I am not voting for Barack Obama for President. Below you will find why I cannot vote for this inspiring speaker and seemingly genuine politician.
Those are why I cannot vote for the man captivating millions of Americans and motivating new voters across the country. I know it’s not very edgy to simply state I disagree with him on basically every issue, including those for which he has only uttered platitudes, but he is a liberal. I’m a conservative.
I’m not sure why it’s hard to figure out why I don’t have a “Vote Obama” bumper sticker on my car and a donate link on my blog. Conservatives don’t vote for liberals. Liberals don’t vote for conservatives. They have conflicting viewpoints. Therefore, Obama will not get my vote in November.
The issues swirling about Rev. Wright and “bittergate” may or may not be indicative of the character of Obama, but those are inconsequential to determining my vote. They are interesting stories, but my vote comes down to the fact that Obama supports liberal policies. I don’t.
Sometimes, conservatives are forced to vote for moderates when put to a decision between a moderate and a liberal. That is why I will more than likely hold my nose and vote for John McCain. I don’t trust McCain as far as I can throw him, but I don’t trust Obama (or Hillary) at all.
I’m sure this will be attributed to my being an evil Rovian minion (since I’m part of the glorified “post-racial” generation), who actually enjoys character assassinations or something of the sort. But I actually liked Obama as a person (although he is going down the further this campaign drags on), I just disagreed with all of his positions and thought an incomplete first term as a US Senator was not enough experience for the leader of the free world. I guess that makes me a racist.
Your position is entirely valid. You disagree with him on most issues and on his basic political philosophy, so you shouldn't vote for him. I also admire how you can separate the mud being thrown at him from all sides (a measure of his danger to politics as usual to my mind) from legitimate criticisms.
I do have one critique, however: your absurd, defensive statements such as "I guess that makes me a racist." There's no need for this type of posturing. I do think some people are against him because of his race, whether they admit it or not, but not most (cf, the blatantly racist ad to be run in N.C. by Republicans and denounced by McCain). Of course, those of us who live outside the South cannot help but be suspicious given the history of race relations there. However, given your explanation, I see no reason to accuse you of it.
As to the "humanity's enemies" issue: I think you should get seeker to remove it, if only for fairness' sake. If you guys want to be seen as reasonable and just you just cannot endorse such extreme positions. Otherwise, we can justly conclude that you, at the very least, passively approve such evil bias.
6 of the last 11 posts now dedicated to Obama. Nothing about McCain? You prove my point, Aaron. I'll throw my support with Louis on the "humanities enemies" issue. That's really disgusting.
"I guess that makes me a racist."
If you bring Obama up as a subject matter, no one cares why you and republican won't vote for him. It's not a surprise you are a conservative. The big question is why this is happening.
I think it's because race does not matter as much to educated white democrats and young democrats as it does to less educated democrats and older democrats. If anyone has a better explanation, then offer it.
I think you should get seeker to remove it
If I paid for and put the time into the blog that seeker does, I would. I would put it in another category such as "Issues."
I see that it can interfer with our discussion, so here's my asking seeker to move it somewhere else. I think he should leave it on the blog, but move it out from under that header. Hopefully that would show a couple things, a good faith effort to continue dialogue even on controversial issues and also that we are open to criticism and do listen to those that disagree with us.
What I find odd is that Louis, being gay, gave a much calmer and better justification for moving the icon than Cineaste, who resorted to "disgusting."
If you bring Obama up as a subject matter, no one cares why you and republican won't vote for him.
That's been my point. Why does it upset you that I, as a conservative Republican, are posting things that are critical of Obama? I'm not shocked when you call Bush names and speak of how much you disagree with him, often getting into personal, petty attacks. You disagree with him. That's part of politics. Unless, you would also go back and make sure you post positive things about Bush as well.
If anyone has a better explanation, then offer it.
I'm trying to think like a Democrat, so this is hard for me.
1) They may think Obama is too liberal. Hillary is nothing, if she is not power hungry. She may be liberal, but like her husband she will triangulate to stay in power. Some Democrats are still not hard leftist.
2) They believe he is too inexperienced. Obama himself said when he first took office that he needed more seasoning as a national politician before he ran for public office.
3) They are big Clinton supporters. They loved what Bill did and think Hillary will be more of the same.
4) They believe Hillary to be more serious on terrorist issues and national security than Obama. He has said he would meet with anyone as President, then revised to anyone who was part of a national government.
I'm not sure of other reasons because as you say they are similar. But that does not automatically mean Hillary voter equals racist. So you are arguing essentially that all of her voters will vote for McCain in the general because they want to see a white person in the White House? That would be the logical conclusion to your argument.
What I find odd is that Louis, being gay, gave a much calmer and better justification for moving the icon than Cineaste, who resorted to "disgusting."
What should be placed under humanities enemy's is "Bigotry." I find bigotry disgusting and I think it's an appropriate description.
"I'm not sure of other reasons because as you say they are similar."
In all 4 of the reasons you listed, there are those who are fall within those categories who also will simply not vote for a black man.
"But that does not automatically mean Hillary voter equals racist."
Of course not. But it does mean that those who are racist will indeed vote for McCain over Obama not matter how they feel about Bill or the issues.
"So you are arguing essentially that all of her voters will vote for McCain in the general because they want to see a white person in the White House? That would be the logical conclusion to your argument."
No, not all her voters. Only the ones for whom race is an issue. Exit polls indicate that 16% of PA democratic voters said race was an issue. That's only those who admit it. How many more people do you think kept quiet about it? I think a lot.
Of course not. But it does mean that those who are racist will indeed vote for McCain over Obama not matter how they feel about Bill or the issues.
Maybe and maybe not. As an independent voter, I would vote for McCain over Obama strictly along my personal criteria for a candidate having enough experience.
Since this thread has gotten long-winded, I am not going to try and even begin to address any and all of the points raised since I last checked in.
Suffice it to say:
Experience in a state legislature and a single term in the senate does not equate to having enough experience to lead a country of +300 million Americans in a very complex global and peace and security world.
Governors of very large states such as California or Florida where their own GNP equals the 6 and 8th largest economy in the world probably have the minimum threshold of experience, but not by much and certainly not without also previously serving in the US Congress for a few terms. So, no Reagan would not qualify
Hillary is fairly week when compared to someone like a Sam Nunn or a Rudman, but neither one of them is running are they? No, Hillary has been in the Senate and on the national stage longer than the other democratic candidate. I still think she is a little weak on experience, but you know what I think she will be tougher than Obama when it comes to national security and domestic policy. Sh*t will get done while an Obama 1st term will lose critical momentum in the first 18 mos trying to really define what all this change rhetoric means and then trying to get it all done at once…on month 19, Obama will need to start preparing for the 2012 re-election campaign.
No, while I think that Cin may be right about some people voting based on race, I do think there is a large segment of the population like me (highly educated and consistently comes out to the polls) that will not vote for an Obama because of perceived lack of experience credentials and lack of specificity on actual plans. In other words, my BS meter has gone off the charts with the promises made by Obama.
Personally, I think the McCain campaign is more afraid of Hillary than Obama at this point. Simply because she has turned the republican election strategy on its head and used it against another candidate. I don't care how much you dislike those tactics, but this shows that a candidate on the other side can use these strategies successfully. This negates the McCain approach. Aides in McCain's camp have said as much in the last couple of days.
As to Cin's questions about possible running mates, I am not really sure he wants to have my analysis and perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that he won't like it, but Cin if you really want it, I will write something up.
I think race is an issue. I am tired of white people running things. However, I won't vote for a minority just out of guilt (like some white libs might in voting for BO) – they need to have sound (conservative) fiscal and social policies.
In all 4 of the reasons you listed, there are those who are fall within those categories who also will simply not vote for a black man.
So you really didn't want any other reasons did you? Since you will basically say racists are part of all those reasons.
Exit polls indicate that 16% of PA democratic voters said race was an issue.
That begs the question, what percentage of those voted for Obama and what percentage voted for Hillary. Maybe it was an issue because they wanted to see a black person be president. Of course, you can insinuate that millions more were racist but wouldn't say it, but all you have it the results and your thoughts on their motives.
BTW, I took this quiz, and my #1 match of all candidates, even those no longer running, was McCain – 79% agreement http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html
"that begs the question, what percentage of those voted for Obama and what percentage voted for Hillary."
74% of those PA residents who said race mattered, voted for the white woman. These were exit pols I saw on the news coverage the night of the election.
…they need to have sound (conservative) fiscal and social policies.
With minor exceptions, Obama and Clinton have the same positions on all the issues. So, it's tough to explain this away.
"As to Cin's questions about possible running mates, I am not really sure he wants to have my analysis and perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that he won't like it, but Cin if you really want it, I will write something up."
Why do you think I won't like it? If you are just going to unreasonably bash Senator Obama because you are biased then no, I don't need to hear it again for the millionth time. Objectively answer this question then, "What running mates will help Senator Obama and how?" I'll say that Tim Pawlenty would help Senator McCain with the immigration issue. He's loyal. He puts some purple states in play for McCain. He's young. He's conservative. See? It's not so hard to say nice things about the other candidates. I'm thinking a bipartisan ticket with a well respected Republican like Senator Hagel would really help Obama with independents and Obamicans. It proves he is willing to step across the aisle and end Washington's partisan gridlock. A mixed ticket has never happened in our history. Hagel also has a lot of experience. Other potential running mates are Tim Kaine of VA and Micheal Bloomberg of NY. Kaine puts VA in play. Bloomberg is Jewish, experienced, is an economic guru, he's an independent, he's well respected, and he has a lot of money to help the campaign.
"74% of those PA residents who said race mattered, voted for the white woman. These were exit pols I saw on the news coverage the night of the election." —–>
95% of Blacks voted for BO. So sure, race is an issue. Its human nature.
"I do have one critique, however: your absurd, defensive statements such as "I guess that makes me a racist." There's no need for this type of posturing." —–>
This posture may be being adopted by MSM. Just something I picked up on, the "R" word seems to pop up more and more often.
" I'm thinking a bipartisan ticket with a well respected Republican like Senator Hagel would really help Obama with independents and Obamicans." —–>
Hagel is "A" rated by the NRA, bad juju for leftists. Not gonna happen.
Bloomberg is a RINO, and mistrusted. I hope Bommy picks him as his running mate. Might as well pick Hil.
Pawlenty is a big concealed carry poli, pro-2ndA, again bad medicine for lefties. Barry has stated he does not Americans to have concealed carry.
No true Pub would ever sacrifice his or her self on the altar of Obamessiah.
These must be rainbow and unicorn dust induced visions ……
Pawlenty is a big concealed carry poli, pro-2ndA, again bad medicine for lefties. Barry has stated he does not Americans to have concealed carry.
Go back and reread what I said about Pawlenty. Who's running mate should he be? Who does he help? Obama or McCain? Do you think I'm suggesting that Pawlenty should be Obama's running mate or McCain's?
McCain needs a conservative running mate from a part of the country that he is poorly supported in, like the South. He's got as much of the moderate vote as he can get, I think. As long as his vp choice doesn't piss off liberals.
But maybe he should just choose another moderate, since neocons are gonna vote against the dem candidate no matter what.
Speaking of, if neither obama or hillary have enough votes by the end of primaries, I'd say at the big meeting, the dems should just throw them both out and choose biden :)
I guess your suggestion about Hagel and BO stunned me … my bad. But if Hagel would be suggested, why not Pawlenty? They seem rather close if you examine their stances on their web sites. Although, like I said , no true Pub would ever sacrifice his or her self on the altar of Obamessiah. Portman would be a better pick to me for McC. Ohio baby, swing state of all swing states.
Hi Aaron:
Louis is exactly right: it is proper that you not vote for Obama since you disagree with him politically, and there wasn't any reason for you to add the "I guess that makes me a racist" comment. It is definitely the case that some people won't vote for Obama because of race, and some won't vote for Clinton because of gender, and some wouldn't have voted for Romney because he's a Mormon. But it is simply not the case that there is any social pressure to support Obama to show you're not racist. It is still not the case that being black is an advantage in national politics.
your friend
Keith
Why are older Democrats voting for Hillary instead of Obama? I think Aaron is right that there are lots of reason a person might prefer Hillary to Obama other than racism. Economist Paul Krugman objects that Obama is too conservative on economics–that he has used right wing talking points to oppose Hillary's health care proposal for example. There is no reason to accuse Krugman of racism, and there is no reason to assume the worst about Democrats who aren't convinced by Obama. I say this as a person who is very left of center on economics (far more left than either Democrat) and who was very excited to vote for Obama. One of the reasons I like Obama is that he explicitly opposes assuming the worst about people who disagree with us.
your friend
Keith
"But it is simply not the case that there is any social pressure to support Obama to show you're not racist. It is still not the case that being black is an advantage in national politics." —–>
Keith, maybe not at the moment. But you had better believe, as this goes on, the issue of BO's race will become larger, especially with the good Rev's constant appearance keeping racially charged issues in the forefront, amongst other things. The Dem's are fixated on race. And, if it does come down to BO and McC, it will become even larger. The MSM is already discussing Pub's in the light of they being the ones who have stirred the race pot, when we all know the "black guy v chick" thing has been the central theme of the dem ticket. So, I think, when Aaron/seeker states "I guess that makes me a racist", they may be echoing the talking points just surfacing in the MSM.
Hi Benjamin:
You wrote: Keith, maybe not at the moment. But you had better believe, as this goes on, the issue of BO's race will become larger, especially with the good Rev's constant appearance keeping racially charged issues in the forefront, amongst other things. The Dem's are fixated on race.
Benjamin, there is no doubt that race is still a political issue in America, and properly so since our society hasn't reached the point where the color of your skin is socially/economically irrelevant. That's the point Obama made in The Speech. AFAICS Republicans are also fixated on race, so quick to read race hate into Jeremiah Wrights sermons. One of the points of Obama's campaign is to bring people together in a frank and honest discussion about what we all need, to get past the demonization that the left and the right have been indulging in for the last many years. But it is still unarguable that being black is a disadvantage in national politics in 2008. It's not the barrier it was years ago, but Obama's success has been in spite of his race, not because of it, and except for a few ignoramouses on the left, nobody will think you are racist if you vote for someone other than Obama.
your friend
Keith
And, if it does come down to BO and McC, it will become even larger. The MSM is already discussing Pub's in the light of they being the ones who have stirred the race pot, when we all know the "black guy v chick" thing has been the central theme of the dem ticket. So, I think, when Aaron/seeker states "I guess that makes me a racist", they may be echoing the talking points just surfacing in the MSM.
keith-
"One of the points of Obama's campaign is to bring people together in a frank and honest discussion about what we all need, to get past the demonization that the left and the right have been indulging in for the last many years." ——->
That's all well and good, and he may have some good points as far as the societal topics, but the self inflicted wounds of his words and actions(personal responsibility and the company he keeps)muddies the already VERY left leaning he has. To speak on racial issues is OK, but I do not believe any politician or government style can change individual hearts. That's putting way too much faith in man made institutions. The answer as far as hating a persons melanin is a personal thing and has to be changed, as much as it can be changed, by personal action, not federal programming. To a lot of us, what he said in SF was exactly that. It sounded as if he, surrounded by his class of folks in SF, was saying "if only people had more faith in the gov, then their hatred of black and brown people would subside, and their clinging to guns and religion(what does this mean?)could be altered in some way".
I think he feels that people would gladly trade in these things if only we felt that we could look upon gov as a dispensary of our needs. I believe what he fails to realize, much like the leftist rich folks in that SF audience, is that we do not trust gov with that kind of power and we will resist. Resisting at this point means using our vote of course to dismiss him.
Hi Bejamin:
You wrote: That's all well and good, and he may have some good points as far as the societal topics, but the self inflicted wounds of his words and actions(personal responsibility and the company he keeps)muddies the already VERY left leaning he has.
I would argue that those self-inflicted wounds stem from a distortion of Obama's statements and of his pastor's comments. You call Obama very left-leaning? Well economically, he is arguably to the right of the very centrist Hillary Clinton (he is far to the right of historic Democrats like Harry Truman, as are all present-day national Demmocratic leaders).
To speak on racial issues is OK, but I do not believe any politician or government style can change individual hearts. That's putting way too much faith in man made institutions.
Absolutely; only God can change people's hearts! But a leader CAN inspire people to think about things, to honestly discuss those things with others. IMO Obama is especially gifted in that kind of leadership.
The answer as far as hating a persons melanin is a personal thing and has to be changed, as much as it can be changed, by personal action, not federal programming. To a lot of us, what he said in SF was exactly that. It sounded as if he, surrounded by his class of folks in SF, was saying "if only people had more faith in the gov, then their hatred of black and brown people would subside, and their clinging to guns and religion(what does this mean?)could be altered in some way".
I didn't hear it that way at all. What I heard was Obama saying that a lot of working class people have become angry about being promised by both parties every election that "our party will bring back prosperity", that their distrust of politicians leads them to vote for the things they believe politicians CAN do–protect the non-economic things they care about. What does clinging to religion mean? Well, I cling to my faith every day, I hope. I don't see clinging to God as a bad thing.
I think he feels that people would gladly trade in these things if only we felt that we could look upon gov as a dispensary of our needs.
I think what he was saying is that if more working class people believed that government could be part of helping us economically, there'd have been fewer Reagan Democrats. IMO, Obama is wrong about the degree of working class support for liberal economics–there is substantial support for a center/left economics, there always has been.
I believe what he fails to realize, much like the leftist rich folks in that SF audience, is that we do not trust gov with that kind of power and we will resist. Resisting at this point means using our vote of course to dismiss him.
I think he was recognizing that some working class folks share your distrust. I think that was his point in fact. But he doesn't agree with you that government is inherently ineffective. Realize, friend Ben, that the question was why Obama wasn't getting more support than Hillary.
your friend
Keith
Keith, I dispute your assertion that "only God can change hearts." I think that it's entirely possible, even probable, that there are several other factors which can change hearts, such as the actions of other people or entirely random circumstance (9/11, for instance). I would like to see your evidence for your assertion.
Hi Louis:
I haven't a shred of evidence that God is the only one who can change hearts. It is to me a matter of faith.
your friend
Keith
Hi Louis:
I haven’t a shred of evidence that God is the only one who can change hearts. It is to me a matter of faith.
your friend
Keith
Well said, both times Keith, ;), also:
"I didn't hear it that way at all. What I heard was Obama saying that a lot of working class people have become angry about being promised by both parties every election that "our party will bring back prosperity", —–>
If the people believe that gov can supply prosperity, then they are lost already and will never prosper. If a gov is big enough to supply prosperity, then they are big enough to take it away.
Now, if we are speaking of formulation of policy within the boundary of capitalism and free market forces, yes gov can sometimes be intelligent, but this usually requires gov getting out of the way. Not something they want to do, they loves our money in the form of tax dollars.
"…that their distrust of politicians leads them to vote for the things they believe politicians CAN do–protect the non-economic things they care about." —–>
They should mistrust poli's/gov. The people allow gov to exist, not the other way around. They need us, we do not need them. And the less we see of their input, the better we as a free people are. The farther we are removed from these truths, the worse off as a free people we will be.
The very fact that the people feel the kind of mistrust which would lead them to feel like they have to vote to protect, and, again, feel like they need to cling to things(freedom of religion and guns)which should be automatically considered the birthrights that they are, unquestionable, shows how far peoples trust of gov has fallen, and shows how gov's power has gotten out of hand.
"I would argue that those self-inflicted wounds stem from a distortion of Obama's statements and of his pastor's comments." —–>
It would be hard to put the more evil things he said in any context that could be misconstrued in my opinion. I found them to be racist and demeaning, not only to whites, but also toward the people in that audience listening. If I am wrong, what was the context in your eyes?
"You call Obama very left-leaning?" —–>
Per his associates, he was voted the most left of Senators now in government. HRC, if I remember correctly, was voted 8th most.
"I don't see clinging to God as a bad thing." —–>
Of course not. It is, as stated in the Bill of Rights, as God given. Most people still believe this. Tell me, do you feel the same way about the 2nd Amendment, or are you like some others, who are willing to sacrifice this birthright? Just asking, as I have asked all of our posters(well, most)on their stance.
"I think he was recognizing that some working class folks share your distrust. I think that was his point in fact. But he doesn't agree with you that government is inherently ineffective. Realize, friend Ben, that the question was why Obama wasn't getting more support than Hillary." —–>
This distrust is shared beyond just the blue collar. And, if this is misread by BO, and it has been till now, I believe he will lose the nomination to HRC(I have thought this all along, one of my original comments on this site stated as much).
Yes, I realize the origin of the question. It was the amazingly insightful answer that I find entertaining.
I didn't hear it that way at all. What I heard was Obama saying that a lot of working class people have become angry about being promised by both parties every election that "our party will bring back prosperity",
I heard both. I heard him trying to empathize with frustrated voters, and I heard the condescending liberal worldview that almost undoubtedly lies within the foundation of his liberal political world view, which sees the right, and esp. the Christian right, as "poor, uneducated and easy to command."
I would argue that those self-inflicted wounds stem from a distortion of Obama's statements and of his pastor's comments.
Again, i think this is a half truth. While Wright may have done and said some very nice things, his racist and conspiratorial ideas are a fly in the ointment. And have you seen him in the news this week? I will post on it, but basically, he still comes across as a self-righteous hater.
It is to me a matter of faith.
Nice evasion, and, of course, a conversation ender.
LOUIS WROTE: I dispute your assertion that "only God can change hearts." I think that it's entirely possible, even probable, that there are several other factors which can change hearts, such as the actions of other people or entirely random circumstance (9/11, for instance).
Actually, I think some disambiguation is in order. In general terms, I agree with you Louis – because education, inspiration (in word or deed), or a host of other things can change a person's views on a subject, as well as his actions.
The problem with this discussion is that the term "heart" is ambiguous.
When we talk about changing a person's heart, meaning their core motivations, perspective, or mind about something, resulting in perhaps even a change of outward actions, that more general view of the word 'heart' certainly is initiated or accomplished by more than 'god.'
The problem is, when Christians use the word heart, they often confuse or intermingle this general definition of 'heart' with the more strict biblical definition, used in such passages as the following, which refer to a regnerative event – that is, when people become children of God through being 'born again':
So, when a Christian misses the point (as I believer your point was missed above), when they say 'only God can change hearts,' what they are really saying is
"The root cause of man's ills is his unregenerate, sinful nature, his heart is captive to his own sin. And though you might get some positive change out of him through education and appealing to his conscience, the deeper problem still exists – the problem which can only be changed by God."
Which is why, based on the biblical idead of The Tripartite Makeup of Man, we must do more than merely change laws (affecting men's bodies), and more than merely educating them (affecting men's souls) – we must also affect their spirits, which is to say, preach the gospel of man's fallenness, and need for rebirth.
Hi Ben:
A couple of comments:
1. I don't see your post as arguing FOR "Obama as elitist" so I will assume you concede that particular point to me:-)
2. I would say you and I fundamentally disagree about what government IS. You seem to see government as alien entity, a "them" as opposed to "us". I see democratic government AS us–it is one of the institutions that enables us to act together to accomplish things that helps us provide for the general welfare (as the founding fathers put it). There is no government apart from the folks who control the institution, and in a democracy us voters have the ultimate say. It is as mistaken to say that the less government the better as it is to say the less food in our pantry the better. We need as much government as it takes to do those things we decide democratically to do. Now I disagree with you about the free market. I don't deny that the free market is a very useful tool (command economies like in the old Soviet Union provide a good illustration about how a total lack of markets fails). But I would claim free markets are not magic, they are not infused with God's miraculous power. There are those things that unregulated free markets cannot do (promoting true equal opportunity to realize our dreams for example, which is why it is appropriate to use the institution of government to intervene.
3. I don't know where you get that Jeremiah Wright's sermons were racist, or hate-filled, or anti-american. Consider his famous "God damn America" sermon. Hear the whole context of the sermon. Wright made the altogether uncontroversial (for Christians) claim that sin carries with it negative consequences. Wright lists several sins our nation has been guilty of during our history and asks us to return to the humility that sinners properly display when we are cognizant of those sins. There is nothing at all hateful about that.
your friend
Keith
H Louis:
How was my response an evasion? You asked me what evidence I had for my claim that only God can change our hearts and I conceded that I had none.
And I hope my comment wasn't really a conversation ender because I enjoy reading your posts. if you are interested in why I think only God can change hearts, if you are interested in my explaining a little about my faith-based ideas, I am willing. If you aren't interested then hopefully we can talk about other stuff later.
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
I didn't hear it that way at all. What I heard was Obama saying that a lot of working class people have become angry about being promised by both parties every election that "our party will bring back prosperity"
I heard both. I heard him trying to empathize with frustrated voters, and I heard the condescending liberal worldview that almost undoubtedly lies within the foundation of his liberal political world view, which sees the right, and esp. the Christian right, as "poor, uneducated and easy to command."
I didn't hear that last part at all, although I suspect that Obama's San Francisco audience included some people who heard Obama the same way you did. I didn't hear his comments to be saying that we liberals know what's better for those religious conservative gun owners than they do. I heard him saying that those religious conservative gun see those good factory jobs disappearing regardless of who wins elections, so voting based on economic promises is a waste of time. So, Obama seemed to be saying, those voters vote on things politics CAN do, namely protect the cultural things that matter to them. Obama seemed to me to be saying that we Democrats have to do a better job of convincing voters that the policies we support actually will make their lives better.
I would argue that those self-inflicted wounds stem from a distortion of Obama's statements and of his pastor's comments.
Again, i think this is a half truth. While Wright may have done and said some very nice things, his racist and conspiratorial ideas are a fly in the ointment. And have you seen him in the news this week? I will post on it, but basically, he still comes across as a self-righteous hater.
What racist ideas? I saw his interview with Bill Moyers and I heard more complete versions of a couple of his sermons and i don't see the racism thing at all. And I don't see the hate nor even the self-righteousness, unless you count it as self-righteous when a person unapologetically expresses his opinions. You know you from time to time do that too:-)
your friend
Keith
your friend
keith
"1. I don't see your post as arguing FOR "Obama as elitist" so I will assume you concede that particular point to me:-)" —–>
I think the force behind liberalism(which has hijacked the Dem party by sliding to the kooky fringe)is elitist in nature. Is BO in that kooky fringe? I think so, judging from the company he keeps. He is very slick, a la WJC.
"3. I don't know where you get that Jeremiah Wright's sermons were racist, or hate-filled, or anti-american. Consider his famous "God damn America" sermon. Hear the whole context of the sermon. Wright made the altogether uncontroversial (for Christians) claim that sin carries with it negative consequences. Wright lists several sins our nation has been guilty of during our history and asks us to return to the humility that sinners properly display when we are cognizant of those sins. There is nothing at all hateful about that" —–>
I will let the effect the good Rev has on the BO campaign answer this point. As you say, we(the people)will weigh(like a stone around BO's neck, I think)Wright's word/BO's relationship.
3. "You seem to see government as alien entity, a "them" as opposed to "us". —–>
I see gov on the local and state levels more reachable by the people, and there, I believe the power should reside. At the Fed level, and as the fed gov grows, they become more untrustworthy. I think world history bears this out. Absolute power … well, you know.
"But I would claim free markets are not magic, they are not infused with God's miraculous power." —–>
I agree, but they are the closest to these things in man's physical world. That's why folks from all over the world try to sneak in here, to take part in the magic.
"There are those things that unregulated free markets cannot do (promoting true equal opportunity to realize our dreams for example, which is why it is appropriate to use the institution of government to intervene." —–>
If one relies on gov to help them realize their dreams, I will repeat from above: If the people believe that gov can supply prosperity, then they are lost already and will never prosper. If a gov is big enough to supply prosperity, then they are big enough to take it away.
Speaking of condescending worldviews, I've heard plenty of it coming from the right (particularly the xian right), who always seems to have all the answers and are righteously convinced that they are just right and everyone else is just wrong. They also love to judge and condemn anyone who doesn't conform to their view of the world. It's not a one-way street.
btw: Keith, when you assert something "as a matter of faith" it stops conversation because there's really no answer to it. You just believe it, that's all, whether or not it's real or can be evidenced. What's the point of going on after that?
KEITH WROTE: We need as much government as it takes to do those things we decide democratically to do….I would claim free markets are not magic, they are not infused with God's miraculous power. There are those things that unregulated free markets cannot do (promoting true equal opportunity to realize our dreams for example, which is why it is appropriate to use the institution of government to intervene.)
Keith, I see many missing pieces here.
1. "We need as much government as it takes to do those things we decide democratically to do."
One typical liberal mistake, however, is to look for governmental solutions for every societal problem, rather than asking first the question "whose responsibility is this?" As I wrote in The Five Spheres of Government, each sphere has it's own responsibilities and limits, and should not try to usurp those of the other spheres.
So for example, as the man in my home, I am the 'head' of the family government, and it is my responsibility to feed, edcuate, and protect my family. If I abandon my family, while the state (or the church) may want to step in and help, their end goal should be to get me taking care of my responsibilities, not making all such families wards of the state.
I think liberals unneccesarily broaden government to solve all problems, and in doing so, broaden the tax burden on reponsibile working individuals unnesssesarily, and inefficiently. It costs us a lot more to feed and house children and families with wayward fathers than if we forced the fathers to take their responsibilities.
Government is not the savior of mankind, nor can it be. In fact, the more we ask it to take reponsibilities it does not own, the more we make government a burden on honest folk.
James Madison wrote very clearly in the constitution about The Five Functions of Civil Government, which are LIMITED TO the following areas – sure, their boundaries are arguable, but there ARE boundaries. We don't need "as much government as we decide democratically," we need as much government as is reasonable. Those are not the same thing.
2. "There are those things that unregulated free markets cannot do."
I agree that markets need to be regulated, but the question is, how much? I think there are two operative principles – expecting men to be moral, and expecting that they need encouragement to be so ;).
The ideal is that we can trust men to be moral, and so will need a minimum of regulation. The pessimistic view is that man can not be moral, and so we must have a statist economy. The truth is inbetween.
But government can not produce morality, only preaching can. In the best of times, government regulation can be minimal, setting up guidelines that businesses agree to self-regulate by – so for instance, among Christian organizations, membership in the EFCA is not compulsory, but better organizations join it in good faith.
But in times when greed takes over, self and peer regulation does not work, and government must become increasingly involved to protect individuals. But beyond a certain point, regulation begins to hurt the economy. THEN what do we do?
At that point, we can increase penalties and government control, and live with a crippled economy. At this point, we have to admit that government is helpless to change the situation, and we need to look to other sources for help, primarily the CHURCH to preach morality, and to call individuals and companies to a higher standard. Perhaps government could do that through ad compaigns as well, but more regulation won't help at all.
Hi ben:
From before:
1. I don't see your post as arguing FOR "Obama as elitist" so I will assume you concede that particular point to me:-)"
I think the force behind liberalism(which has hijacked the Dem party by sliding to the kooky fringe)is elitist in nature. Is BO in that kooky fringe? I think so, judging from the company he keeps. He is very slick, a la WJC.
I guess I don't see how liberalism is elitist. One could argue that conservatism is elitist because it claims the folks who do well in the capitalist system are just more competent (and thus deserving) than their less wealthy blue collar neighbors. I think it's better if we avoid making such personal judgments, and instead just discuss the ideas.
"3. I don't know where you get that Jeremiah Wright's sermons were racist, or hate-filled, or anti-american. Consider his famous "God damn America" sermon. Hear the whole context of the sermon. Wright made the altogether uncontroversial (for Christians) claim that sin carries with it negative consequences. Wright lists several sins our nation has been guilty of during our history and asks us to return to the humility that sinners properly display when we are cognizant of those sins. There is nothing at all hateful about that"
<i.I will let the effect the good Rev has on the BO campaign answer this point. As you say, we(the people)will weigh(like a stone around BO's neck, I think)Wright's word/BO's relationship.
The effect may well be bad for Obama, but that's not surprising since the MSM continues to distort by ommitting context what Wright actually said.
"You seem to see government as alien entity, a "them" as opposed to "us".
I see gov on the local and state levels more reachable by the people, and there, I believe the power should reside. At the Fed level, and as the fed gov grows, they become more untrustworthy. I think world history bears this out. Absolute power … well, you know.
I don't agree with your generalization. Where I live local government is practically invisible to the general public because our local papers are too tiny to actually investigate things. At the Federal level the public glare is quite intense and (if the MSM would do it's job instead of focusing on triviality like Obama's bowling score or Hillary's willingness to chase whiskey with beer) Federal government is potentialy much more transparent than state or local government. Also, states and localities are much more vulnerable to being blackmailed by the economically poweful. Big companies can in effect veto local laws they don't like by threatening to move their operations to more "friendly" localities. Government is a way for us to act together, and the federal government allows the whole nation to act together instead of each state racing to the bottom.
"But I would claim free markets are not magic, they are not infused with God's miraculous power."
I agree, but they are the closest to these things in man's physical world. That's why folks from all over the world try to sneak in here, to take part in the magic.
I completely disagree. Markets are no more magic than any other tool. They are good for some things and not for others.
"There are those things that unregulated free markets cannot do (promoting true equal opportunity to realize our dreams for example, which is why it is appropriate to use the institution of government to intervene."
If one relies on gov to help them realize their dreams, I will repeat from above: If the people believe that gov can supply prosperity, then they are lost already and will never prosper. If a gov is big enough to supply prosperity, then they are big enough to take it away.
Government doesn't supply prosperity no more than any tool supplies prosperity. But like all tools, government makes certain valuable things easier for us to accomplish. Any tool can be used for bad just like it can be used for good. A knife sharp enough to carve a Thanksgiving Turkey is sharp enough to slice a mans throat, but this doesn't mean we should abolish knives. You seem to be proposing anarchy–the complete lack of government. Any government big enough to protect your rights is big enough to take them from you. On the other hand, any institution big enough and rich enough could take your rights. The difference is that a private institution is only answerable to the private individuals who control it. Democratic government is answerable to all of us.
your friend
keith
Hi Louis:
btw: Keith, when you assert something "as a matter of faith" it stops conversation because there's really no answer to it. You just believe it, that's all, whether or not it's real or can be evidenced. What's the point of going on after that?
Well, let me use myself as an example. I have several Muslim friends and I enjoy talking with them about their faith even though I don't share it. I am interested in how their faith impacts the way they live their lives and I am willing to explain to them how my faith leads me to see the world. If eitther of us is trying to convince the other, well of course we would need to do more than just say "it's a matter of faith". But not all useful dialogues involve trying to convince other people to do anything. That's all I'm saying.
your friend
Keith
You originally asserted that you think only God can change hearts. I demurred, giving other examples where I think hearts can be changed. You differed, stating that your faith makes you think otherwise, giving no reasons other than an assertion of faith. There's not much to be said beyond that, is there? As in your example above, you informed me about your faith. As it's not a matter of trying to convince me, but of informing me, that's the end of it.
Keith:
"Government doesn't supply prosperity no more than any tool supplies prosperity. But like all tools, government makes certain valuable things easier for us to accomplish." —–>
such as?
"A knife sharp enough to carve a Thanksgiving Turkey is sharp enough to slice a mans throat, but this doesn't mean we should abolish knives." —–>
agreed, and, an interesting analogy.
"You seem to be proposing anarchy–the complete lack of government."—–>
no, not at all,(although i believe that if the fed gov of the U.S. should happen to fall, we, as 50 separate democratic cells, would be just fine). just a limiting of gov at every turn, especially fed power. like i said above, i would like to see states being more sovereign and not beholden to fed gov. that would go along way in insuring national identity, which elitists seem to want to disolve.
"Any government big enough to protect your rights is big enough to take them from you."—–>
not true. a population ready to defend their rights can "persuade" their gov back in line. like you said,"Democratic government is answerable to all of us." but a huge, ogre like gov, bloated with power would prove, especially with the rights robbed from the dumbed down populace, very tough to keep in line(USSR, China, etc).
"Federal government is potentialy much more transparent than state or local government."—–>
potentially, maybe, but the last thing fed gov wants is to be tranparent. my thought about local/state gov is that it is easier to make real impact when a person becomes involved in local gov, easier to keep the hand and eye on the action. grass roots is always the key. a hundred thousand "grass rooters" can greet a wayward governor with a bare minimum of prep time, or a wacky mayor can be approached by hundreds in moments to hear them out. such ability can help keep our poli's in proper line, and this ability helps keep our freedoms assured. the feds, will never be that approachable.
"One could argue that conservatism is elitist because it claims the folks who do well in the capitalist system are just more competent….." —–>
i think that is true, since capitalism is an outcome based concept, so if you do well, it is a matter of competence, … but …
"than their less wealthy blue collar neighbors. I think it's better if we avoid making such personal judgments, and instead just discuss the ideas." —–>
… i do not know if one can fail or be incompetent in our system, unless they wish to be, or if they have a medical/mental problem which does not allow them to function. one can do well if one exercises personal responsibility, gets an education, and appllies ones self. any sort of redistribution of wealth to sort of "level the economic playing field" is pie in the sky and kills entrepreneurship and imagination(i believe i here echoes of this in the background of your replies?).
"Government doesn't supply prosperity no more than any tool supplies prosperity." —–>
tool, i find most poli's tools. :) gov is a tool used sparingly in a free society.
to Seeker:
We have covered this ground before, it seems. A man–you say–has a responsibility to provide for his family. Agreed (although I would suggest the same goes for the woman too). But in an economy that works by “division of labor” there is nobody who is self-sufficient. All of us depend on the labor of others to survive. Rewards are distributed according to the rules of the system you live under, and economic liberals disagree with economic conservatives as to exactly what those rules ought to be. In the context of a division of labor “providing for your family” means taking actions that will, given the rules of the system, result in your family having what it needs. A single mom getting a welfare check to support her children might very well BE providing for her family.
To Ben:
“Government doesn’t supply prosperity no more than any tool supplies prosperity. But like all tools, government makes certain valuable things easier for us to accomplish.”
such as?
I am sure you can come up with quite a few examples yourself, otherwise you would be an anarchist. But I was thinking about things like promoting equal opportunity, which government can help do by such things as subsidizing education, or instituting the Earned Income Tax Credit to help support the incomes of the working poor.
“A knife sharp enough to carve a Thanksgiving Turkey is sharp enough to slice a mans throat, but this doesn’t mean we should abolish knives.”
agreed, and, an interesting analogy.
I thought so. The point of course is that an effective tool can often be effective for good AND for ill, the blame or credit going to the people who choose how to use it.
You seem to be proposing anarchy–the complete lack of government.
no, not at all,(although i believe that if the fed gov of the U.S. should happen to fall, we, as 50 separate democratic cells, would be just fine). just a limiting of gov at every turn, especially fed power. like i said above, i would like to see states being more sovereign and not beholden to fed gov. that would go along way in insuring national identity, which elitists seem to want to disolve.
I would cite the Civil War and Jim Crow laws as examples of the dangers of excessive “states’ rights”.
“Any government big enough to protect your rights is big enough to take them from you.”
not true. a population ready to defend their rights can “persuade” their gov back in line. like you said,”Democratic government is answerable to all of us.” but a huge, ogre like gov, bloated with power would prove, especially with the rights robbed from the dumbed down populace, very tough to keep in line(USSR, China, etc).
I would say that has more to do with the lack of democracy than size. Work at a non-union, low wage job and you might well experience first hand arbitrary oppression and tyranny; for full timers that’s living for 8 hours or more a day in a totalitarian society.
“Federal government is potentialy much more transparent than state or local government.”—–>
potentially, maybe, but the last thing fed gov wants is to be tranparent. my thought about local/state gov is that it is easier to make real impact when a person becomes involved in local gov, easier to keep the hand and eye on the action. grass roots is always the key. a hundred thousand “grass rooters” can greet a wayward governor with a bare minimum of prep time, or a wacky mayor can be approached by hundreds in moments to hear them out. such ability can help keep our poli’s in proper line, and this ability helps keep our freedoms assured. the feds, will never be that approachable.
However, a lot of the time locals have no idea what local government is even doing because of insufficient news coverage. You don’t like what the zoning change? You should have gone to the meeting last week(the one you never even heard about about). At least there is (if the MSM did their job that is) constant news coverage of what the feds do.
One could argue that conservatism is elitist because it claims the folks who do well in the capitalist system are just more competent…..”
i think that is true, since capitalism is an outcome based concept, so if you do well, it is a matter of competence, … but
Actually, all systems are outcome based. The Soviet technocrats who did those things the system rewarded moves up the ladder in that system too. They were competent according to what the system rewarded. What’s elitist is when a person thinks they are better than someone else because they play the game better.
“than their less wealthy blue collar neighbors. I think it’s better if we avoid making such personal judgments, and instead just discuss the ideas.”
i do not know if one can fail or be incompetent in our system, unless they wish to be, or if they have a medical/mental problem which does not allow them to function.
It’s not a matter of INcomptence. The capitalist system apparently thinks that Bill Gates is more competent at running a company than my dad was at running a punch press; gates gets paid a lot more than my dad ever did. But those activities are completely uncomparable, there is no basis for comparing them for competence.
one can do well if one exercises personal responsibility, gets an education, and appllies ones self. any sort of redistribution of wealth to sort of “level the economic playing field” is pie in the sky and kills entrepreneurship and imagination(i believe i here echoes of this in the background of your replies?).
Capitalism redistributes wealth, otherwise Bill Gates would still be a poor college student instead of rich enough to buy the whole state of Washington. There is no reason to imagine that the results of an unregulated capitalist free market optimize imagination, creativity and effort. There is no reason to believe that changing the rules of the game to promote greater equality will damage any of those important qualities.
Government doesn’t supply prosperity no more than any tool supplies prosperity.”
tool, i find most poli’s tools. :)
Ha ha ha, very funny (I grumble:-)
gov is a tool used sparingly in a free society.
Private corporate power can IMO often be even more damaging to freedom.
your friend
Keith
Private corporate power can IMO often be even more damaging to freedom.
Private corporate power IS freedom. But you are right, business power must be kept in check by government.
But the more immoral people are (no self-government), the more immoral corporations will be, and the more external governement (civil) you will need to keep order. If you view government as the solution all the time, you end up taking away freedom rather than restoring morality.
This is why we can only take govt so far before we either go over the line into statism, or rather, preach freedom with virtue. If we lack virtue, then by all means, we will need government to take away our freedom in order to ensure domestic tranquility and welfare. But that's not the best solution.
Hi Seeker:
I must disagree with your statement that corporate power IS freedom. The fact is, freedom is a complex notion. Inasmuch as a corporation has power, the CORPORATION is free to do what it chooses, but that freedom comes at the expense of those who are NOT free from the decisions the corporation makes. The same kind of thing is true about private property: my freedom (to do what I want to with that car in your driveway) is limited by the fact that government recognizes your property right to that car. My freedom to do X limits your freedom to do things that my doing X prevents. The word "freedom" really covers up a lot of social reality, it's more rhetoric than anything else.
your friend
Keith