Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Questions for Obama supporters
Not arguments. Not attacks. Just questions.
1) Has Obama ever actually defined "change"? What is it, exactly, that he intends to change? How? Into what?
2) Why is change automatically a good thing? How is it that Obama has convinced the American public that "change" is an intrinsically positive word?
3) Isn't saying "this election result shows progress against bias in our nation" (or somesuch) incongruous? Doesn't this statement itself make a racial judgement and imply that race is important in politics?
4) How are we going to regain the world's respect by withdrawing troops from Iraq and leaving an unstable ally to its fate?
Just some questions.
1) Has Obama ever actually defined "change"? What is it, exactly, that he intends to change? How? Into what?
2) Why is change automatically a good thing? How is it that Obama has convinced the American public that "change" is an intrinsically positive word?
3) Isn't saying "this election result shows progress against bias in our nation" (or somesuch) incongruous? Doesn't this statement itself make a racial judgement and imply that race is important in politics?
4) How are we going to regain the world's respect by withdrawing troops from Iraq and leaving an unstable ally to its fate?
Just some questions.
Comments:
<< Home
1) Yes, and if you were paying attention during any of the debates or his 30 minute ad, he laid out specific details of how he would begin to go about changing how America both operates, and is viewed by the world.
2) Change isn't inherently good, nor is it inherently bad. However, it has been proven over 8 years that the status quo of this nation will run it into the ground. Americans as a whole have spoken, delivering the message that such a fate is unacceptable.
3) It makes the concession that until recent decades, race itself was a disqualifier for minorities who dreamed of making a career in politics. The idea that race is suddenly a non-factor is wrong. However, today we learned that being a minority is not synonymous with being disqualified from consideration. So yes, it shows considerable progress.
4) Do you not remember that the world did not wish us to invade Iraq in the first place? Iraq itself does not want us there. We have no place in that country, and much of the violence either: (a) is religiously motivated and will not cease, ever or (b) is aimed at American forces and the occupation. We are, and have been, a driving force of such instability from the get go.
2) Change isn't inherently good, nor is it inherently bad. However, it has been proven over 8 years that the status quo of this nation will run it into the ground. Americans as a whole have spoken, delivering the message that such a fate is unacceptable.
3) It makes the concession that until recent decades, race itself was a disqualifier for minorities who dreamed of making a career in politics. The idea that race is suddenly a non-factor is wrong. However, today we learned that being a minority is not synonymous with being disqualified from consideration. So yes, it shows considerable progress.
4) Do you not remember that the world did not wish us to invade Iraq in the first place? Iraq itself does not want us there. We have no place in that country, and much of the violence either: (a) is religiously motivated and will not cease, ever or (b) is aimed at American forces and the occupation. We are, and have been, a driving force of such instability from the get go.
# posted by 
: 5/11/08 10:13
: 5/11/08 10:13
Change = paying for your neighbor's lack of productivity. And only waging popular wars. I disagree with your implied position on Iraq in question #4, but I don't think that Obama will do anything about Iraq or the policy of foreign intervention that we've employed for years.
Matt:
Even if he has outlined the changes he intends to make, Obama has still created an enormous and vapid rhetoric around the word. It started before his time, of course - with liberals adopting the word "progressive" - but Obama has taken it further than I ever thought possible. He has shown himself a propaganda master by his use of this single word. Obama campaign materials have the word "CHANGE" emblazoned on them the way you'd expect an actual position on an issue to be displayed. The media's favorite lines to quote are things like "change has come to America". His radio ads asked us all to vote for "change" but didn't bother to lay out a single specific issue he intended to tackle. And he has so changed the politico-linguistic landscape of this country that we can now see other politicians using the word "change" - without defining it - in their own ads. It scares me that we have a president who's shown himself so successful at altering perceptions without real arguments.
As for Iraq, perhaps "the world" didn't want us to invade - well, "the world" minus the thirty-odd countries who joined in the war on our side, anyway. And of course, one must remember that the impression we get here of, say, public opinion in France is filtered first through the liberal French media, then through the liberal American media, before it hits the American public. But one way or another, we now have to prove to the world that we understand the consequences of our actions as a nation. That now that we have taken it upon ourselves to liberate Iraq, we are committed to the cause. What would the world say about us if we pulled all our troops out of Iraq in six months and the democratic government was immediately toppled and replaced by another terrorist dictatorship?
Even if he has outlined the changes he intends to make, Obama has still created an enormous and vapid rhetoric around the word. It started before his time, of course - with liberals adopting the word "progressive" - but Obama has taken it further than I ever thought possible. He has shown himself a propaganda master by his use of this single word. Obama campaign materials have the word "CHANGE" emblazoned on them the way you'd expect an actual position on an issue to be displayed. The media's favorite lines to quote are things like "change has come to America". His radio ads asked us all to vote for "change" but didn't bother to lay out a single specific issue he intended to tackle. And he has so changed the politico-linguistic landscape of this country that we can now see other politicians using the word "change" - without defining it - in their own ads. It scares me that we have a president who's shown himself so successful at altering perceptions without real arguments.
As for Iraq, perhaps "the world" didn't want us to invade - well, "the world" minus the thirty-odd countries who joined in the war on our side, anyway. And of course, one must remember that the impression we get here of, say, public opinion in France is filtered first through the liberal French media, then through the liberal American media, before it hits the American public. But one way or another, we now have to prove to the world that we understand the consequences of our actions as a nation. That now that we have taken it upon ourselves to liberate Iraq, we are committed to the cause. What would the world say about us if we pulled all our troops out of Iraq in six months and the democratic government was immediately toppled and replaced by another terrorist dictatorship?
Thanks for being the only other person I've seen so far who pointed out what you point out in question three. If race was not an issue it wouldn't matter that we elected a black guy.
Post a Comment
<< Home
subscribe
