Summer CE Week #6: “An Old Newness”
April 29, 2008
Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.
Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner’s 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.
The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.
What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.
No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.
Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.
Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.
The three leading candidates for their party’s nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.
One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.
Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.
Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.
We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
As far as I am concerned, the author of this article is ill informed. Even though I am an Obama supporter, I just think that the author needs to do a little more research. There is an entire chapter in his book that states his position on foreign policy and another that includes his domestic policy ideas. I think that the rich do need to be taxed, not just because they are rich, but because the wealth in America is unevenly distributed, and I believe that is one of our problems. If it helps us in the future, then I want these taxes to happen, because the future is when I am going to be spending most of my life (at least I hope). And as far as foreign policy goes, Obama’s VP will be able to guide Obama in some ways. Withdrawing our troops from the war will also help with the our country’s debt. Obama really represents my kind of lifestyle and/or beliefs such as abortion, so it is natural for me to defend him the way I am. I just don’t like that the author uses race to put down people who could be voting on the impulse that he is a black man. I am NOT voting for Barack Obama because he is black. I am voting for him because he is a Democrat and he represents my beliefs.
I like this author. He has a very strong opinion. The baseball analogy was a clever way to start the article. I’ll admit, once again, that I don’t follow up on candidates like I should. In fact, I know very little about every politician; although, this author sure did seem to pin point Obama pretty well. For instance, the fact that his policies are really more repeat than “change.” The closing line of the article, “Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it,” really made me think because I would probably fall under both categories. The fact that some people might vote for Obama just because of his race (or vise-versa) is scary. Sure, it would be great to have the fist black president. It would have been also great to have the first woman president, but I’m glad Hilary didn’t get in. The bottom line is I completely agree with the author when he states, “The three leading candidates for their party’s nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.” I know people sometimes people look at these aspects of a candidate over the real issue. Even more than race, sex, and age, people take in all things superficial. The year that Gore ran against Bush I remember a radio talk show host commenting how Gore was more presentable and equipped for the job because he had better hair than Bush. You got to ask yourself…
I definitely would have to agree that it is only a matter of time before we have our first black president of the United States, but I would also have to ask the same question the article asks. Are we willing to overlook how that landmark is reached? Yes, Barack Obama is just a fine a candidate as the next guy (or woman) but we need to make sure we are not voting for him just because he is black, or voting for McCain just because he is white. “Race, sex and age” are three things that we as Americans definitely shouldn’t be using as a determination of our votes. I thought it was very interesting that Obama is continually using the word ‘change’ when this article made it seem like everything he wants to do has already been tried (and has mostly failed). However, I don’t necessarily think this should be viewed as a bad thing. Just because these policies didn’t work back then, doesn’t mean they won’t work this time around. After all, our country has changed tremendously and Americans lives are so much different. But, I do think that this mere fact can make people a little skeptical of his ideas.
In response to Bryce Follett:
The wealth in America is not EVENLY DISTIBUTED?? GOOD. What do you want? Communism? Go live in Russia. What do people not get about capitalism? You work you make money. Right, so insted of having rich people, mid, and poor we can have everyone sorta-mid.-kinda-poor. I’m preatty sure that Russia already tried that, it didn’t work.
“I’m sorry that you worked for your money but I’m gonig to have to take it for this poor person who does nothing all day. Have a good day.” Is that what you want?
Like I said once before if you take money from the rich they don’t spend as much – trickle down affect – less money circulates in the economy and the econemy worsens. But hey your poor people aren’t as poor right, just one is rich.
I’m not going into greater detail I’m just going to stop here or else I might have a hemorrhage. I’m not even going to tuch the Iraq issue. Maby later.
In response to Clarin:
I agree with you completely, it is just a matter of time until we have our first black president and our first woman president and who knows, maybe they’ll be one in the same, but the race, age and gender of a candidate should not affect our vote. When it comes election time I almost wish that we hadn’t made the technological advances we have because then we would really be judging our candidates based on their policies and proposals and beliefs rather than any physical attributes. However if this were the case
JFK may not have been elected and his successes would not have been achieved, but he may also still be alive and elected later in his life.
Obama’s policies may not be perfect, but neither are McCain’s, I think that those who are anti-Obama but not pro-McCain should realize that. Our choices for President may be good with bits and pieces of each other put together to create one super-candidate, but right now none of them are fantastic and we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
I don’t know much about either candidate so when the author talks about how Obama is “arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous” if thats true or if its just a personal view fo things. But I do agree whole heartedly that if people are just going to vote for him because he’s black and they have no clue what he’s going to bring to the table then they shouldn’t be voting for him. Let me say one word: policies. Policies are what people should be voting for not demographics. I believe that one day we will have a black president and I believe that one day we will also have a woman president. Heck we might have a black woman president. I’m not racist nor sexist. I believe that when we get the appropriate candidate that has the best goals and policies for our country they should be elected. But if Obama isn’t the best option then this isn’t the right election for a black president to emerge from. It obviously wasn’t the right one for a woman to emerge from. Again I know little about the candidates but Hilary obviously wasn’t the best option. Because if she was then she would have one the Democratic nomination. Again our president, leader of our nation, shouldn’t be decided on demographics. If that was truly what elections were based off of then any random person pulled off of the street could be president. And let me tell you who knows what the country would look like if that were true. People should take more into consideration than just sex or skin color or age when they vote and if they don’t then maybe they shouldn’t be voting.
I think that is only inevitable that there will someday be a black president and even a woman president. I only hope, though, that our society does not call on these people to be president because of their sex and race, but instead because of their values. If a black person is the perfect candidate, with all the right values and policies, then he has every right to be president. Similarly, if there is a perfectly capable white person, then he should be president. I do not think that we should choose people based on such physical attributes such as sex, race, or age. We are all people despite these things. What really matters is who they truly are as a people – their leadership qualities, policies, and beliefs. A woman can be a capable leader, just as a man can be. Like Maddy said, it is almost a pity that we have made so many technological advances (I should’ve posted earlier because now it sounds like I am copying). If we listened to candidates on the radio we would judge based on policies. People need to look past superficial things and just listen to what people have to say.
I am really glad to see that reporter has made clear what Americans need to be voting on. It may have always been clear, but we need to keep this in mind especially when voting for our next President. Sadly, because of racial discrimination (color of skin) there have been three assassination attempts on Obama. Those who did try to assassinate this presidential candidate, I am only assuming, did this because of his color. I am sure one day a black president will run our country now or later. Once again, this is also a reason the media should butt out of presidential candidates’ affairs because that is not what matters.
Unfortunately, even the presidential candidates do a bit a stereotyping. If you remember from Hardball, Ronald Reagan was very old at this time and his younger opposing candidate was making aware of this fact. In response Reagan said he would not campaign his old age and would not “exploit” the opponent’s youth and inexperience. That is saying a lot right there about how much growth America is in for. I also hope that people voting in this year’s election keep all this in mind, since some of you will be voting in this year’s 2008 election.
This is what I’ve been saying the entire time. Why do you think all the media coverage has been focused on Obama and has been on Hilary? BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERENT! When the first front runners of the election were introduced, all the headlines said was that there was a black man and a woman running for office. Cool. Nobody was even able to say what their stances were at first. I’ve been dreading the election because of my fear of all of these shallow Americans, who only focus the petty details. (But with Palin finally on the ticket, we can use that weapon against the petty minded. A taste of their own medicine…)
But the other side of this ground-breaking Obama campaign that hasn’t been covered is slightly darker. Obama is young. Bold. Innovative. He’s a national first. But if we look through history, the revolutionaries have often come to bitter ends. William McKinley, advocator for diversity in society’s ethnicities: assassinated. Abraham Lincoln, abolitionist of slavery: assassinated. John F. Kennedy, Roman Catholic and Black public school rights activist: assassinated. Obama is too “cutting-edge” for America and I predict he will be assassinated soon into his presidency. And I really don’t like the idea of Biden as a president…
In response to Ryan Phillipy:
First of all, the uneven distribution of wealth in natural in capitalism, yes, but the level it is at now is the worst it has been since the Gilded Age (the last half of the 1800s). The elite 1% has approximately 40% of this nation’s wealth, while the other 99% are left with the other 60%. That needs to be changed to a more even distribution for our economy to recover. And as for taking away from the rich, they have enough money that the extra taxes won’t increase or decrease the amount they spend, which mean more money will be in circulation, not less. And the trickle down theory is a nice theory, but it doesn’t work! Every time it has been on the brick of working, something bad happens. The Gilded Age: widespread corruption (which we are still trying to rid ourselves of its remnants today); the Roaring Twenties: lack of regulation caused the Great Depression; Reaganomics: caused massive debts and hurt the lower class drastically. And most of the poor do not do nothing all day, but work hard for low wages. If anything, the rich do less than the poor and earn huge sums for it. The poor need more help, not the rich. They can help themselves.
In response to Cody:
I think you make a very, very valid point. If you look back on history a large percentage of the “political revolutionaries” have been assassinated and in my opinion Obama has a strong chance of being next. There are just a lot of people who dislike him for a lot of reasons, some of which are not even true, they are merely rumors. A good example of this is the cartoon published a while ago that depicted Barack and Michelle Obama as Muslims; this is not true, although it doesn’t matter whether or not they are, this angered many racists and many still believe it to be true which I think could put Obama in danger. One plot to assassinate Obama during his Democratic nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field Thursday night has already been foiled; this seems to point out a danger that could continue to exist. I don’t think that just because it’s a possibility it should be an election topic of discussion, perhaps if he is elected more precautions should be taken as far as personal security is concerned but I don’t think that just because it’s a possibility it should affect whether or not we elect him as our leader.
One day, i walked into the living room, turned on my t.v., and the first thing i saw was: “a black man, a woman, or an old person.” And i thought to myself: theres the media for you… shallow as always.
I agree with the article that people should look farther into the person they want to pick as our next leader.
I never noticed it before, but the article made me realize that everything that is supposed to be the new “change” HAS already been attempted. For them, it failed miserably. The question here is if our generation is ready for this “change”, or will history repeat itself? If this change fails, we could see ourselves worse off than before. We would see soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment, just the same as what happened all those years ago. If you thought we were in trouble before, we could be in for a lot more. Is it worth it to take this risk? It would definitely shut a lot of people up… or maybe not… but at what cost? Would we risk our nation’s dwindling economy on chance? I guess we will see soon enough what we will choose.
I completely agree with Cody. If Obama became president, it would almost be inevedable for him to be assisinated. I have wondered this for a long time and it always seems like a taboo. Why won’t anyone talk about it? It is a very real possiblity. It is even very real if he doesn’t become the President. People that assisinate are crazy, so you can’t really explain the the only time the would do it would be if he won. Unfortuantely, there is nothing to really do about it. You can’t truly stop an assisination from happening. Maybe he ciuld just live in a bullet proof, bomb proof plastic bubble. That seems like the only thing to stop it, as sad at that is.
That is not right. I definitely do not think that anyone at all should be voting on the candidates based on their sex, race, and age. They should be voting on the persons philosophies. How can someone vote on a person’s sex, or race? I guess I understand age a little bit because that tells you how experience the person might be. Obama is so much younger that McCain so people would come to the assumption that McCain is “wiser” and has more experience that the young Obama. But sex and race, this I do not understand. How can someone vote on that? Why does it matter whether Obama is black and McCain is white? Last time I check, and don’t hate me for this, blacks have been in the United States just as long as whites. They were treated differently, but they were still here, right? Sex I guess could matter some but not much. Sure Hilery will have different ideas and strategies then Obama and McCain, but McCain and Obama have different strategies too. I don’t think that it is right to judge or even vote on someone or against someone, since that’s what people do, based on their sex, race, and age.
This article makes me a little mad to tell you the truth. First of all, he says that all of the problems in the 60’s we encountered in the 60’s we because of “Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not…”. I have to say that that is wrong. Sure, some of the problems happened because of that, but there were many other factors. First of all, there was this little thing called the Vietnam War. Maybe he forgot about that. There were hundreds of protests against that war, many of them turning violent. Then there was the whole civil rights movement, and the rise of the Black Panthers. The riots that occurred in LA and Detroit were a result of black people feeling unrepresented. They didn’t happen because the government was “protecting criminals”. America was breaking away from its modest past, and redefining the status quo. Whenever a major change like that happens, there is bound to be friction and possibly violence. It’s a fact of life. The other thing that this author said that bothered me was that it was meeting with heads of state that led to WWII. Again, he’s not entirely right. Yes, the leaders at the time could have taken more initiative than just meeting with heads of state, but what really led to the outbreak of war was letting Hitler go unchecked for so long. We basically handed Czechoslovakia over to the Nazis. Also, the US was basically being an “isolationist” country, and didn’t want to get into a war that didn’t really involve them at all. This article is completely biased, and the author is grabbing at anything that could possibly support his opinion, while ignoring what really happened. Yes, Obama’s ideas might not be entirely new, but what politician has completely new, never before thought of ideas?
In response to Bryce Follett:
Wow. Just like Ryan said, wow. We are not a Communist society. The rich already get taxed exponentially more than the poor. It’s a fact. Get an IRS brochure or something. Capitalism is the best economic structure in today’s world because it rewards education, creativeness, and plain hard work. Should a doctor make the same amount of money as a garbage man? No! That’s how China works (well, not exactly, but you get my point). Freedom is a great thing, but it’s starting to be abused by liberals who getting are sorry for themselves and using government money to shield their own weaknesses.
In response to Bryce,
“There is an entire chapter in his book that states his position on foreign policy and another that includes his domestic policy ideas.” Exactly. He copied it straight from a history textbook from the 1930s chapter. “Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s.” Also, i think it is funny how you can tell a college professor of politics that he needs to do some more research. I am afriad you may be mistaken in saying that.. because i’m pretty sure he might know a thing or two about what hes talking about.