My assessment of DNC day one:
I didn’t watch Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi. Frankly, I knew what they were going to say and wasn’t in the mood for the usual politics. Pelosi and Kennedy are two people for whom I have little respect. Last night was Michelle Obama’s night and I was interested to hear her speak.
I start off with something that didn’t occur to me until after the speech, but I think is the most important thing about last night. In the after-speech discussion, Juan Williams (my favorite liberal) was asked of his impression. Williams became visibly emotional. He talked about how amazing it was for him, a black journalist, to watch a black female stand and deliver an address in such a context. He was proud. Then he became more emotional when discussing the image of the Obama family. There, before the world, was the picture of a whole family. Michelle mentioned her father and the importance of his influence, her brother and the strength he provided. Then we saw Barack, a man devoted to his wife and children. In these times where the black family has been shattered, such a picture was a wonderful thing to see. That’s what moved Williams and, you know, he’s right. I think America needs more of this and I welcome the fine example set by such a handsome family, as should we all. This could be a very important legacy for an Obama presidency if he goes about it the right away. Bravo for Michelle Obama! Bravo for her beautiful family!
As for the speech, I think it was warm, fuzzy and loaded with typical liberal idealism. Granted, Mrs. Obama did a good job and she accomplished the task of reintroducing herself to America , but the content was lacking. I heard things like “the world as it should be” and “the new tide of hope”. I heard “listen to our hopes instead of listen to our fears”. I heard “stop doubting and start dreaming”. Basically, I heard the same old baby boomer, let’s-all-hold-hands-and-love-each-other-hug-a-tree-world-peace-tie-dyed-kumbaya idealist nonsense that stinks of the ‘60s and has become common from the Left. Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay with idealism. I’m okay with dreaming about utopia, but not at the expense of reality. And the reality is that I don’t have time for this mess. I have to get up and go to work in the morning. I have mouths to feed. I have bills to pay.
That’s reality, Mrs. Obama.
The reality of our world is that there are bad people out there who want to kill us. Acknowledging this fact does not amount to listening to our fears. The reality is that even though they’re easy to hate, we still need rich folks to drive business and provide jobs. I know I do, and so do most Americans. Rich folks aren’t evil, they’re just successful. They should be modeled and not demonized. The reality is that government is not an efficient, effective way to provide people with things they need. This has often been a brutal realization for some, yet it’s a lesson we have somehow yet to learn. The reality is that national health care has been ultimately detrimental for other nations. The reality is that we need to find a way to lower the cost of living and wean ourselves from foreign energy and we need to start RIGHT NOW! Listening to our dreams and the new tide of hope does absolutely nothing in that regard.
In fairness, it’s not Michelle Obama’s job to detail specifics about these things, so I don’t want to be too hard on her. But I do hope that the rest of the DNC doesn’t follow suit. The Democrats have long been the party of emotion much more so than the GOP, which is why Republicans are often viewed as insensitive and uncaring. But emotion doesn’t solve the problems we face. Emotion makes us feel good, but then we still have real problems that need effective solutions. Feeling warm and cozy doesn’t help. As a middle class voter, I can respectfully say that I don’t need a hug. I don’t need to listen to my dreams. I don’t need the new tide of hope, but thanks anyway. I need to hear someone talk about solving problems in a way that will benefit me, my family and my country, and I need specifics. “Change we can believe in” doesn’t cut it. “Yes we can” means nothing to me. Americans need more action and fewer words. While Michelle Obama’s speech was sweet and cozy, it still failed in that regard. There was plenty of emotion, but the lack of action left me dissatisfied. It will be interesting to see how the others follow.
6 comments:
Doctor John,
Day One! It's curious that two bloggers chose identical titles for an August 26th Post.
It's remarkable how close we are in perspective of opening day in Denver, and the warm feeling we both have on that elegant, complex lady...Michelle Obama, and her fine family; Also, on her hopes & dreams for a better tomorrow. reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
I wonder, though, what specifics you are hearing from McCain's camp that you aren't hearing from Obama's?
I mean, McCain IS specifically saying we should drill offshore for oil to help our energy problems, but the problem is that is no solution, not even a minor solution to the bigger problem. And Obama IS saying specifically, for instance, that this IS no solution. That the solution comes from using less and developing something to replace the rapidly depleting oil solution.
But speeches such as these convention speeches tend to be the flowery idealism sorts of speeches. I'm pretty sure McCain will say more of the same. Will you also criticize Mrs. McCain for a lack of specifics if she gives a similar speech?
I'm not sure what you're criticizing in her speech, as I go back and re-read it, your criticism seem unjustified.
You said:
I’m okay with idealism. I’m okay with dreaming about utopia, but not at the expense of reality.
I don't know that she was talking anything at all about fuzzy-headed idealism, but rather working to make things more like they should be. That is a good thing. I mean, ought we ignore poverty? Hunger? Drug abuse? Child abuse? Or, ought we plan to make changes to better address these problems?
And in a speech such as this, is it not appropriate to talk about those plans to work towards those ideals?
She said:
to end the war in Iraq responsibly; to build an economy that lifts every family, to make sure health care is available for every American; and to make sure that every child in this nation has a world-class education all the way from preschool to college.
Those are some specifics she mentioned. Changes that Obama is planning on making. Policies he plans on implementing.
Now, you may disagree with those policies, but disagreeing with them does not make his policies unrealistic.
You said:
The reality of our world is that there are bad people out there who want to kill us. Acknowledging this fact does not amount to listening to our fears. The reality is that even though they’re easy to hate, we still need rich folks to drive business and provide jobs. I know I do, and so do most Americans. Rich folks aren’t evil, they’re just successful. They should be modeled and not demonized.
1. She nowhere indicated that she didn't think there were actual terrorists out there. Obama has specific plans on how to deal with them. And one of the first ways is to remove our military from Iraq, which was a wild goose chase unrelated to terrorism and which has strengthened the support for terrorists.
The Obamas are fine with acknowledging terrorism as a reality - they have done so frequently - but that there are a relatively small number of folk out there willing to engage in terrorism is not justification for living in fear. As it has been said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Such flowery speech is not a dodge for the realities of the world, but a way of addressing those very real problems.
2. Mrs. Obama nowhere demonized rich people in her speech. I don't even see where she mentions the wealthy.
In short, you seem to be criticizing comments she did not make and criticizing her for idealism attached to specific policies. Feel free to criticize the policies where you disagree (you do get around to that when you start talking about why you don't think Obama's ideas for health have worked in other nations, but most of your criticisms don't seem apt to her speech.
Seems to me.
"Seems to me..." Dan's last sentence hints that "Obama's ideas for Health (Care) have worked in other nations".
Which 'other nations' should we look to in our search for a more perfect system, Dan? Michael Moore suggests Cuba! What, specifically is your suggestion for a model Nationalized Health-Care System?
This is far above my pay-grade; Doctor John? reb
_________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
John, You said "And the reality is that I don’t have time for this mess. I have to get up and go to work in the morning. I have mouths to feed. I have bills to pay. That’s reality, Mrs. Obama.
The reality of our world is that there are bad people out there who want to kill us. Acknowledging this fact does not amount to listening to our fears. The reality is that even though they’re easy to hate, we still need rich folks to drive business and provide jobs. I know I do, and so do most Americans. Rich folks aren’t evil, they’re just successful. They should be modeled and not demonized. The reality is that government is not an efficient, effective way to provide people with things they need".
John, you accuse Michelle of speaking in generalities, yet your statements above are chock full of generalities.
So what responsible American doesn't have to go to work to feed their charges, pay their bills? Michelle explained that Obama's family that raised him (all white except for him) and her family (all black) weren't that much different from each other and millions of Americans in that they all got up and worked hard and studied hard. Her father was as exemplary an example of a hard-working dedicated man as was any rich guy who did the same for his family.
You talk as if the rich guy is the ideal, but what would the rich guy do without people to work hard for him and make his vision a reality? No one hates and demonizes the rich unless they turn into evil greedy unconscionable robber-barons.
Fears? We need to be afraid of allowing too many of our people to get disenfranchised in pools of despair (ghettoes, barrios, reservations, backwoods, hills) with no hope, with poverty, drugs, all those things that led young men in the Middle East to turn to terrorism. The disenfranchised are the ones that have nothing but their religion and their guns, who can go beyond listening to the voice of reason, a voice that would tell them there is another way.
As for your statement that government is not an efficient, effective way of providing people with the things they need---government has met people's needs since the time of the Greeks and Romans. We need well-maintained infrastructure across our vast country. Who but government can do that? Without government we would be warring factions of city-states, nothing would be standardized and overseen for the common good, the land would be unsafe.
Even the rich realized that for transport, trade, safety, etc. there was a need for cooperative systems amongst provinces and countries.
We also became a world-leader because a system of basic education for all was instituted. An educated populace is more effective. We are the greatest kindest gentlest empire because to us life is not cheap, and we provide for the well-being of our poor and elderly, and keep our workers and soldiers safe and healthy.
The fear is that what we have is deteriorating for most people, and the hope is that things will get better for all levels of society.
Emilie
Port Orchard, WA
Emilie,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing anarchy. I'm hardly a libertarian. My point is that government is best when it has minimal involvement in the lives of its citizens. And the citizens are better off as well.
The government does have a job, and that's to protect the borders, protect our sovereignty and provide freedom for its citizens so that the citizens can provide for themselves. That's what America was founded on. Liberals are for more government and I fundamentally disagree.
If you want to make the case for infrastructure, etc, that's fine. I could argue how these things would be cheaper in the private sector, but whatever. These are small things.
But when you start talking about funding our retirement, providing health care, providing food, providing education from preschool to college, then you're talking about VERY expensive things, and these things aren't the government's job to provide, at least not in the traditional American sense. In socialist countries, yes. But not in America.
The gov't has screwed up the retirement fund. Medicare is a 54 trillion dollar albatross and the public education system hasn't produced, at least not in comparison to the amount of money we've pumped into it. Compare public schools to private schools, which operate with much lower budgets, and you'll get the picture.
That's what I mean when I say gov't is inefficient and ineffective. The money we pay for these things just doesn't give us the return that the private sector would. Money has a strange tendency of vanishing when it gets to Washington.
More entitlements mean more dependence on the government, and hurricane Katrina was a perfect metaphor for what happens when we depend on the government rather than ourselves....we end up wading in chest deep sewage and sleeping on overpasses. Neither party has succeeded in this regard.
Government has a role, but that role is minimal.
Jefferson once said "Every time Congress meets, we lose a little more liberty."
That's the point I was making.
Post a Comment