A little while back, I posted a comment about the charges of "socialism" being thrown out by the Republicans in the current campaign against Obama. There's a
story in the current
New Yorker that does a good job of explaining some of the background for why and how the charge has been applied through recent American history, its distinct lack of relevance to the Obama tax plan, and also the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by Sarah Palin especially in leveling the charge (turns out Alaska directly distributes oil tax revenue to the citizens of the state, who themselves pay no income or sales taxes, and she actually has increased the amount since she became governor). Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing that idea, which probably makes sense given the economic realities in Alaska. But to turn around and accuse someone else for a far more meager "redistribution" of wealth suggests either painfully inadequate self awareness, or blatant dishonesty. Neither quality should inspire much faith in the candidate.
5 comments:
Dr John
Obviously I am not a student of political histories nor do I even search out all aspects during these heated political times. I read the papers (and yes I do believe that most of them are leaning left publications some moreso than others) feeling the I can get a good representation of most issues. I do feel that Obama (with the help of a Democratic congress) will try to institute "socialist" programs, because he believes in them. To prove my point here is an interview he gave in 2001 (I think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&eurl=http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=91
Now for someone who was aghast with the freedoms that were taken away with the national security dept set up by Bush/Cheney, to follow this man and his plans is confusing for me. These people I believe really want to institute more government control in our lives. Now I am not that far right to blindly follow the other path (I have alot of frustration and anger for them too) but your support of this is so very confusing.
I believe government is needed to provide protection (military), infrastucture, and even some help to those who need it, among other things. I believe taxes are not necessarily a bad thing, but we work hard to provide for ourselves and sometimes that can be tight. What is that old saying... Give a man a fish he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Maybe these government people (both sides) need to invest in people and offer them means to accomplish their life goals - not just hand them monies or tax breaks. Now I am sure you can probably tear this argument apart but it is what I believe. I still have no idea what to do for this election. If Obama is elected I will live through it and hope and pray all will end well, but it is very scary to try to look ahead, knowing what he believes in.
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I think part of the uncertainty you feel is the result of relying on YouTube clips for information. That selection seems to me very innocuous and rather legalistic. The main point that I got from it was that if people want change they should organize and pursue it through the democratic process and not rely on courts to settle things for them. That's not so radical an idea in this country (at least historically). If you ignore the clip's poster's caption summaries (which in a couple of instances twist what Obama is saying), and if we could somehow have access to the entire conversation (which apparently involved two other legal scholars) it would probably appear much less inflammatory. I didn't hear anything in there about more government control-- if anything, it was a description of the limits of at least the judicial branch of government. By the way, the response to this brouhaha from the Obama campaign is here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/
bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_
back_on_redistribution.html.
One other point, you mention investing in people so they can provide for themselves, but what form does that investment take if not money, tax breaks, or such government programs as education, job training, etc.?
I guess I really don't know how to provide for the comments I made (if you remember I did mention that I was not polically savy). Maybe if Obama did not talk about "spreading the wealth" and instead talked about how we all have available opportunities so we can all prosper. Same thing? maybe but it may not cause the fear of "Socialism" that so many have.
I have heard something today that I would like for you to comment on... There seems to be a house decorated for Holloween that has an effigy of Sara Palin hanging from the rafters. Is this free speech? Would it be free speech if it were Obama that was hung? Like to know your thoughts.
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I think it definitely falls in the category of free speech (just as do the cases of Obama being hung in effigy in Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and elsewhere in recent weeks-- though without the same media coverage apparently). That does not mean it is not offensive and should be responded to to with outrage with shame heaped on the perpetrator (which evidently happened-- I understand he's been compelled to take it down). The key behind free speech is that bad speech must be met with good, with the goal of building consensus around the latter. Things usually work out that way, though it doesn't happen over night. If the offensive speech is suppressed before it is expressed (censorship), the danger is that we collectively grow complacent that everything is ok, and lose the capacity to identify and challenge the bad speech once it's finally unleashed. If you can find it, I'd recommend a book by Nay Hentoff called "Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee," which does a good job of showing how the system works best.
Thanks Dr. John. I also feel though both incidents (Obaman and Palen hanging effigies) are revolting and very disturbing they both are a form of free speech that we as americans like to feel we have. Nice to have your imput =) Thanks for the song too <3 Love you
Lil' Sis
Post a Comment