 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 15:56:18 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
OOh, good sign discovered via the blogsearch: the blog "Below the Beltway" links the Ayn Rand Lexicon in contrasting AR's view with Obama's.
The Lexicon is paying off. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 16:48:04 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Anthony
I don't think I understood what Ayn Rand meant by the virtue of selfishness until I understood that (and why) the other virtues were rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride. Of course, understanding the definition of "virtue" and the definition of "value" was probably a prerequisite as well.
To most people who haven't been exposed to Objectivism, "selfishness" means doing whatever one feels like doing with no regard for the consequences. To most people who haven't been exposed to Objectivism, it is "selfish" to steal, to murder, to lie, to cheat. I don't think the virtue of selfishness can be easily explained to such people, but I do think it's important to let them know that it probably doesn't mean what they think it means, and point them in the right direction if they want to learn more. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 16:57:39 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Anthony
I should also point out a fundamental flaw in Obama's comment, even though I suppose it's obvious to most of you. He said that under his redistribution plan, "All boats rise". But, of course, if that were true, it would be in the rational self interest of the rich to voluntarily redistribute their own wealth, and there would be no need for the government to force them to do it. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 18:10:36 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
Thanks for the heads-up, Paul. I've commented on this at my blog:
http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-vs-virtue-of-selfis ... |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 18:28:25 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: SurahAhriman
E-mail: SurahAhriman(at)gmail.com
Anthony, the precise definitions Rand uses for altruism and selfishness are the two most important things to convey to anyone interested in reading anything by Rand, imo. One of the reasons for this is that I've found it very simple to get the ideas across (based on personal, anecdotal evidence), and, even if I think it should be obvious from reading Atlas Shrugged, Rand's usage vs common usage is probably one of the bigger stumbling blocks to someone without background info giving her a fair shot. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 20:02:46 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Bill Brown
URL: http://bbrown.info/
Another, possibly-better search would be this:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fblogs ...
That will give you a list of blogs that have linked to the abcnews.com blog entry. You can then subscribe in the left-hand to that particular search via email or RSS so that you get updated when new blog entries match the criteria. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 20:18:04 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
Selfishness as a virtue is something that one realizes when subscribing to a conceptual level mentality.
Unfortunately, many do not stray far from the pure perceptual level. |
|
| Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 22:19:43 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I agree about Rand's definitions of selfishness and altruism being common sources of misunderstanding of her ideas. This is more often remarked upon in relation to "selfishness," I think, but it's also true that common usage treats "altruism" as having a broad range of meanings, from total self-sacrifice to support for charity to generosity to benevolence. Indeed, in biology, the term "reciprocal altruism" is used to mean a pattern of behavior in which one organism acts in a way that benefits a second, but only so long as the second also acts in a way that benefits the first . . . which is analogous (at a preconceptual level!) to trade for mutual profit. I must admit that I had tended to assume that Rand's definition was innovative, in the sense of giving a word in common usage a new and narrower meaning.
But it turns out that Rand's usage is going back to the original meaning of the word. I lately copy edited a biography of Auguste Comte, one of Rand's least favorite philosophers . . . in the course of which I came to think that if anything, Rand did not condemn Comte as harshly as he deserved. The position of his I found most memorable was his objecting to Jesus's commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" . . . on the ground that it was selfish and that Jesus was endorsing selfishness, by accepting it as legitimate for people to love themselves! The broader meanings that people give to "altruism" represent a linguistic divergence and a loss of precision. |
|
| Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 8:14:30 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Anthony
I found Rand's definition of "altruism" as fairly close to my understanding. But I didn't understand her depiction of altruism as "evil" because I didn't understand that one can have a morality in the absence of belief in God. It seems kind of silly now, but for most of my life I regarded the terms "moral", "virtue", and "evil" as meaningless in the context of atheism. I was forced to go to Catholic school during my first 5 years of schooling, forced to go to Catholic church for the next few years beyond that, and had developed a strong belief that atheism implied nihilism. I was unable to fully accept Christianity in the wake of its obvious contradictions, but a la Pascal's Wager I felt I had nothing to lose by not living under the assumption that the Christian moral code was basically correct.
I guess when I grasped the idea that "altruism" could be "evil" was when I finally realized that I had to make a decision to either accept or reject the teachings of Christianity, and couldn't live my life on the middle of that fence any longer. That was about 6 months ago, and it's still scary to type the words "reject the teachings of Christianity". |
|
| Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 9:29:15 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: 2Bselfishisgood
E-mail: private
Perhaps Obama is right to deny that he is a socialist. But he cannot deny the naked truth - OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST. Everything out of his mouth says it loud and clear - to each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Yes America, our next president is a communist.
Ayn Rand was sooo prophetic and wise to name the act of living for oneself, selfishness because it flies in the face of 2000 years of altruistic ethics. Selfishness is, in the proper sense of the word, living to one's full potential without feeling guilty that you have more than your neighbor and without sacrificing your interest to theirs. Selfishness can include being benevolent to others only if it does not require that you sacrifice your interest to theirs. It's a rather simple idea that is coming under attack by those who believe we must all be our brothers' keepers. Stalin anyone? |
|
| Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 14:20:03 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
I think that one becomes most effective in advancing one's own view and refuting one's opponents' when one makes the very best effort to characterize theirs in the best of possible terms.
Denouncing Obama as a "socialist" or a "communist" and that he has a Marxian ideology founded on "from each according to ability and to each according to need" just hasn't been all that effective, and I think for good reason: it's just not well-supported. Taking Obama's statement about "making a virtue out of selfishness" and attributing communist intent behind it is a non-sequitur and overlooks how the terms and framing of debate is actually done in today's politics.
We also want to get our narratives in order here. Is Obama the ineffective pragmatist that Peikoff sees the Democrats as being? Or is he the socialist-communist ideologue who's going to ruin this country? I haven't delved indepth into Peikoff's views on the contemporary left/right division in this country, but from what I've seen I think it sounds pretty spot-on, at least in terms of its characterization of what the Right has become (a bunch of apocalyptically bad loons). At the same time, America is too capitalistic for radically socialistic ideas to get much of a political foothold. The main insidious force in politics right now is the rabid unreason being promoted by the theocratic and ideologically-blind Right. Kicking those bastards out is the first priority, and voters should make it well-known that the Democrats are next if they, too, go the other way in the same fashion. |
|
| Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 16:54:15 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"At the same time, America is too capitalistic for radically socialistic ideas to get much of a political foothold."
Not if you sell them as liberalism.
""The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, quoted here by Donald J. Boudreau in this interesting article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html
(via Myrhaf) |
|
| Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 17:27:55 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Jim May notes: "Not if you sell them as liberalism."
Or as the true meaning of Christianity (which it is).
Just as one example of both ideas being in circulation, there's a moderate-Democrat, moderate Episcopalian local CO blogger with whom I'm on reasonably friendly terms. On the topic of Obama and socialism, he recently wrote:
http://www.hill-kleerup.org/blog/2008/11/01/socialist_socialist_soc ...
----- "Progressive income tax, and social welfare programs to take care of the poorest in our society are not socialism (as a side note, they seem to me to be pretty Christian, in fact). They (and the US tax code) are, effectively, spreading the wealth, for all sorts of causes -- investments, protecting the poor, giving to charity, home ownership, tax credits and refunds galore. Some individual are good, some less so, but the principle is hardly anything so outre as to warrant all the name-calling. They are and have been mainstream US politics for the last seventy years, and beyond, and any candidate who seriously suggested dismantling the arrangement outright (rather than incrementally tinking with it to death with reducing both aspects by bits and pieces) would never stand a chance for the White House." -----
Jim May is absolutely correct -- these socialistic political objectives are accepted as mainstream because (1) they have been introduced incrementally and (2) they are consistent with some broader fundamental ideas (such as altruism and Christianity) that people already accept as right.
Hence the importance of attacking them on those fundamental grounds. |
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 2:23:10 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
When there is talk of socialism these days, the examples often pointed to are the European-style welfare states ("socialism under different arrangement" or some such). The rhetorical thrust of calling Obama a socialist is that not only does he want to see America as a Euro-style welfare state, but that he's going to make a radical turn in that direction, a sudden and swift departure from what we know now. I'm not seeing it. And if we want to get specific about different kinds of welfare states in Europe, the Scandinavian model is not driven by religious/Christian concerns as their cultural-political outlook is largely secular.
Perhaps the problem is that Obama is a moving target -- one minute he says ideas to one group that sound socialistic, the next he says things to another group about rewarding hard work and entrepreneurship and individual responsibility. Well, let's say he is a moving target; that takes out the case that we definitively have him pegged as a socialist. Being a moving target would be, in itself, a big problem of a different, non-socialist sort. Is he a moving target? Or can we pin him down pretty well as a pragmatic liberal politician? What does the weight of the evidence support?
Electorally speaking, what is Obama's incentive here? To lurch leftward and socialismward in the next 4 years, or to craft policy in a Clintonian fashion? The most "socialism" I have seen Obama talking as far as tax policy goes is a return to Clinton-era tax rates. Last I checked, that did not make us Europe.
If there's a problem here, let's be sure that we've got it right about what it is so that we know best how to tackle it. I don't see charges of "communist" as helping that process along. |
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 8:42:48 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: BrianS
Apparently Obama is at it again.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-brings-ba.html
"You know I â€" it’s been awhile now â€" we’ve made a virtue out of selfishness, there’s no virtue in that. We made a virtue of irresponsibility and we need to usher in a new spirit of service and sacrifice and responsibly."
Another golden opportunity for Objectivists. |
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 10:36:04 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Thanks for the heads-up, Brian. I just left two quick comments on the ABC website, and I'll be looking for other blogs on which to leave similar comments:
[Comment #1]
In his own way, Obama understands that there is a conflict between selfishness and sacrifice. He just misidentifies which one is good and which one is wrong.
There's nothing wrong with pursuing one's rational self-interest in economics, romance, and life. That's our essence as human beings. This sort of selfishness does *not* include screwing others, robbing, rape, etc. -- those acts are immoral because they aren't rationally selfish.
It's a long-standing mistake to lump together in a package-deal both "selfishness" and abhorrent behaviours such as those. The truly selfish man neither wants to trample on others or be trampled himself -- he merely wishes to be left free to produce and trade values with others, and seek his own happiness.
In contrast, Obama's calls for "service" and "sacrifice" are just disguised calls for submission to state, i.e., slavery -- something I find profoundly ironic coming from someone who aspires to be the first African-American president of the US.
The sort of selfishness advocated by Ayn Rand is compatible with (and the only solid foundation) for the various virtues that most Americans correctly respect and seek to embody, such as integrity, honesty, productiveness, etc.
For more on this, I highly recommend the book by Dr. Tara Smith (professor of philosophy at Univ. Texas - Austin), published by Cambridge University Press:
"Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist"
-----
[Comment #2]
Ayn Rand warned about this very Obama-like rhetoric years ago when she wrote:
"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."
Americans will never lose their freedoms to foreign invaders. But we can lose those precious freedoms to smooth-talking politicians who promise wonders, miracles, and "change" if we only give them power over our lives.
If we allow such politicians to enslave us, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. |
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 14:24:23 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"Perhaps the problem is that Obama is a moving target -- one minute he says ideas to one group that sound socialistic, the next he says things to another group about rewarding hard work and entrepreneurship and individual responsibility."
Highlight the contradictions, and then point to his "I am a blank slate" comment of last month. Use it to make clear that Obama either has no substance -- or is of a substance he can't afford to reveal right now. In light of the fact that he hasn't given any significant press interviews since the end of September, the latter is more likely, as his eptiness doesn't seem to be a liability.
For more background on this "tissue of contradictions and lies", read my HBL comment as posted by Myrhaf here: "A Sail to Catch the Wind" http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/07/sail-to-catch-wind.html |
|
| Monday, November 3, 2008 at 20:47:16 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
I posted the following comment to the second ABC online article http://tinyurl.com/6bqgtb
Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. He speaks of the injustices of slavery but demands "service", and calls for government to force people to serve others. Forced servitude is slavery.
Looking after oneself is indeed responsible and moral. It is also selfish. Looking after oneself and sacrificing oneself are opposites, and are incompatible -- yet Obama calls for both in the same breath. If it is responsible and moral to earn your own living and further your life, then it is irresponsible and immoral to sacrifice your sustenance or your self. If it is right for each individual to look after himself, as Obama indicates, then it is wrong to force anyone to serve others or provide for others.
Each individual has a right to his own life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. One's responsibility to others is not to serve them, but only to respect their same rights. Obama rejects this principle of individual rights, on which America was founded -- Obama is anti-American. If you want to understand what Ayn Rand meant by "The Virtue of Selfishness", don't trust Obama to tell you, read her book by that name, or read her novel "Atlas Shrugged", available at Amazon.com http://tinyurl.com/5zc65l |
|
| Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 9:51:22 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
Most of the comments regarding Obama ("pragmatist" "liberal") would apply quite neatly to Hillary Clinton or John Kerry (or McCain for that matter!). The question is, what kind of political animal is Obama? Will his "democratic socialist" desires crash on the rocks of our solidly capitalist foundation, OR does the recent financial constriction (and coming crisis?), coupled with the decades of cultural, moral, and political decay (due in no small part to Bush-McCain-type Republicans) offer this man, weaned at the Marxist tit, an opportunity to do more damage than most Objectivists think possible?
It will be interesting. Just as Reagan wanted to change the terms of the debate on taxes and communism (both not being good or inevitable), so does Obama want to change the terms of the debate on capitalism, statism, and wealth confiscation. He may do so under the cover of Jesus, rather than class war, but in the end it is all the same. |
|
| Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 17:49:18 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"I think that one becomes most effective in advancing one's own view and refuting one's opponents' when one makes the very best effort to characterize theirs in the best of possible terms."
There are limits to this. How would you characterize Hitler's views in "the best of possible terms" or Kant's views for that matter? I get the point being made but I think it is important to accurately identify a person's views for what they are. Some peoples views are so disgusting to portray them as anything else would be cowardice and betrayal. It would be a failure to pronounce moral judgment. So there is a danger in this statement if it is not granted in rational philosophy.
"Taking Obama's statement about "making a virtue out of selfishness" and attributing communist intent behind it is a non-sequitur..."
No it isn't. Obama has been associated with radical Marxists is whole life from his father on down. The version of Christianity he subscribes to is also associated with Marxism. Obama speaks explicitly in terms of redistribution. It is therefore entirely appropriate to attribute "Communist intent" to anything Obama says. To think otherwise is naive at best.
Of course none of this implies a vote for McCain. |
|
| Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 18:03:23 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
make that 'grounded' not 'granted' and forgive the other typos. |
|
| Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 15:36:20 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
New-Be writes:
"There are limits to this. How would you characterize Hitler's views in "the best of possible terms" or Kant's views for that matter? I get the point being made but I think it is important to accurately identify a person's views for what they are. Some peoples views are so disgusting to portray them as anything else would be cowardice and betrayal. It would be a failure to pronounce moral judgment. So there is a danger in this statement if it is not granted in rational philosophy."
There's a ton of argument to be had about Kant (full disclosure: I don't share the standard Rand/Peikoff interpretation; there are fundamental and drastic differences on some things such as metaphysics, but . . . well, it's a big long argument I won't do here), and as far as Hitler goes, the "best of possible terms" still leads to a resoundingly negative evaluation of his views. "Best of possible terms" would involve an effort to put it in the very terms he would and uncover the reasons that he would advance those views. I think it's quite rare that it's someone who "hates reason and reality"; besides that being only speaking to motivation, it's also not to get to what would lead someone down a path to advance such views. Keep in mind that Hitler had a whole ton of people in this thrall, willing to go along with mass murder. The radical Islamists are in a similar toxic ideological dump. What I find more interesting is how they got there and thereby help figure out ways to keep that from happening as much as we possibly can. The radical Islamists are truly vile creatures but I'm more interested in going beyond that up-front assessment to root out the causes, get within their mindset, etc. Very few folks just come to start hating reason and reality all of a sudden.
Understanding and identification are crucial to the process of judgment and evaluation. Facts simply have to come first before evaluation. And it's why I'm not seeing this attribution of communist ideology to Obama. I certainly don't want to read things into him that are dubious in light of all of the things he says (about Americanism, unity, individual achievement, individual and shared responsibilities, etc.). |
|
| Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 16:09:47 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Chris,
It sounds like you are advocating a psychoanalysis of these political figures. While in some cases that could be interesting and helpful, the more important task is to identify what they stand for and what they advocate; ie what are their ideas. Once we know their ideas, we can make valid judgments about them.
Now, as for calling Obama an explicit Communist, well its debatable. If we judge him by the associations he has kept his entire life, it is entirely legitimate to wonder if he is a stealth Communist or Socialist. Even if we go by Von Mises' terminology and call him an "interventionist" instead of a "socialist" or "communist", it is still entirely legitimate to state that Obama is one of the most explicit and extreme "interventionists" that we have seen in US politics (at least in terms of rhetoric). His policies if enacted will lead inexorably (as Von Mises argued) to socialism of the German model (fascism). So, in that sense, the end of Obama's road is socialism. True, the same can be said for any US politician, but this is more explicit with Obama.
As for what Obama says about Americanism, unity, and individual achievement, given his context and his easily detectable altruist/collectivist philosophy, anything he says about these things must be viewed with suspicion. To not do so would be to ignore context and engage in evasion, which I must confess I believe you are doing.
If the subject of Kant ever comes up on NoodleFood, be sure to post your views on him and how Rand and Peikoff went wrong in their analysis. That sounds like it would be an interesting conversation. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 0:57:37 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
New-Be, I must respectfully advise against hinting at or stating accusations of evasion when the evidence does not support it. I have been clear enough that epistemic responsibility does say to be on guard about Obama or most anything else, and to always be ready to integrate new data, and to draw conclusions where warranted. This is, of course, the precise opposite of evasion.
I have a hopeful optimism about Obama -- I expect that he'll bring a much greater degree of intellect, competence, credibility and accountability to the office than the utter disgrace (in the name of American values, no less) we've had these past 8 years -- but that's also a cautious, on-guard optimism. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 1:03:52 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Chris writes: "I expect that he'll bring a much greater degree of intellect, competence, credibility and accountability to the office..."
Given what we know about Obama, this statement is itself worthy of an accusation of evasion.
I've said all I want to say on this subject. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 6:12:46 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
Yeah, I guess that's all there is to say. You're not being objective, but hey, that's your failing. When you're ready to reconsider your ill-formed approach to accusation, I'll be awaiting eagerly. Best premises. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 6:57:18 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: animal
what is "intellect, credibility, and accountability" to you?
How does someone who does not value individual rights and who demeans the competence of individual minds someone who will bring intellect to the office? What will his "intellectualism" in the office mean if his policies are anti-mind and anti-man? How is someone who denies what he clearly says someone who is accountable?
Exactly how are you not being evasive in this statement, and how is New-Be not objective? |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 14:34:47 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: post&Go(at)yahoo.com
Let me add to 'animal's' list this: How can someone with these connections ever be considered to have "credibility and accountability"?:
-Jeremiah Wright
-William Ayers
-Bernardine Dohrn
-Democratic Socialists of America
-ACORN
-Rashid Khalidi
-Louis Farrakhan
-Frank Marshall Davis
-John L. McKnight
Such praise for Obama in light of this and so many other things can only be considered non-objective. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 14:43:15 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
New-Be is not being objective because he/she states that an accusation of evasion is warranted without evidence to support that. All I've said is something that he/she doesn't agree with based on his/her understanding of the facts, and figures that I'm supposed to have that same understanding else I'm probably evading. No line of argument is made to establish a link here; it's a non-sequitur, and that's not being objective.
In your case, animal, I'm going to need something more specific and concrete than the generalities you speak of. Something that manifestly demonstrates, e.g., "demeaning the competence of individual minds" or "denying what he clearly says." Keep in mind the standard context with politicians who say and spin all sorts of things but do tend to present some stable and coherent tenets through it all. Obama wants a more progressive tax structure than what we have now, for instance. Now, you can look at his reasons for that or you can just conclude he's anti-man and anti-mind. I don't see Warren Buffett feeling threatened here.
1. Intellect -- it takes a high degree of intellect to make the Harvard Law Review or to run as smart a campaign as he has.
2. Credibility and accountability -- Putting up ideas in such a way that he's more responsive to facts and rebuttals from the other side, in a much more improved way than we have with Bush/Cheney or what we were getting from McCain/Palin. He handled McCain quite well, for instance, when McCain attacked him over "Having talks without preconditions" with foreign leaders. McCain issued a straw-man that had him distancing himself even from his own adviser Henry Kissinger, and Obama clearly and competently explained what he meant by that. Or, take Obama's appearances on the O'Reilly Factor, facing tough questions from one of the very toughest members of media opposition and not backing down. I've linked it here:
http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-takes-guts.html
There's also Obama sitting down to have a rigorous and spirited discussion with Gen. Petraeus over Iraq policy, a necessary give-and-take in the political world to garner support and lead effectively. Joe Klein of Time explains further:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1853025-1,00.html
Obama is willing to press forward on the strength of arguments and not hide behind fallacies or refusals to own up to things the way Bush/Cheney refuse to.
I don't expect Obama's going to pull things from time to time, as politicians typically do, some moreso than others. He made a smart move by backing out of some pledge he apparently made to take public financing of his campaign. McCain was left pouting about that but didn't really score points with it in the political arena. But there, you do have one example of him saying something and doing something else. I recognize these kinds of maneuvers and put them in their political perspective. Maybe you have some other example of something more significant.
Compare him to other politicians like his opponents. He's already got political savvy but he stands out particularly for his intelligence and smarts and temperament and being a figure who seeks to forge alliances where he can rather than needlessly divide. A big departure from the way we've had things for 8 years. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 14:46:10 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
Oops, I wrote: "I don't expect Obama's going to pull things..."
I *do* expect he's going to pull things from from time to time. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 15:01:17 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
PostGrad, I'm aware of a lot of these associations and they need to be addressed. To say that I'm just ignoring them is not fair. The Ayers thing turns out to be so much digging for very little. The Wright thing is definitely worth looking at and I don't think Obama gets out clean from it because the guy is enough of a nut, apparently enough so that Oprah couldn't take his sermons. The ACORN thing is more digging for next to nothing; I haven't seen any real solid un-biased presentations of evidence that they've done something fraudulent but you're more than welcome to present any.
Once again I have to stress that we judge him by the standards we apply to politicians. The number of politicians who manage to get all that far without developing questionable associations seems quite small. The only one I'm all that bothered by is the Wright association and even then we have a guy (Obama) who is politically secularist so the religious associations only mean so much. But I'll be sure to be on guard as his administration progresses to see if there is any solid evidence that Wright's views are seeping into his own policies. I haven't looked into the other names, at least not yet; I get the sense that there's a whack-a-mole game going on: you knock one name down and another just pops up. (My impression that the Khalidi thing is the same old slime-game, based on what little reporting of it I bothered to pay attention to. The Ayers thing showed that the McCainites would throw whatever they could at the wall to see what sticks.) How much guilt-by-association games is Obama supposed to respond to before just giving up? This is standard political-tactic stuff.
Hey, if he starts presiding the way all these associations say he's supposedly going to preside -- in some radical, commie-socialistic, anti-American way -- my hopes and expectations will be dashed and I'll be shown to have been wrong in them. America will have made a bad choice in hindsight. But the alternative of a McCain/Palin/GOP presidency isn't acceptable, either. Given the alternative, which is more preferable? That's the question that matters. We got the better of the two alternatives in this election. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 15:16:36 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: post&Go(at)yahoo.com
I disagree with your conclusions and your methodology but I'll just comment on this:
"The number of politicians who manage to get all that far without developing questionable associations seems quite small."
"Questionable associations"? Ayers and Dohrn were part of an organization that wanted to kill 25 million (!!) people in the name of revolution. That is on record as is Obama's association with them. Wright is a black David Duke. After all, what really is the difference between "Black Liberation Theology" and "White Christian Nationalism"? Given what Obama has said about his church attendance, it is estimated that he went to 500 of Wright's sermons. Can you imagine if McCain had gone to over 500 of David Duke's sermons or speeches? Or if McCain's political career had been started and supported by a racist that had a history of bombing schools of black children (something not even close to the horrors of what the Weathermen wanted to accomplish), can you imagine what the media reaction would have been? But you give this a pass and then accuse those who disagree with you as being "non-objective." If that isn't calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 15:45:40 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: animal
What did he publish in the Harvard Law Review or during his time as a professor? His messianic campaign has impressed me as the product of cunning and megalomania (and racism) more than intellect. He also had people working for him, running the campaign.
He denies what he says when he denies that redistribution of wealth and the demonization of selfishness is not socialist. He denies reality when he claims that he believes that opportunity is created from the bottom up, but only if aided by top-down, confiscated handouts. He denied supporting a bill that denied rights to babies that survived botched abortions by flat out lying about it in a debate. He lies about cutting taxes for 95 % of the population. He is not putting forth arguments for these policies(he's demonizing producers), and he's hiding behind fallacies.
His altruist, vague rhetoric is anti man and anti mind, because that's just the nature of altruism and an economic system based on lies.
I also don't understand how someone who objects to being called "that one," encourages supporters to "get in people's faces," shout down radio stations with calls, and ban stations that offend him as being particularly even tempered. I don't understand how someone that does this has proven to be someone who creates alliances with the opposition. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 15:54:15 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: animal
^^and who flipped off both McCain and Hillary (NOT just coincidental) |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 17:48:20 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Chris Cathcart
E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com
URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com
I don't know if people are still following these comments and I'm not too inclined to spend a lot of time and brain power going over these points. Needless to say I am not "giving Obama a pass." I've looked into his association with Ayers and there's really just not much there. The Wright association is more interesting. As to what he published at the Harvard Law Review and how he ran it, here's an article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html |
|
| Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 22:22:33 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Jeanie
E-mail: kitkat88(at)yahoo.com
I think that people can be individualistic and make sacrifices and charitable all at the same time. I mean, that's what makes this country great. I think that what Obama was trying to say is that with all the deception and lies on Wall Street which were fueled by greed and blind ambition, that as a country we need to temper that mentality of greed that toppled our economy in the first place; by making sacrifices like not getting those extra 10 company jets when you already have 5; foregoing unnecessary frivolities like that... rethinking the destructive path that we were on for the past how many years.... the path that we were on where our financial oversights and executive coverups were left unchecked...eventually leading to our demise. I think he's trying to say that we need to reexamine that pattern and improve our morality and ethics. |
|
| Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 9:28:53 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: BrianS
"by making sacrifices like not getting those extra 10 company jets when you already have 5; foregoing unnecessary frivolities like that"
yeah - companies are all about waste and inefficiency. They're not worried about profit. So they spend all their money on "frivolities" - because there can be NO rational reason for their owning a fleet of jets. It simply CAN'T be more cost effective than the alternatives.
No. Businesses don't care about profit. So they need govt to "temper" their wastefulness and teach them how to spend their own money more wisely.
LOL! |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
