Friday, March 21, 2008
'The same honesty can overlap into other areas'
Hub Blog and a friend had a gentle argument yesterday about Obama's big speech. I basically reiterated what I said below, except I boiled down Obama's apparent line of reasoning to this: A.) A vote for Obama leads to B.) Better race relations and C.) Makes it easier to tackle other issues. I told my friend I accepted the logic of A.) leading to B.) but didn't necessarily think it all led to C.) -- especially if you're suspicious that C.) is just rehashed liberal approaches to solving problems. I said I couldn't accept throwing lots more money at schools and health care and 'shuttered mills' if those approaches haven't worked in the past. He pulled an end-around me and got back to the general honesty of his speech and asked, 'Don't you think the same honesty can overlap into other areas?' That kind of stopped me. Anyone capable of writing such a perceptive speech about race was at heart a pragmatist. I conceded that there was a good chance Obama might approach problems and solutions from a more thoughtful and refreshing angle -- but that I was still skeptical about C.). My friend, a big Obama backer, accepted that line of reasoning. ...
... OK, I know Obama's speech wasn't completely honest, as Charles Krauthammer typically and predictably points out, arriving at his typical and predictable partisan conclusion. But I still think Obama's speech was as honest and compelling as anything I've read or heard from a politician. To put a local spin on it, I have a strong hunch he's both read and internalized 'Common Ground.' If he hasn't read the book, then it's clear from his speech he's truly experienced both sides of the race saga. ... Here's a thoughtful and refreshing new approach to solving social problems: 'social entrepreneurship.' But he lost me when he noted that a 'consortium' of these entrepreneurs are now urging national 'scalability.' Does it always have to lead back to the federal government? ...
Hub Blog and a friend had a gentle argument yesterday about Obama's big speech. I basically reiterated what I said below, except I boiled down Obama's apparent line of reasoning to this: A.) A vote for Obama leads to B.) Better race relations and C.) Makes it easier to tackle other issues. I told my friend I accepted the logic of A.) leading to B.) but didn't necessarily think it all led to C.) -- especially if you're suspicious that C.) is just rehashed liberal approaches to solving problems. I said I couldn't accept throwing lots more money at schools and health care and 'shuttered mills' if those approaches haven't worked in the past. He pulled an end-around me and got back to the general honesty of his speech and asked, 'Don't you think the same honesty can overlap into other areas?' That kind of stopped me. Anyone capable of writing such a perceptive speech about race was at heart a pragmatist. I conceded that there was a good chance Obama might approach problems and solutions from a more thoughtful and refreshing angle -- but that I was still skeptical about C.). My friend, a big Obama backer, accepted that line of reasoning. ...
... OK, I know Obama's speech wasn't completely honest, as Charles Krauthammer typically and predictably points out, arriving at his typical and predictable partisan conclusion. But I still think Obama's speech was as honest and compelling as anything I've read or heard from a politician. To put a local spin on it, I have a strong hunch he's both read and internalized 'Common Ground.' If he hasn't read the book, then it's clear from his speech he's truly experienced both sides of the race saga. ... Here's a thoughtful and refreshing new approach to solving social problems: 'social entrepreneurship.' But he lost me when he noted that a 'consortium' of these entrepreneurs are now urging national 'scalability.' Does it always have to lead back to the federal government? ...
