There were some moments in the speech that were not particularly good, but the last 10-15 minutes or so were excellent.
Regardless of political philosophical differences and party affiliation, we should all feel proud to see an American with African ancestry up there on the stage accepting the nomination of a major political party. One of our cherished values as a people is that we believe in equality of opportunity, and here Barak Obama was, having taken advantage of his opportunity and succeeding. He spoke with the voice of a leader and was skilled in his delivery. The purposeful comparison to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was important...we should judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. So it was a proud moment for all Americans to see this value enacted.
Now, I had my kids sit and watch a portion of the speech, and I tried to explain a few things to them. First, that each party has a chance to bring many of their strongest supporters together for a convention, and it gives them a chance to look their very best. Obama has his turn this week, McCain will have his next. Second, that political speeches are like advertisements. They are designed to persuade in a particular direction; they are not designed to give context and balanced understanding. When Obama said that when votes came up in the Senate promoting higher fuel efficiency vehicles or more investment in renewable energy and "John McCain said no," he is making it sound as though McCain is against those things, when of course he's not - he may just not have liked that particular bill or that particular approach to the problem. So you can't just accept these things in a political speech. You listen, record some key claims and points in your brain; you listen to the other side and you read other opinions and think it through and compare to other things you know.
That's our job over upcoming weeks; to try to see through the talking points. I heard a strange (to me) analysis by a CNN reporter after the speech, where he said that in his experience with campaigns over the years, he thinks the differences between the candidates are greater and more stark than he's ever seen. I'm not sure he's been on the same planet I have in that case. I think the differences were much more stark in the last few elections than in this one. That said, there are key differences as we've discussed in past months. Those differences will be our focus over the next 10 weeks.
I was impressed by another thing in the speech. Most Democrats I've heard speak do not speak as strongly regarding the importance of a strong and determined foreign policy as Obama did. He also was able to bring up some normally very divisive social issues in a manner that found some areas of agreement. And, he was willing to state that yes, his proposals will be expensive, but that he feels he has accounted for how to pay for these things. Normally it seems to me Democrats are not as forthright in discussing the cost of many of the programs they propose. I thought it was impressive that he was willing to put those things out there openly, which are normally considered weak areas for Democrats.
Now we will begin to hear and talk about counterpoints to Obama's speech. It's one thing to talk about a strong foreign policy, but how would he respond to specific situations? He's been criticized by many including some in his own party (even his now-running-mate Joe Biden) for expressing a willingness to meet with pretty much any of our enemies, kind of an "anytime, anywhere, we should at least talk to them" approach. Although this sounds good, it is not always wise policy. There are many ways to communicate, of course, but in terms of direct talks (and especially with the President himself), there are important signals that are sent to both enemies and allies around the world with certain actions, and these have to be weighed carefully. Sometimes the right thing may be direct talks. Other times it may be best and most effective to communicate in other ways than direct talks with the President.
It's one thing to find some areas of agreement in divisive social issues, but in many respects that just kicks the can a little farther down the road, but ultimately they still have to be dealt with and there is not always an effective compromise position to certain issues. And on these divisive issues, as we'll discuss, Obama as a Democrat is pretty much required to take a certain side when push comes to shove on these issues. Abortion is a case in point. With the recent question-answer session on these topics with Obama and McCain, Obama addressed the moral questions related to abortion, but in terms of specific position, he did not differ with the position of his party. In fact, one of the key problems I have with Obama is that although he sounds very reasonable and balanced, his actions at least to this point in his career have been down-the-line liberal orthodox. So when it comes right down to it, it seems to me that Obama has shown himself in action to be extremely liberal, not centrist as he is working to sound now.
And, it's one thing to have the courage to say "yes my programs will be expensive, but I have a plan for how to pay for them" and it's another thing to actually make that happen. Once government programs are put into place, they tend to take on a life of their own and it ends up being a lot tougher to pay for than was anticipated. You may recall that when President Reagan took office, he planned to both cut taxes significantly, and cut government programs significantly. Well, he succeeded in cutting taxes, and the economy benefitted, but he had a heck of a time trying to get Congress to cut government programs. That tends to be the way of things.
So those are a few early thoughts I have. Let me know yours.
P.S. Word is out that tomorrow at noon John McCain will announce his running mate. Although I still have no idea, I've heard a few details that suggest that it just might be Romney. We'll find out one way or the other tomorrow.
For those of you who, like me, think Romney was the best candidate running for either party, if Romney does become the VP pick, let's make an online donation to John McCain's campaign to show our support. Sound good?
3 comments:
I have to take strong issue with one part of the post, although the bigger issue is with the speech, itself. It is the acceptance that the plans are expensive, but that because there is a plan to pay for it, that's okay. I don't give credit for having a plan to pay for it, because any plan to pay for it means taking the money out of someone's pocket, in this case for doing things the government has absolutely no business doing.
Admittedly, I am a libertarian, and I realize that I have a much more restrictive view of government than most, but can't we all agree that there must be some areas where government has no business intruding? If we can agree to that, then it seems the wisest course to err on the side of government NOT being involved, since if it's okay for government to intrude on those areas where I feel it is inappropriate, it will certainly be okay for government to intrude on those areas where you feel it is inappropriate, and the natural extension of that is that government ends up intruding in every area of our lives, so that our initial premise is violated.
Having a plan to pay for expansive government usually means that those with higher incomes find themselves taking home less of what they earned every month, and I can't imagine when we as a society abandoned those principles we learned at an early age about not stealing from others. If it wasn't okay for me to steal toys from other children, why is it okay for me to steal money from other taxpayers? The fact that other children had more toys certainly wouldn't make it right for me to steal from them, so it can't be that the wealth of another taxpayer means its okay to steal their money. Moreover, having a bunch of kids gang up on another kid and steal that kid's toys would never be condoned, and might even be punished more severely, so why is it okay for a majority of taxpayers to gang up on smaller groups of taxpayers and steal their money?
Returning to the original point, having a "plan" to "pay" for expensive government programs just means that you've identified the small group that will be singled out and accosted by the government in order to obtain the necessary funding. That's hardly a virtue.
One more thing. For some reason my dad's comment is not posting, so here's the gist of it as he e-mailed it to me: "My point was I feel it would be a major mistake if he choose Romney. The religious right will go crazy if he does. At the core they feel Mormons are anti-Christ and their deepest religious values will not let them support a Mormon. To them it is fundamentally wrong. I think he will have trouble with the religious right if he choose Romney. I wonder if he will choose someone that is on no one's obvious list. Anyway, it will be interesting. The Republican Convention has a challenge on its' hands! People vote on emotion and who pumps them up and the issues get lost for many....I was talking to Uncle Don on the phone tonight (he called after Obama's talk) and he was all pumped about Obama. He said "How can anyone vote for McCain when he votes 90% of the time the same as Bush?" (straight from a Demo talking point).........so I asked him how does anyone know that McCain votes the same as Bush when the President does not vote on bills...only Congress does? He went silent and said "I don't know." So most people understand the issues poorly and vote on who they like and who they trust and who pumps them up. On that count Obama may have an edge. I am not very excited about either candidate is my problem. Dad"
Obama said his plan is to close corporate loopholes, and to cancel programs that don't work. Right. Close loopholes means raise taxes on corporations. And when was the last time government canceled a program because it doesn't work? Never, they just put more money into it. MY MONEY. And your money. Obama is full of hot air, and if he wins, he has the potential of screwing things up for a long time. More taxes, more government, more abortions, less rights to guns, nationalized health care, less military strength, Iran will be cheering, and Putin saying "Excellent" while rubbing his hands together. Uncle Jim may not be excited about either of the candidates, but looking at all the damage Obama can do better make him excited about McCain pretty darn quick.
Romney would have been a mistake. He doesn't bring a lot of excitement and a number of the "religous right" don't like him. I think the Palin choice is exciting, and gutsy, but removes McCains argument about Obama's experience. She's very conservative, pro drilling, pro-life, low taxes, and less government. She is also attractive and a "soccer" mom and a woman who may pull some of the disappointed Hillary Women over. I just hope she is a quick learner, 'cause in a few weeks, she will be debating Joe "If my lips are moving I am lying" Biden.
And don't get me started on Obama healthcare, I am already looking for a new career just in case. Can't afford to work in healthcare if everybody is on Medicare.
Post a Comment