Barack Obama

[Daniel M]

Well, here in lies the problem: Clearly America is not race blind. For whatever reason, segregationist ideas have subsisted throughout the centuries, most especially into today's sermons. It has always been the black-eye of this country. And it has created this division of "black anger and white resentment," as Obama eloquently put it. I believe Ayn Rand was once asked why she didn't run for office, and she laughed, mentioning that she'd never consider an action so horrible. The reason: you get elected based on majority opinion. You have to appeal to rational and irrational alike. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright offered a vision into the black community, which helped Barack's run for presidency. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright gave Barack strength when he was young to feel like actions could matter in a world surrounded by poverty. Perhaps Jeremiah Wright was a spiritual adviser because some of his ideas were good, even if the last few were hideous. Regardless, it's speculation. Who knows why? What we do know is Obama does not support such anger. He's said as much. Listening to Obama's words, not Jeremiah Wright's, is the best way to find Obama's character.

[softwareNerd]

Listening to Obama's words, not Jeremiah Wright's, is the best way to find Obama's character.

So, we should take politicians words at face value?

[Thales]

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate's religion than they do his intelligence;

Can't agree with this. People are down on Wright precisely for his ideas. Intelligence isn’t a fundamental in a case like this. In fact, the more intelligent someone with bad ideas is the more dangerous they are.

and 2) Given the perplexing decisions of our politicians throughout history, and our inability to achieve true freedom, preachers such as Mr. Wright have blamed advanced civilization as a whole for recurring injustice.

Well, preachers such as Wright are reflecting postmodernist ideology. I mean, what Wright said comes right out of the pomo play book. Lots of people are pointing fingers at religion in this case, and it's certainly part of it, but I really believe these ideas can thrive today because of modern intellectuals.

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright's words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

I couldn't disagree more. There are two options, either Obama isn't serious about ideas and so he will just latch onto a preacher like Wright because he likes the feel of being around him, or he is serious about ideas and he likes what Wright said. Neither case speaks well of Obama. He had a choice of who to subject he and his family to. Obama supported that preacher both spiritually and financially for 20 years, and supports him to this day. You simply can't erase these facts and pretend that they aren't pertinent. They are extremely pertinent and give us the deepest glimpse into Obama's belief system.

[Daniel M]

Yes, people are down on Wright for the ideas expressed in those video clips. And people are down on Barack Obama because the man was his reverend (a religious connection) saying these video clips are intimate views into Obama's soul. Obama has expressed contempt for such ideas. He's condemned them as being static, incendiary. To judge this entire relationship on only those clips, to not try understand the context, the background, the reason they were manifested, the possibility that their relationship could have been based on different ideas, is ignorant. Barack Obama did not say these things. All one can do is speculate, and judge his words. And if you're unable to determine if he's lying, knowing what we know about Objectivism, Ayn Rand, the psychology behind lying, then that's a fight you must wage with your own mind.

If you listen to Obama speak--just once--judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

[softwareNerd]

If you listen to Obama speak--just once--judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

Well, I've heard his recent much-acclaimed racism speech, and have read the transcription too. He said he rejected Wright's message, but he basically explained it by saying we're all racist..we're all guilty...let him who has no sin, cast the first stone. A load of bull.

[fletch]

Obama has expressed contempt for such ideas. He's condemned them as being static, incendiary. To judge this entire relationship on only those clips, to not try understand the context, the background, the reason they were manifested, the possibility that their relationship could have been based on different ideas, is ignorant.

Excuse me? He condemned these remarks only after having been backed into a corner. The true judge of character would have been to denounce these remarks as well as the man years ago. If he had such "contempt' for these ideas, why did he allow his children to be exposed to them? What about the other parisheners who hooted and hollered with approval at this mans racist rants? Was Obama concerned about the poisoning of their minds? Or does Obama just reserve his condemnation for racist whites like Imus and his dear old grandma? If anyone is ignorant, it is Rev. Write. Obama is either equally ignorant by associating himself with such a hate-filled man for his whole adult life and yet seeming to have no real knowledge of the depth of the mans bigotry and anti-Americanism or he is a coward. I strongly suspect the latter.

The truth is, we know virtually nothing about Barack Obama. What his principles are and where he would lead this nation if given the chance are a complete mystery. He can be described in a single word: change. He has left the definition of that word to each individual, thus seeming to find a way to be all things to all people. The only things we know for certain about Obama are those people he has chosen to surround himself with. Three names come to mind: Tony Resco, his wife who only recently found reason to be proud of America and racist, America hating Rev. Write. Not much there, I'm afraid.

[softwareNerd]

If he had such "contempt' for these ideas, why did he allow his children to be exposed to them?...

Exactly. I think he was happily moving along the path of being a black politician, when he suddenly found people urging him to run for President. Speaking of Imus, Obama was one who said he thought Imus should be fired. Shouldn't he have said: Imus is wrong, but we can no more disown Imus than we can disown my grandmother, or Rev. Wright.

He can be described in a single word: change.

And his notion of change is that we should go from what we have now, to a mixed economy where we don't take over business or anything extreme like that, but we tax rich people, and use the money to help the poor, via government schools, and all sorts of aid. It speaks to Obama's expertise as a con-man, that he has gathered such a mesmerized audience who doesn't ask: but that is what we've been trying for decades ... shouldn't you be calling it "non-change"?

I can see how someone might conclude that Obama is not the worst of the three (Clinton, McCain and him), though I do not; but, Daniel M. makes it sound like Obama is actually semi-decent!

Edited March 25, 2008 by softwareNerd

[DarkWaters]

Clearly America is not race blind. ... [Y]ou get elected based on majority opinion. You have to appeal to rational and irrational alike.

This is a classical example of the "end justifies the means" attitude. This is also the fundamental and fatal flaw in your argument.

What we do know is Obama does not support such anger.

Even if this is true, and it probably is, we also can draw a reasonable conclusion that Barack Obama is not exactly bothered by Reverend Wright's widely publicized hate speeches given his continuing association with him. Does this mean that as President, Barack Obama appoint someone like Jeremiah Wright as Secretary of State?

I really cannot understand how you can so easily dismiss this connection. Would you feel the same way if a leading Presidential candidate called David Duke his spiritual adviser, even if the hypothetical candidate insisted that he did not approve of David Duke's controversial statements? What if it was Hassan Nasrallah instead of David Duke and the candidate denounced Hezbollah? What if the spiritual adviser was Charles Manson and the candidate also denounced his crimes?

If you listen to Obama speak--just once--judge him from that. Otherwise, you are debating on gossip, and committing to opinions on ungrounded premises.

This diagnosis of yours is wrong. I have seen Barack Obama speak many, many times. It does not help. When you judge Senator Obama, you should consider your entire context of knowledge that is relevant to him. Otherwise you are context dropping.

Edited March 25, 2008 by DarkWaters

[Daniel M]

Then you say that Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be a superior candidate. With George Bush, it was his inability to assess the gravity of five plus years in Iraq building a country that never had weapons of mass destruction, never had people capable or willing to be free, where our own military is dropping bribes on the terrorists to persuade them to switch sides. John McCain will keep us there, for as many years as it takes until Iraq is a self-sustaining entity much like the United States. Hillary Clinton will pull us out, possibly, to take the Bill Clinton approach: a little meaningless diplomacy and pray that nothing horrible happens. Out of these three candidates, the question is: who will give us the most freedom over our next four years? But having related Obama's ideas to David Duke and Hassan Nasrallah, I guess it's not him...

[gags]

John McCain will keep us there, for as many years as it takes until Iraq is a self-sustaining entity much like the United States. Hillary Clinton will pull us out, possibly, to take the Bill Clinton approach: a little meaningless diplomacy and pray that nothing horrible happens.

And Obama will turn tail and haul ass out of Iraq as fast as possible. At this point, that's not a viable alternative. Of the three, McCain has the best chance of actually taking the offensive against the Islamists and fighting the war as though we intend to win it.

Out of these three candidates, the question is: who will give us the most freedom over our next four years? But having related Obama's ideas to David Duke and Hassan Nasrallah, I guess it's not him...

Do you really think that Obama, the man who promises nothing but more creeping socialism is the one who will give us the most freedom? I doubt that very much.

[DarkWaters]

Then you say that Hillary Clinton or John McCain would be a superior candidate.

My posts merely argued that Barack Obama is a horrible candidate. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are pretty horrendous as well and it might turn out that both are worth reluctantly supporting over Obama.

But having related Obama's ideas to David Duke and Hassan Nasrallah, I guess it's not him...

No, I did not. This was done to illustrate the point that a presidential candidate's sources of intellectual guidance matter.

Edited March 25, 2008 by DarkWaters

[adrock3215]

Although I think Barack Obama is an unapologetic Keynesian who is heavily weighted towards Socialism, I think calling Senator Obama a Marxist invites confusion on a serious issue. An important, but not keystone, aspect of Marx's philosophy is that he categorized people by working class, not by race. Barack Obama definitely categorizes people by race, amongst other things.

I understand your point, but I am not quite sure it invites confusion. The issue at hand is: Fundamentally, what is the difference between Marxism and Black Liberation Theology?

[DarkWaters]

Fundamentally, what is the difference between Marxism and Black Liberation Theology?

With respect to Black Liberation Theology, I am going to assume that we wish to discuss the particular variant that Reverends such as Jeremiah Wright preach. The Wikipedia article lumps both that monster and the commendable Martin Luther King Jr. under a broad category of black liberation theologians. That being said, I shall henceforth refer to Jeremiah Wright's variant as Wrightism until I think or hear a better name.

In my understanding of the essentials of each:

Marxism says that the proletariat (e.g., working class for third party viewers) has been oppressed and exploited by the bourgeois (e.g., property owning class for third party viewers) throughout all of recent history. This is regardless of the race of the members of either working class.

Wrightism says that all blacks have been oppressed and exploited by a white-dominated society throughout all of recent history. This is regardless of the economic class of members of either race.

Obviously, both are wrong and both share the same underlying collectivist premise. However, the former focuses on economic class and disregards race as important while the latter focuses on race and disregards economic class as important. Since these differences are also essential, it is incorrect to call any arbitrary Wrightist a Marxist as well as it seems silly to call any arbitrary Wrightist a Marxist. I also grant the possibility of individuals who are both Marxists and Wrightists.

Lastly, I do not think Barack Obama is a committed Wrightist either. I am just alarmed that he has associated himself with it for a long time.

Edited March 25, 2008 by DarkWaters

[adrock3215]

In my understanding of the essentials of each...

Black Liberation Theology is socialism; a socialist is a Marxist. I do concede that Obama may not be the extreme Black liberation theologian like Wright. We do not have enough light on this I suppose. However I do predict that Obama subscribes to many ideas from Black Lib. Theology. Wasn't it Wright who brought Christianity to Obama? Also, the Rev. baptized his kids and officiated his wedding. As of this point in time, calling Obama a Marxist may be a stretch, although he certainly has espoused socialism during his campaign, much more so than any other candidate. I will retract the severity of my earlier comment. I will, however, maintain that Wright is a Marxist, as is anyone else who accepts Black Liberation Theology. Once it is confirmed that Obama does accept it (as I suspect), then calling him a Marxist would be appropriate and fitting.

[DarkWaters]

a socialist is a Marxist.

I assume by this statement you mean "all Socialists are Marxists." I disagree. Socialism is concept that contains a broad spectrum of political systems, all of which encourage government action to put the needs of "society" over the individual rights. Marxism, although it entails a socialist view on politics, also entails views on human nature and the driving forces of history. Marxism, if I am not mistaken, also assumes a complete abolition of property rights. Socialists, I believe, also can have an illusory notion of property "rights". That is, an individual is entitled to his property until society decides to take it away from him.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Marxism:

Marxism is correctly but not exhaustively described as a variety of Socialism ...

Moreover, there are also Social Democrats who are Socialists but are not Marxists.

I do not see how Socialism is subsumed by Marxism. Maybe it will help resolve this discussion if you describe what concept you perceive the word "Socialism" denotes, describe what concept you perceive the word "Marxism" denotes and then argue why they are equivalent.

Edited March 25, 2008 by DarkWaters

[adrock3215]

I had a post typed out and lost it. I am too frustrated right now to repeat it. Basically, just look at the Wikipedia page:

While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of capital

a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects material conditions and relations

an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations

an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable

a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

Wright fits all of the above characterizations exactly. I see Obama is a socalist in the Marxist mold; one who subscribes to the above statements. This is really a very petty conversation. What does it matter? One could have called Vladimir Lenin a Marxist, a Socialist, a Communist, or a Leninist. No label changes the relevance of Marx's ideas to his character. Whether Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Wrightism or Obamaism, they're all Marxists at heart.

Edited March 25, 2008 by adrock3215

[DarkWaters]

Wright fits all of the above characterizations exactly. I see Obama is a socalist in the Marxist mold; one who subscribes to the above statements. This is really a very petty conversation. What does it matter?

It matters largely because I see an essential distinction. I do not think Jeremiah Wright would say that a black CEO, such as Richard Parsons, exploits his white subordinates whereas a true Marxist would. Jeremiah Wright would probably make a ludicrous argument that the white shareholders of AOL/Time Warner are exploiting the black CEO and chairman.

More generally, I am very reluctant to label anyone with socialist-elements in their economic views as a Marxist. I save it for scumbags like Michael Moore. To me, the term Marxist suggests Hegelian metaphysics and epistemology, a view that ethics are arbitrary and view on how economic dialectics shape history. Calling someone a socialist would not have such specific implications beyond the subject's approach to economics. I think the distinction between a Marxist and a socialist is as pronounced as the difference between a capitalist and an Objectivist.

Anyway, we are repeating ourselves now. I suppose we are done!

[adrock3215]

There was an interesting article on Obama and his liberalism in the Post today. Thought some would want to read it: In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism.

Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an informal Obama adviser, said the candidate is imbued with a respect for the free market and personal choice that liberals do not always share. This can be seen, he said, in Obama's decision not to mandate individual health insurance in his coverage plan, unlike Hillary Clinton; his opposition to her plan to limit mortgage interest rates to prevent bankruptcies; and his vote with Republicans for the Class Action Fairness Act, which made it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue corporations.

[gags]

But as Obama heads into the final presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, "a down-the-line liberal," as McCain strategist Charles R. Black Jr. put it, in a long line of Democratic White House hopefuls.

I thought the above paragraph from the Post article was interesting. If the McCain camp thinks they'll succeed by just branding Obama a "liberal", they are wrong. He has tapped into the sense of many Americans that something is broken and there are deep problems within our current system. McCain could capture some part of that feeling if he would capitalize on his previous stands in favor of institutional reform and his opposition to government waste.

[Miles White]

Lets not forget Obamas crusade against those evil tax havens.

citing $100 billion in revenue drained from the U.S. Treasury at the expense of honest, hardworking American families who pay their fair share, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., introduced comprehensive legislation to stop offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses.

With a $345 billion annual tax gap and a $248 billion annual deficit,” said Levin, “we cannot tolerate a $100 billion drain on our Treasury each year from offshore tax abuses. We cannot tolerate tax cheats offloading their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers. Offshore tax havens have declared economic war on honest U.S. taxpayers by helping tax cheats hide income and assets that should be taxed in the same way as other Americans. This bill provides a powerful set of new tools to clamp down on offshore tax and tax shelter abuses.

[DarkWaters]

With a $345 billion annual tax gap and a $248 billion annual deficit,” said Levin, “we cannot tolerate a $100 billion drain on our Treasury each year from offshore tax abuses. We cannot tolerate tax cheats offloading their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers. Offshore tax havens have declared economic war on honest U.S. taxpayers by helping tax cheats hide income and assets that should be taxed in the same way as other Americans. This bill provides a powerful set of new tools to clamp down on offshore tax and tax shelter abuses.

I fear the day when the emigration of bright and productive people out of the United States is viewed as "offloading their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers." This will lead to laws preventing people from leaving the country.

[gags]

Obama's recent "bitter" comments don't appear to be hurting him much in the polls tracking the race against Clinton. However, I would think that in the general election, this is going to come back to bite him.

You combine these statements with his Jeremiah Right connection and his wife's comments about never having been proud of this country until recently, and I think we're starting to get a glimpse of the real Barack Obama.

[softwareNerd]

This is a stupid article written by a guy named Taranto who sounds like a religious conservative; but, it starts with the line "What do Barack Obama and Ayn Rand have in common?" and it is in the Wall Street Journal, so I figured it might be of interest. Some folk somewhere seem to be fearful of Rand, if they choose her as part of their smear.

In a nutshell his argument is that Obama's recent comments point to a type of elitism (" know best, you poor folk are stupid") and Taranto thinks that what Rand was saying too.

Edited April 15, 2008 by softwareNerd

[gags]

Wow, talk about tortured reasoning. What do Taranto and rational thought have in common? Nothing.

[shyboy]

Here is an article about Obama's father...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9610

Long-lost article by Obama's dad surfaces Ben Smith, Jeffrey Ressner

Tue Apr 15, 5:43 AM ET

Barack Obama’s dad was such an important but absent figure in his life that he devoted his first book, “Dreams From My Father,” to the search for details about his father’s life and how the quest helped forge a son’s identity.

Now, a long-forgotten essay written 43 years ago by Obama’s father has surfaced, and its contents reveal much — not only about the senior Obama’s grasp of economic theory but also about the iconoclastic politics that, his son would later write, sent him into the spiral of career disappointment that concluded with his death in 1982 in his native Kenya.

Parts of the article, titled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” have been making the rounds on several small blogs over the past week, but Politico.com is now, for the first time, reproducing the entire piece in its original form.

The scholarly eight-page paper, credited to “Barak H. Obama,” is never mentioned in “Dreams From My Father,” nor has the candidate discussed it in any of his many public speeches. (Politico brought the article to his campaign’s attention late last week, but aides did not respond to a request for comment from Obama.)

The paper’s substance, though, offers insight into the mind and the political trajectory of a man described by his son largely through his emotional life, his family and his traditions.

Published in the esoteric East Africa Journal in 1965, the year after Kenyan President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta took power and the country declared independence from British rule, the paper takes a gently mocking tone to the Kenyatta government’s key, controversial statement of economic policy, titled “African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya.”

Obama senior’s journal article repeatedly asks what the Kenyan government means by “African Socialism,” as distinct from Soviet-style communism, and concludes that the new phrase doesn’t mean much.

Elements of Obama’s argument now seem prescient, others deeply dated, but his central aim — particularly in the context of the heady early days of African independence — was moderate and conciliatory.

“The question is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands, while not destroying what has already been achieved and at the same time assimilating these groups to build one country,” Obama senior wrote.

When he wrote the paper, he was in Nairobi and working on a never-completed Harvard doctoral dissertation, according to his brief biography in the journal.

Two years earlier, he had divorced his wife, who was raising his son in Hawaii.

But even back in Nairobi, the elder Obama felt free to mock the Kenyan government.

“Maybe it is better to have something perfunctorily done than none at all!” he concluded.

That’s the attitude, his son would later find, that took him from a career in the Kenyan governing class to “a small job at the Water Department” and then to unemployment and alcohol.

Obama senior, who returned to Kenya after his Harvard years, soon became a public critic of Kenyatta’s growing favoritism toward the Kikuyu tribe, over Obama’s Luos.

“Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker, and he was called in to see the president. According to the stories, Kenyatta said to the Old Man that because he could not keep his mouth shut, he would not work again until he had no shoes on his feet,” Obama quoted his half-sister as telling him.

Obama wrote that his father was rehabilitated after Kenyatta’s death in 1978 but was by then broken and embittered.

Obama senior’s 1965 paper, however, brims with confidence and optimism.

The article, with a loaded term in the title and a casual discussion of socialism, communism and nationalization, has raised the hackles of some anti-Obama conservatives who have been discussing it online.

Greg Ransom, a blogger who unearthed the journal at the University of California, Los Angeles, library, calls the article “the Rosebud” that provides the missing key to Obama’s memoir. Ransom wrote about the article’s contents recently in a posting with the provocative headline “Obama Hid His Father’s Socialist and Anti-Western Convictions From His Readers.”

But Kenya expert Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, said Obama senior could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.

Omwami points out that the elder Obama’s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as Sessional Paper No. 10. Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa.

The government paper rejected materialism (i.e., “conspicuous consumerism”), outlined the nation’s goals to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and disease, and also laid out important decrees regarding land use for economic development. Obama senior’s response covers these issues, frequently focusing on the distribution of real estate to farmers. Since most Kenyans could not afford farmland in line with market forces established earlier by white British farmers, the elder Obama argued that strong development planning should better define common farming space to maximize productivity and should defer to tribal traditions instead of hastening individual land ownership.

In other words, Obama senior’s paper was not a cry for acceptance of radical politics but was instead a critique of a government policy by Kenya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, which applied African socialism principles to the country’s ongoing political upheaval.

“The critics of this article are making a big mistake,” says Omwami, who at Politico’s request read the document and the associated Internet debate over the weekend. “They are assuming Obama senior is the one who came up with this concept of African socialism, but that’s totally wrong. Based on that, they’re imbuing in him the idea that he himself is a socialist, but he is not.”

Omwami says he would instead refer to the elder Obama as “a liberal person who believed in market forces but understood its limitations.” Sessional Paper No. 10 centered on the new control of Kenya’s resources, promoting a form of trickle-down economics in which financial aid would be consolidated in more populated areas with the hope that positive effects would eventually be felt by smaller villages.

Obama senior argued against this notion, and Omwami suggests history has proven him correct since most, if not all, small communities in Kenya have yet to benefit from monies that poured into larger cities since the nation’s independence four decades ago.

The elder Obama also looked ahead to what has become a shaping force across Africa — urbanization — arguing that the government’s efforts to lure citizens back to the land were futile.

“If these people come out in search of work, it is because they cannot make a living out of whatever land they have had,” he wrote.

In retrospect, it was one of several warnings in the paper that would prove true.

“If you understand the Kenyan context, you can clearly see in that paper that Obama senior was quite a sharp mind,” Omwami concluded. “He addresses economic growth and other areas of development, and his critique is that policymakers in Kenya were overemphasizing economic growth.

“We had high economic growth for years but never solved the problems of poverty, unemployment and unequal income distribution. And those problems are still there.”

Obama senior’s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans to assign the paper to his classes in the future.