Full Version: The Audacity of Rhetoric
Thomas Sowell has the following to say about Rev. Wright and what he indicates about Obama's political stance (link is below):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...03/post_25.html
Questions for Debate:
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
QUOTE
It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious [about why Obama associated with the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright]. Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe [like Wright]. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father." ... Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.
In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard....
Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community....There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites....
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come. Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard....
Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community....There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites....
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come. Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...03/post_25.html
Questions for Debate:
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
Obama is left of center.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
Condemned?? No Obama will likely choose to stay on the left. mOst people on the left choose to be there cause they don't feel the world rotates around their own perspective.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
LOL if you listen to people who stand against him... both. Obama is free to do this and that and has achieved this and that because he is Black. Obama is going to do or must do this or that, because he is Black
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
He'd like to be, but no he is not.
By the way why does Sowell compare Wright to the KKK?? Does Wright believe that Blacks are superior to whites??
Obama is left of center.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
Condemned?? No Obama will likely choose to stay on the left. mOst people on the left choose to be there cause they don't feel the world rotates around their own perspective.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
LOL if you listen to people who stand against him... both. Obama is free to do this and that and has achieved this and that because he is Black. Obama is going to do or must do this or that, because he is Black
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
He'd like to be, but no he is not.
By the way why does Sowell compare Wright to the KKK?? Does Wright believe that Blacks are superior to whites??
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 25 2008, 02:18 PM) 
Questions for Debate:
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
A number of surveys and analysts show him to have the most 'liberal' voting record in the senate.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
One need not be on the far left to be considered 'authentically black'. In fact, many will argue that 'authentic' blacks are actually right of center. It is the racist members of the left that perpetuate the myth of what makes an 'authentic' black. This is how the Dems have kept 'them' under control and in their debt. There is no worse form of racism than that perpetrated by the very people who claim to be championing the cause of the less-fortunate, while making sure to keep them in that less fortunate state.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
He is neither. He's a very liberal-thinking young man who is in way over his head at this point in his career.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
Most certainly not, but he could have been if he had put 'race' on the table proactively at the very start his campaign. Now that he's on the defensive it's too late.
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?I pretty much agree with him, Obama chose his environment and apparently chose it for a particular reason.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?In his speech he condemned and agreed with Rev. Wright's version of the black community. Senator Obama is rated the most left Senator in congress.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?Bound, he bound himself when he said he could not separate from Rev. Wright no more than he could from his family or the black community.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?No, Tiger woods is post-racial, Obama is bound to the black community by Rev. Wright's church.
Today on CSPAN the callers from both sides of the isle pointed out many problems about Obama and Clinton but mainly Obama and the harshest remarks came form Democratic callers. One caller made a point about the race that I found very interesting, he was a Democratic caller and he stated something like this: The selection of the Democratic candidates is the most undemocratic process in any government. He goes on, Iowa is a caucus and the caucus's were led by party leaders of the DNC, if the nominee wins Iowa then he is the insider candidate selected to be the next president by the party elite. The race/"chosen one" over the gender candidate of Iowa was the party choice knowing that when selected the Afro American community and press will assure his victory.
My opinion is that Obama is the most far to the left and the money of the party and the agenda of the party is to support the far left. The Senate and House are led by the far left so if a president could be elected from the far left all moderation will be removed. If one of those moderate Democrats or Republicans raise their heads then it is clipped off just like a combine harvesting wheat, a George Soros plan I would suggest.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?In his speech he condemned and agreed with Rev. Wright's version of the black community. Senator Obama is rated the most left Senator in congress.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?Bound, he bound himself when he said he could not separate from Rev. Wright no more than he could from his family or the black community.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?No, Tiger woods is post-racial, Obama is bound to the black community by Rev. Wright's church.
Today on CSPAN the callers from both sides of the isle pointed out many problems about Obama and Clinton but mainly Obama and the harshest remarks came form Democratic callers. One caller made a point about the race that I found very interesting, he was a Democratic caller and he stated something like this: The selection of the Democratic candidates is the most undemocratic process in any government. He goes on, Iowa is a caucus and the caucus's were led by party leaders of the DNC, if the nominee wins Iowa then he is the insider candidate selected to be the next president by the party elite. The race/"chosen one" over the gender candidate of Iowa was the party choice knowing that when selected the Afro American community and press will assure his victory.
My opinion is that Obama is the most far to the left and the money of the party and the agenda of the party is to support the far left. The Senate and House are led by the far left so if a president could be elected from the far left all moderation will be removed. If one of those moderate Democrats or Republicans raise their heads then it is clipped off just like a combine harvesting wheat, a George Soros plan I would suggest.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
All this talk of post-racialism, seems to me like wishful thinking. Barack is a post-something candidate; post-baby boom, maybe, post-9/11, perhaps, post-Clinton or post-civil rights, definitely.
But I would buy this talk of post-racialism if I saw the adjective applied to anyone other than black candidates. Nobody calls Bill Clinton a post-racial candidate for his ability to appeal to black voters and transcend the racial divide in the other direction; no-one even calls Bill Richardson, one of the highest-ranking and most popular Latino politicians in our history "post-racial."
Whatever noun or adjective precedes Barack's post-, he's lucky to have it behind him, on the other side of the hyphen. Part of Barack's timing, is that, on some level, the biggest stone has already been moved from his path. There are still mighty, mighty obstacles for any black candidate to confront, and Sowell is right, but narrow-minded, to point out that Barack's complex ties to Chicago's Southside constitute just such an obstacle. Yet, since racism is largely no longer confused with nature -- it has now become an issue of nurture -- and since outward, categorical racism of the most shameless sort is at least officially taboo, then Barack is considerably freer to be racial in ways that previous black candidates could not.
But still, post-racial? Nah. We will have a 'post-racial' black candidate when the day comes that american pundits no longer ask black candidates to be 'post-racial.' That's a litmus test that smacks of pre-post-racialism.
All this talk of post-racialism, seems to me like wishful thinking. Barack is a post-something candidate; post-baby boom, maybe, post-9/11, perhaps, post-Clinton or post-civil rights, definitely.
But I would buy this talk of post-racialism if I saw the adjective applied to anyone other than black candidates. Nobody calls Bill Clinton a post-racial candidate for his ability to appeal to black voters and transcend the racial divide in the other direction; no-one even calls Bill Richardson, one of the highest-ranking and most popular Latino politicians in our history "post-racial."
Whatever noun or adjective precedes Barack's post-, he's lucky to have it behind him, on the other side of the hyphen. Part of Barack's timing, is that, on some level, the biggest stone has already been moved from his path. There are still mighty, mighty obstacles for any black candidate to confront, and Sowell is right, but narrow-minded, to point out that Barack's complex ties to Chicago's Southside constitute just such an obstacle. Yet, since racism is largely no longer confused with nature -- it has now become an issue of nurture -- and since outward, categorical racism of the most shameless sort is at least officially taboo, then Barack is considerably freer to be racial in ways that previous black candidates could not.
But still, post-racial? Nah. We will have a 'post-racial' black candidate when the day comes that american pundits no longer ask black candidates to be 'post-racial.' That's a litmus test that smacks of pre-post-racialism.
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
Sowell's assessment is a poor one. He takes a line out of Obama's book, then equates it to Jeremiah Wright, as if all people Obama associates himself with, from the time he wrote that line until he dies, will be carefully chosen. That's not the case and it is a weak link. Is he a leftist? Leftist is a divisive term that forces people to choose sides, as if political there is only one issue and that issue has only two alternatives. It's used for stupid people to say, I'm this, or I'm that. There is no left, and there is no right. There is only opinion, opinions with a multitude of possibilities and scenarios. Abortion, partial-birth, rape, incest, geriatric pregnancy, teenage pregnancy, spring break pregnancy, Down's Syndrome baby, threatens the life of the mother. Yet what are our options? Pro-Choice, Left, Pro-Life Right. Simple choices for simple minded people. There's no such thing as Left. Sowell's an idiot.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
What is authentically black? Do you read what you post before you hit submit? If not, you should consider doing so. Authentically black.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
Obama is something that many of us can't understand. He is both black and white and in doing so is genuine. He's not Vanilla Ice, and he's not Armstrong Williams. He's Barack Obama.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
Post-racial! Seriously, where are you getting these terms? Are you just making these up?
Sowell's assessment is a poor one. He takes a line out of Obama's book, then equates it to Jeremiah Wright, as if all people Obama associates himself with, from the time he wrote that line until he dies, will be carefully chosen. That's not the case and it is a weak link. Is he a leftist? Leftist is a divisive term that forces people to choose sides, as if political there is only one issue and that issue has only two alternatives. It's used for stupid people to say, I'm this, or I'm that. There is no left, and there is no right. There is only opinion, opinions with a multitude of possibilities and scenarios. Abortion, partial-birth, rape, incest, geriatric pregnancy, teenage pregnancy, spring break pregnancy, Down's Syndrome baby, threatens the life of the mother. Yet what are our options? Pro-Choice, Left, Pro-Life Right. Simple choices for simple minded people. There's no such thing as Left. Sowell's an idiot.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
What is authentically black? Do you read what you post before you hit submit? If not, you should consider doing so. Authentically black.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
Obama is something that many of us can't understand. He is both black and white and in doing so is genuine. He's not Vanilla Ice, and he's not Armstrong Williams. He's Barack Obama.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
Post-racial! Seriously, where are you getting these terms? Are you just making these up?
QUOTE(holdingtheline @ Mar 25 2008, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 25 2008, 02:18 PM)
Questions for Debate:
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
A number of surveys and analysts show him to have the most 'liberal' voting record in the senate.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
One need not be on the far left to be considered 'authentically black'. In fact, many will argue that 'authentic' blacks are actually right of center. It is the racist members of the left that perpetuate the myth of what makes an 'authentic' black. This is how the Dems have kept 'them' under control and in their debt. There is no worse form of racism than that perpetrated by the very people who claim to be championing the cause of the less-fortunate, while making sure to keep them in that less fortunate state.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
He is neither. He's a very liberal-thinking young man who is in way over his head at this point in his career.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
Most certainly not, but he could have been if he had put 'race' on the table proactively at the very start his campaign. Now that he's on the defensive it's too late.
Hi holdingtheline At first glance this looks like a posting error, you've inserted your comments inside the quote tags. Next time, for clarity can you put your comments outside the quotes. Better still, since you're only quoting the debate questions, you could follow the common
convention of just bolding the questions. That said, I tend to agree with your broad thrust.1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
No, I don't think so. I don't remember the last time Obama praised the works of Karl Marx, or suggestioned state ownership of the means of production, spoke out in favour of genuine left-leaning politicians abroad such as Castro or even Chavez, or advocated swinging progressive tax rates of 90%+ on high earners, or did or said anything at all that indicated he was anywhere near the "far left" of the political spectrum.
Certainly he's somewhat to the left of the Republican party on some issues - but since when did the Republicans come to occupy the political centre?
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
He's not on the "far left" and has distanced himself from the statements of Wright. I can see some merit in Sowell's argument that, to be able to identify as "black" in the way American discourse - as practised by both black and white people - understands it, he has forged links with black community leaders who are rather more leftwing than he appears to be (i.e. identifiably left-leaning in a way that a European would understand, rather than only in a way that the American right and centre right would).
And, to some extent - exemplified by Wright - this has been a mistake that has damaged his campaign. However, this has more to do with the definitions of "left" and "authentically black" that are being used by the media and by the Democratic Party and, more widely, by American society as a whole (of all shades and opinions) where race is still a faultline. By this, I just mean that everyone in America has an idea of how they think black people think and vote that doesn't map correctly on how they actually think and vote.
A right-wing black man might well be an exception, but he will certainly think of himself as one, as will everyone else around him, because he will make the same assumptions about how "black people" as a whole think and vote that everyone else seems to make.
Most black Americans, however, share one thing with most white Americans (and most other American subdivisions, and most other groups of people from everywhere else on the planet), in that they don't much care about politics one way or the other.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
Everybody is, white or black. Particularly in America, where race is more than usually politicised by international standards - certainly when compared to the EU.
In Europe, especially continental Europe (though Britain and Ireland are rapidly catching up) the divisions are mostly based on social class and religion, with equally deep or even deeper historical roots than race in the USA; Islam, especially, is a "problem", but it is a problem because people on both sides of the veil(?) think it is, just as the older Caltholic vs Protestant "problems" were in centuries past. Similar medieval and feudal legacies are behind most of modern European class politics.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
I think he aspires to be, but the realities of American, lobby-based politics mean that if he were today, he wouldn't get enough funding from white groups because he isn't white enough, and wouldn't get enough funding from black groups because he isn't "authentically black" enough. So he is forced to cosy up to the people with the money and the campaigning muscle.
For the same reason, no matter what he might think about big business, he has to toe the line of neoliberal economics (e.g. governments are not allowed to "interfere" in markets unless it is to prop up big businesses).
QUOTE(Julian @ Mar 26 2008, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE(holdingtheline @ Mar 25 2008, 11:20 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 25 2008, 02:18 PM)
Questions for Debate:
1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
A number of surveys and analysts show him to have the most 'liberal' voting record in the senate.
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
One need not be on the far left to be considered 'authentically black'. In fact, many will argue that 'authentic' blacks are actually right of center. It is the racist members of the left that perpetuate the myth of what makes an 'authentic' black. This is how the Dems have kept 'them' under control and in their debt. There is no worse form of racism than that perpetrated by the very people who claim to be championing the cause of the less-fortunate, while making sure to keep them in that less fortunate state.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
He is neither. He's a very liberal-thinking young man who is in way over his head at this point in his career.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
Most certainly not, but he could have been if he had put 'race' on the table proactively at the very start his campaign. Now that he's on the defensive it's too late.
Hi holdingtheline At first glance this looks like a posting error, you've inserted your comments inside the quote tags. Next time, for clarity can you put your comments outside the quotes. Better still, since you're only quoting the debate questions, you could follow the common
convention of just bolding the questions. That said, I tend to agree with your broad thrust.1) Is Sowell correct about Obama's position in the political spectrum?
No, I don't think so. I don't remember the last time Obama praised the works of Karl Marx, or suggestioned state ownership of the means of production, spoke out in favour of genuine left-leaning politicians abroad such as Castro or even Chavez, or advocated swinging progressive tax rates of 90%+ on high earners, or did or said anything at all that indicated he was anywhere near the "far left" of the political spectrum.
Certainly he's somewhat to the left of the Republican party on some issues - but since when did the Republicans come to occupy the political centre?
2) Is Obama condemned to stay on the far left in an attempt to be "authentically black"?
He's not on the "far left" and has distanced himself from the statements of Wright. I can see some merit in Sowell's argument that, to be able to identify as "black" in the way American discourse - as practised by both black and white people - understands it, he has forged links with black community leaders who are rather more leftwing than he appears to be (i.e. identifiably left-leaning in a way that a European would understand, rather than only in a way that the American right and centre right would).
And, to some extent - exemplified by Wright - this has been a mistake that has damaged his campaign. However, this has more to do with the definitions of "left" and "authentically black" that are being used by the media and by the Democratic Party and, more widely, by American society as a whole (of all shades and opinions) where race is still a faultline. By this, I just mean that everyone in America has an idea of how they think black people think and vote that doesn't map correctly on how they actually think and vote. A right-wing black man might well be an exception, and he will certainly think of himself as one, as will everyone else around him.
Most black Americans, however, share one thing with most white Americans (and most other American subdivisions, and most other groups of people from everywhere else on the planet), in that they don't much care about politics one way or the other.
3) Is Obama bound, rather than liberated, by race?
Everybody is, white or black. Particularly in America, where race is more than usually politicised by international standards - certainly when compared to the EU.
In Europe, especially continental Europe (though Britain and Ireland are rapidly catching up) the divisions are mostly based on social class and religion, with equally deep or even deeper historical roots than race in the USA; Islam, especially, is a "problem", but it is a problem because people on both sides of the veil(?) think it is, just as the older Caltholic vs Protestant "problems" were in centuries past. Similar medieval and feudal legacies are behind most of modern European class politics.
4) Is Obama a post-racial candidate?
I think he aspires to be, but the realities of American, lobby-based politics mean that if he were today, he wouldn't get enough funding from white groups because he isn't white enough, and wouldn't get enough funding from black groups because he isn't "authentically black" enough. So he is forced to cosy up to the people with the money and the campaigning muscle.
For the same reason, no matter what he might think about big business, he has to toe the line of neoliberal economics (e.g. governments are not allowed to "interfere" in markets unless it is to prop up big businesses).
QUOTE
Marxist organisation, Chicago DSA also endorsed three other candidates that year-Danny K Davis (A DSA member and current US congressman), Willie Delgado and Patricia Martin.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-...sed-by-far.htmlWhere did he come from? check out this article: Subject: Obama Says He'll Consider A 2008 Bid for The Presidency why did Steve Elmendorf say this?
QUOTE
"If he runs and Mrs. Clinton runs, I don't think there's a lot of room for anyone else," said Steve Elmendorf, who was a top adviser to former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). "The two of them take up an enormous amount of political space."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6102200220.htmlObama was invented at the 2004 DNC convention read this article subject: Obama Wins Iowa & the Speech That Started It All http://garlinggauge.com/2008/01/04/obama-w...started-it-all/ and ask yourself who invited him to give the speech in 2004. If you figure that out maybe we will figure out how Steve Elmendorf concluded[b] "If he runs and Mrs. Clinton runs, I don't think there's a lot of room for anyone else," since he was an unknown senator with absolutely no presidential qualifications in comparison to all the other Democratic candidates for 08 elections. I would say the Democratic Party inside elite picked their left wing far left Nominee before the Iowa talks began.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.