In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
Read it all. Love him, be panicked by him or somewhere in between, but you just have to be thankful no matter what for public rhetoric like that these days–KSH.
Yeah, no one says nothing in such a pretty manner as he does.
But what worries me most is when he does say something substantial that exposes his inexperience and his naivete in dealing with the real worlds of economics and foreign affairs.
rhetoric without logic is nothing to be thankful for.
It’s like sex without marriage.
Thankful?
Thankful for empty rhetoric, nonsense, and lies?
I think not.
I think we’ve been given the choice of bad choice, worse choice, and worst choice.
Wow — a rare time that I disagree with Kendall.
I’m not certain why I would be thankful for this rhetoric: “And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.”
Why do we need to make it great again? It’s already great.
Pretty much sums up in a nutshell where I disagree with Obama’s philosophy.
Pretty rhetoric in service of barely diluted Marxism? Seen it before. Not impressed.
As someone who’s voted Republican in every presidential election since 1988, I like him, a lot. I’ve always liked McCain, but he has a lot of work to do to convince me to vote for him over Obama.
But then again, I was always the political lefty among my orthodox friends 🙂
thanks for the generosity, kendall
Have you heard Rowan Williams speak?
Torrents of words in a mellifulous voice that carry you – where?
Afterwards people almost invariably ask: what did he say?
Why should we care about rhetoric? Rhetoric means persuasion, but persuasion to what? I won’t even mention there was heart pounding stuff in the 1930s – woops, I just did …
The isues are substance, policy, character, the power to deliver.
I have to disagree with you, Kendall. I don’t see anything here that isn’t standard leftist Democratic political rhetoric. Nothing unusual, and nothing to convince me that anything would change for the better if Obama were elected. I disagree with his policy proposals, and don’t think they are the best thing for the country.
“Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. ” Is this the same group of people that cling desperately to God and guns and are afraid of those that are differant than they are?
I want to add that I read the whole speech, not just the paragraph highlighted here.
It’s nice that he faces the challenge of leading us to finally care for the sick with such profound humility.
At least Trotsky had DONE something.
it must be maddening to be kendall (or any other blogger) and have a simple positive comment hijacked for such bile
Look at America’s sorry condition domestically and internationally now, contrasted with the situation when the George W. Bush administration began, and it is obvious that political neo-conservatism has proved itself a philosophy inappropriate for the times and due to be replaced with a populist/socialist drift back to the true center.
Look at the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church’s sorry condition domestically and internationally now, contrasted with the situation when the Archbishop Rowan Williams administration began, and it is obvious that political neo-Gnosticism has proved itself a philosophy inappropriate for the times and due to be replaced with a Evangelistic/Charismatic drift back to the true Via Media.
Henry,
Whatever else W. Bush may be, conservative he is not.
The Conservative movement has a lot to offer. Sadly, many, if not most, of the Republicans currently holding office are not taking advantage of that offering.
Jim Elliott
I have to agree with Kendall that public rhetoric has gotten pretty low-down. That includes blogs, at times. However, I wouldn’t characterize the comments here today, so far, as bile. Bile is the smelly, disgusting stuff that my dog vomits when he gets sick and his stomach is empty. Nasty, offensive stuff. These, on the other hand, are simply responses to a politician who verbally claims to be a centrist, while his voting record betrays him as a radical. To me, your comment seems a bit harsh, Mr. Carlton. I think you’ve done a fine job of proving Fr. Harmon’s point.
sorry to hear about your dog, shumanbean
bile is defined as ill temper; peevishness; bitterness of temper; ill humor; irascibility.
comments of barely diluted Marxism, rhetoric w/o logic – pulling in Trotsky & Rowan Williams
i suspect one could use these comments as textbook examples of bile
One thinks of motherhood and apple pie…
Bill Matz (# 85),
[blockquote]
Stabill, in 79 I agreed that Jesus set the bar higher and added mercy. But mercy is to allow repentance and a return to compliance with the moral standards. It is not to lower those standards, as you imply.
[/blockquote]
I did not say “added mercy”. I’m not sure what you mean by “added mercy” in this context.
The word “mercy” occurs in 210 verses of the Old Testament, KJV.
And I did [b]not[/b] imply a lowering standards.
Let me add this: The word “neighbor” in what Jesus calls the second commandment refers to everyone in the world including one’s self. So all self-injurious behavior is forbidden.
Were you pointing in this direction?
And I think that the Great Commandment calls us to be faithful stewards of the Earth to the extent that it is within our power.
Re # 20
Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.
Bob,
none of those fit. What we are discussing here is the political views of Barak Hussien Obama. And many of us see him for what he is: an inexperienced politician who has a very sketchy voting record. When he does vote or co-sponsor legislation, it is invariably ‘left-leaning’ and has socialist goals.
That’s not bile.
the text Kendall excerpted could have been something Ronald Reagan said (e.g. the Statue of Liberty rededication in 1986). however when you get beyond Obama’s rhetoric, there isn’t much there there. Were a Republican, as conservative as Obama is liberal, with also so little political experience (and NO exectuive experience), nominated to be President, the MSM would just be tearing the guy apart – and rightly so! but the MSM is in love with Obama, so much so that they dumped their old flame the Clintons in favor of him……
Left-leaning & socialist, huh ?
Obama worked with the man considered to be the most conservative in the Senate – Sen. Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican – on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act signed into law Sept. 26, 2006 by President Bush.
Left-leaning & socialist, huh ?
You may want to spend a little time reading what Douglas W. Kmiec & Francis Fukuyama have said about Senator Obama.
I’m sorry, #24, but is that his complete list of legislative accomplishments? He’s been in the Senate two years, has been running for President most of that time, and has been rated by a neutral source as the most liberal senator based on his voting record. None of his statements contradict that. His positions are what are usually referred to as “liberal,” and since these are his positions, he (and you) should be proud of them if you agree with them.
Ah yes, Francis Fukuyama, the man who told us that the history of conflcit was at an end and the world had settled for liberal democracy.
There was no bile in my comment about Rowan Williams, simply what endless numbers of people say about his talks and sermons – they carry you along while they last but leave you baffled as to what they mean (or astounded when you have grasped it). No Abraham Lincoln or Churchill, no Ratzinger either.
Oops, four years in the Senate, not two.
Bob, you will never convince these people on ideological grounds.
Jim, I like you, but if you’re going to spell his complete name, spell it correctly, like a librarian should.
Katherine, it was clearly not his complete list of accomplishments, merely an example.
Kendall, I would like to agree with you, but the comments here suggest your assertion is wrong. That you and I are thankful for his rhetorical gifts apparently does not mean that people who are “panicked by him or somewhere in between” are. We’ve stopped trusting each other in this country (and, frankly, in this Church). Liberal friends of mine think Bush and Cheney are “evil”. Conservatives think that Obama is some sort of Stalin in waiting ready to collectivize their assets and send them all to the gulag. I find it tiresome, which is one of the reasons I like Obama’s rhetoric of hope, change, and trust. Whether he can deliver on it, or whether he will be forced by necessity into liberal partisan rancor (as he has several times in this primary) remains to be seen. For what it’s worth I feel the same about McCain. He’s a bi-partisan maverick, but will he be forced by necessity into conservative partisan rancor (as he has several times in this primary). Our partisan system may end up being too much for these two good men.
But don’t listen to me, I’m a well-educated, blue-collar, blue-dog, socially conservative, pro-environment, pro-life Democrat, a walking contradiction. I’m a Catholic swing voter in all but denomination.
#28 -Obama has a terrible record on abortion (if you’re pro life).
No, I don’t think he’s a Stalin. Socialists are not all in his mold. However, I don’t think socialist policies have been proven to be all that great in opposition to a capitalist system.
I’ll take capitalism over socialism any day.
IMO, with all her faults, the US is still the greatest nation in the world, past or present.
JE
ps, sorry for the misspelling, sometimes I get in a hurry.
I’m amused whenever Obama is called a socialist [or a Marxist]. It makes me wonder what they think “socialist” is. I also wonder what evidence there is for his “Marxism,” except that he might have friends who are Marxist (it’s too bad when we can’t have friends with loony beliefs. I have a couple friends who believe in UFOs). I’m also not sure what people mean by “left-leaning” these days. Perhaps it just means the believe that government should help citizens care for each other. In that case, most Americans are “left-leaning” and they should vote.
Obama does come from the school of community organizing. Historians of that movement note that it is anti-ideological – if anything it is anarchic and takes a dim view of the state as well as corporate interests. His view is that communities should be empowered to fight for what they believe from their own self-interest. If you’re a member of a neighborhood association, a PTA, or any sort of community group, you’re the type of person he’d like government to help rather than hinder.
A more comprehensive study of Obama’s economics can be found [url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491]here[/url]. A short quote:
When I [the author] spoke to Goolsbee [Obama’s senior economic advisor] earlier this year, he said that one of the things that distinguished Obama from Clinton was his skepticism about standard Keynesian prescriptions, such as relying on tax policy to stimulate investment and saving. In a recent posting on HuffingtonPost.com, Cass Sunstein, who for ten years was a colleague of Obama’s at the University of Chicago Law School—and has said he is “an informal, occasional adviser to him”—made a similar point regarding government oversight of the financial markets: “With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets,” Sunstein wrote, “Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.”
If Obama isn’t an old-school Keynesian, what is he? One answer is that he is a behavioralist—the term economists use to describe those who subscribe to the tenets of behavioral economics, an increasingly popular discipline that seeks to marry the insights of psychology to the rigor of economics. Although its intellectual roots go back more than thirty years, to the pioneering work of two Israeli psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, behavioral economics took off only about ten years ago, and many of its leading lights, among them David Laibson and Andrei Shleifer, of Harvard; Matt Rabin, of Berkeley; and Colin Camerer, of Caltech, are still in their thirties or forties. One of the reasons this approach has proved so popular is that it appears to provide a center ground between the Friedmanites and the Keynesians, whose intellectual jousting dominated economics for most of the twentieth century.”
…
“behavioralists tend to be more hopeful about redeeming free enterprise. With a gentle nudge, they argue, even some very poorly performing markets—and the people who inhabit them—can be made to work pretty well.”
Look – perhaps those who oppose Obama are against full disclosure.
Perhaps people are against being nudged. But Nudge is beneficial for the economy and ends up helping people when used correctly.
Katherine – what policy proposals do you disagree with? There is plenty to disagree with, I’m sure. If you think everything is fine in the country, you don’t have to vote for him. About 28% of the country thinks Bush is doing a great job. And look – its one thing to read the text. It’s another thing to see to the video.
Chris, I know that, and I don’t like it. I do, however, accept his explanation that he rejected the partial-birth ban for having insufficient safeguards for the life of the mother. Often when looking at a straight voting record, one doesn’t see the reasons for those votes. That’s why I never trust any source’s “most liberal” or “most conservative” rating. Not all of his “liberal” positions have liberal motives (I know that will make most people here laugh, but I think there is enough evidence to believe it). But no, I don’t like his abortion support. Casey’s endorsement meant a great deal to me. NARAL’s had the opposite effect. It has been and still is a matter of the greatest weight for me to consider.
Obama has trouble with speechs unless the telaprompter is running. He makes gaffs, contradicts stated positions and stammers. Obama demonstrates lazyness by failing to correct the errors about Auschwitz in his speeches and books. I am not impressed by pretty speeches. I think Bush’s legacy will be much better than his current pole numbers. Terrorist acts around the world are down by 40%, death rate by terrorists are down, none of our troupe housing, embassies, or naval shipps have been attacked, neither have our sky scrapers. Anybody remember the amiable dunce?
Kendall, what is the value in your eyes of rhetoric if there are no substantive ideas behind it? To me it seems little more than a verbal light show to awe the audience and make them think they are hearing more than they really are. Salesmen are very adept at such techniques. I can see being thankful for its demonstration if I am on the salesteam. But how if I am merely a customer?
Yes we have all suffered the linguistic torture of George Bush, his father mangled his syntax as well and drove me crazy with it. I remember the rhetorical skill of Clinton. Perhaps rhetorical is the wrong word. He always could deliver a speech with feeling and empathy, a real gift, except that, lacking core convictions, every speech had the same quality and there was no build to his speeches where the speeker gets to the point that is really important. For Clonton every point was delivered like it was equally important. perhaps a reflection of his remarkable ability to make everyone feel like he was their friend, when in reality I don’t think he has any real friends. So his rhetorical skill lacked a genuineness. It was all for show, for show is all he knows.
In Obama’s case I believe that he has core ideals. they are reflected in his liberal voting record, the most liberal in the Senate. But he makes pains to see that these political beliefs are not made clear by his rhetoric. His speeches do no illuminate. They obscure, while making the inattentive listeners think that they are hearing profound substance.
I guess I can appraciate an enjoyment of the craft, but I hate deception and misdirection. It is like watching a man seduce a woman with cheap poetry. She should not be so easily taken in and he should treat her with more respect.
#34 – perhaps the reason he is the “most liberal” is because he rejects the partisan politics the executive branch has been playing. His ideals are in his rhetoric rather than the “practice” because partisan politics finds change threatening. I’m not sure where he is deceiving or misdirecting.
John Wilkins, briefly, it’s the power of those videos that worries me. It’s so easy to be swayed by presentation and not look beyond it.
He’s the most liberal because of what he votes for, John. He voted AGAINST the Infants Born Alive Protection Act which prevents abortionists from killing a child that has managed to be born and is no longer inside the mother. What does being against that mean in your book?
And exactly how are his ideals “in his rhetoric”? Can you show me any concrete principles put forth in his speeches.
And your line about “the partisan politics the executive branch has been playing” is dripping with irony. Your and Obama’s attack on them is standard partisan liberalism. Obama keeps saying that the war has “failed” even now when there are definite signs of some success. But he’s got his template through which he views the evidence, or with which he sceens out the evidence, and I guess it matches perfectly yours so that you can see no bias. It’s fun to run with the wind and pretend you’re standing still. But it’s rather childish to claim your fantasy is true.
Obama has repeatly attacked McCain for his association with Bush, (what great irony that Obama doesn’t want his twenty year association with Wright an issue). I’ll bet Obama won’t take McCain up on the trip to Iraq or the ten town hall debates. We might actually get something like Lincoln Douglas (except I really don’t believe Obama is capable of the level of debate as seen in the Clinton Obama debate). This would do a good deal to reduce partisan politics. The ball is in Obama’s court, (I’ll bet Obama doesn’t take either offer), so we’ll see.
#38 – Obama had a pretty good response to the invitation of going to Iraq. He was pretty funny. Personally, I don’t think he should go. It seems too much like a conqueror.
I think we’ll see a few debates. Compared to McCain, Obama has a stronger knowledge of economics, a better understanding of law, and some pretty good responses to McCain’s jabs. He’s not a great debater, but… remember when McCain had to answer Ron Paul?
Chris, you and I disagree on how we should regulate abortion. If abortion is murder, then women are murderers. The legal consequences of making such numbers of women felons would be … problematic, I think. If abortion is murder, perhaps the death penalty for the millions of women who have them?
But I will say I do think that Roe v Wade should be overturned. I would like to see state legislatures make those decisions. Of course, you might have some hope about how that would turn out.
I’m all for incentives to reduce abortions. The places where abortions were reduced the most were where there are fewer barriers to abortions and greater access to sex education (not just abstinence). Of course, we could also make pre-marital sex illegal. Just increase the government. And then increase taxes to pay for more government.
I bet you’d see a decrease in abortions under the Obama administration. But it wouldn’t be through activist judges or big government. It would be women making the decisions by making men use condoms and having the full access of choices available to them.
John,
We all know you could be elected as the Cheerleader in Chief for Obama, but your last statement is really out there. The same argument was made when Bill Clinton was elected with his “safe, legal and rare” arguments. the number of murders of unborn — aka abortions — did not decrease.
Jim Elliott