you. Come in from the cold, brother.
Post a Comment
<< Home