Having moved on from the rather imbecilic attempted defense of totalitarianism, we can concentrate on whether Senator Obama has enough of a “nexus” to radical extremism to warrant a charge against him that should resonate or stick.
The answer, I believe….is maybe. I think any other answer will fail, mostly due to partisanship and those who will kneejerk a response based upon what they want the answer to be, rather than an intellectual exercise into how to prove the point on either side. Frankly, we don’t know enough about Senator Obama to come to the conclusion. All we can do, is look at what we do know.
I have read everything I can, almost everything available to come to a conclusion about Senator Obama’s belief system and worldview. Again, for anyone too eager to defend him that you believe he shouldn’t even have his worldview or belief system examined, step away from the computer, put down the keyboard and go have a double mocha, pumpkin spice latte with extra whip cream. This discussion is for folks who can actually use reason and rational thought once in a while.
Similarly, for those who “already know” that Senator Obama is “a Muslim”, a “terrorist”, a ” Hussein, agent of the enemy”…go have a Jack and Coke and we will not have to explain away your particular brand of logic to the remaining debaters. You, unfortunately with your heart hopefully in the right place of defending your countrymen and your Constitution, get carried away with the attack and you mirror the deficiencies of those who defend Ayers. You get pointed by the opposing side and they say “THAT’s THE VOICE OF THE OTHER SIDE”. It drives away the middle that needs to make the difference in this election.
So, let the remaining of us, discuss whether the “nexus” is enough to put Senator Obama’s belief system, worldview and whether an AFFIRMATION of radical extremism exists enough to put it at issue.
Here begins the exercise. How would one normally determine what, precisely, is the worldview or belief system of a person running for high elected office? Their words and their speeches? I contend that this would be the LEAST reliable element, but certainly a starting point. However, anyone suggesting that this is the ONLY element, or that it is the most important element in uncovering the true worldview or belief system…please drop out of the discussion now. You won’t add anything to it, and you are such an empty vessel you will only degrade the discussion. A politician will say what needs to be said to garner enough votes to win. He or she will avoid saying things that will lose them too many votes.
They will say one thing to one group, another thing to another group…and the speeches are usually broad stroke platitudes, sloganeering and essentially pablum for the uncritical thinker. Unless they are attacking their opponent, there isn’t much there… and after the first couple of months of the same stuff…there isn’t much to gain out of prepared speeches and teleprompter dronings.
Legislation? Yes, to an extent the votes on key issues will give SOME evidence about worldview and belief systems. But this is a two party system that is designed to horse trade favoritism. That inherent weakness in a two party system, pretty much ensures very little independent thinking. Candidates will have voted with their party an overwhelming majority of the time…or they won’t get the nod to lead that party on the ticket. The system has a built-in mechanism that punishes independent thought.
McCain wins, hands down…on bucking his own party. But he still is forced to vote along party lines an overwhelming majority of the time. So, how someone votes…along party lines, really doesn’t give us much, albeit some…evidence of worldview and attachment to a belief system. (by the way, this inherent one lever thinking imposed upon our leaders, is one of the weakest links in the chain in the two party system. the reason it is broken, the reason we are so divided, is that you can’t get anyone elected who isn’t part of the system, you can’t even get anyone nominated who is truly an independent thinker, there is a built in “either/or”…and the divide is getting wider. The left wants someone further left to lead the ticket and the right wants someone further right to lead the ticket…if we get only those choices…the choices generally…suck)
So, campaign speeches and legislation can only give us small pieces, broad overviews and tidbits of information about the worldview or belief system of a candidate. Let me say again, it’s not “nothing”…but it’s simply not nearly an accurate picture and very far from a whole picture.
What then? We have to look at life and the living of it. What does this person do in private moments. Who does he spend those private moments with and what does he say in those private moments. And yes…what do those around him, the ones he chooses to spend the overwhelming majority of his free moments with…what do they say and believe? Finally, what does he affirm by word, act and deed? From what does he recoil? What offends him? What motivates him? Upon which pathway in life does he always return?
Let’s examine Senator Obama. (for those who want to play the Nyah-nyah game of “McCain does this too, McCain does that too…step away from the keyboard now, take a time out and we can have a nice discussion about anyone else when we are finished here)
1)Childhood influences. Senator Obama had an early life that was far, far from typical or ordinary. His natural father was essentially an estranged figure for much of his life. His adopted father lived in Jakarta. His mother, a free spirit and probably a “pre-hippie” was not attached to any organized faith and viewed religion as a matter of curious study in human behavior, not as a matter of faith. His natural father went back to Kenya and became embroiled in a heated political upheaval. Barack Sr. was a strong advocate for “political equality, social justice, human dignity and freedom of conscience, freedom from want, disease and exploitation, equal opportunities and lastly, a high and growing per capita income and equitable distribution.”
“Yet one who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx refers to as the advanced stage of capitalism, but Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power, but political power as well.”
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. “…I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid.”
“There is a small minority of people and worse still, on a racial basis, who have high incomes and who can afford to save, but no country can afford to rely on one group or a small segment of society to do all the saving.”
“… What is more important is to find means to redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all…this is the government’s obligation.”
(all quotes from Problems Facing Our Socialism, by Barack Obama, Sr.)
As we can see, there are some familiar themes that are generated from the ideals imbued in the natural father, that have, at least upon face value…been inherited by the son. Or perhaps ingrained or adopted. This is not unnatural or unusual. The “Dreams” of his father were not happily realized. He was shut out politically, life delivered some horrific blows (he lost his legs in a car accident and sunk into alcohol abuse and potentially depression) and died at an early age. A son wanting to pay tribute to the Dreams of his father, most certainly could adopt a blueprint for doing so, by following in the footprints laid down in his works.
Next, Frank Marshall Davis.
