Fort Wayne Observed has the text of Obama’s speech in Fort Wayne today, reflecting on the legacy of Martin Luther King.
But while those sanitation workers eventually got their union contract, the struggle for economic justice remains an unfinished part of the King legacy. Because the dream is still out of reach for too many Americans. Just this morning, it was announced that more Americans are unemployed now than at any time in years. And all across this country, families are facing rising costs, stagnant wages, and the terrible burden of losing a home.
Part of the problem is that for a long time, we’ve had a politics that’s been too small for the scale of the challenges we face.
It’s the politics of Willy Horton.
It’s the politics of John McCain’s black baby in South Carolina.
It’s the politics of bin Laden morphing into Max Cleland.
It’s the politics of the purple heart band-aid.
It’s the politics of Vince Foster.
And it’s the politics of Reverend Wright’s comments and Michele Obama hating America.
It’s the politics of Gary Welsh trying to foment religious and racial division on the anniversary of Dr. King’s death…
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/04/rosenberg-no-longer-treasurer-for.html
His comment thread has attracted the usual whackos.
Gore’s earth tones and his sighs. Jake Tapper and Obama’s cigarettes. Dean’s scream.
It’s all the bullshit designed to distract us because the real problems are so big and so complex, we’d just as soon forget about them and think about something easy.
I agree that most of what passes for political discourse is smokescreen and bullshit. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that Obama’s speeches strike me as the same thing.
I listen to Obama, and I’m very attracted to his words. I love the rhetoric of unity, of getting beyond what divides us. His words are intoxicating.
His record, however, is anything but to me. It’s hard to believe that the voting record of the man could be of the man of such beautiful oratory. Is economic justice robbing Peter to pay Paul? Obama seems to think so.
In his own way, Obama strikes me as the kind of phoney George HW Bush was when he referred to “the vision thing”. Obama has the vision thing DOWN. The policy thing, on the other hand… You know, the thing that really matters…
Even if you’re right, it’d be nice to have a leader with some vision again. McCain strikes me as having no vision and no real policy expertise. . . his one claim to experience is foreign policy, and he endorses the Iraq War as a good policy move. So, from what I can see, he brings nothing.
Clinton probably brings a good wonkishness to government, which would be a refreshing change from the recent years of ineptitude. But, I don’t so much get the ‘vision thing’ from her. Perhaps she’d be a moderate-left counterpart to H.W. Bush’s moderate-right administration. We could do worse.
Just a thought on the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” notion — doesn’t that assume a zero-sum game? Putting aside the morality of it for a second, is it possible to have an economic policy that redistributes wealth in such a way that results in a net long-term gain for everybody?
Doug–
There’s a way that doesn’t do that, and it’s what we’re doing. We’re redistributing our wealth to a hole in Iraq, currently. That couple of trillion dollars isn’t coming back.
The thing that keeps pulling me to Hillary is the very thing you are talking about in this thread. The economy.
By the end of the Bill Clinton administration we had a balanced budget and we were well on our way to elimination of our burdensome debt. Now what is it? Something like 9 trillion we owe the Chinese etc etc etc?
I really was looking forward to an economy that was robust because the government wasn’t bogging it down with onerus debt. Not to mention that surreal amounts of debt severely limit the ability of government to emphasize new economic directions – like fossil fuel alternatives or mass transit or visionary projects like sending men back to the moon or on to Mars.
T- It’s redistributed to Iraq, to farmers who are paid not to produce, and a host of others too numerous to list.
Doug- Nice to have vision? I guess I’d rather have substance over style. I understand that there will be those who find what Obama stands for to be the right kind of substance, but that doesn’t seem to be what is fueling Obama’s current success.
It’s impossible for me to put the morality of “redistribution of wealth” aside. But to answer your question: no. If it worked, there wouldn’t be poverty in the USA. We’ve been “redistributing wealth” my entire lifetime. You can find people who have been on public assistance that entire time frame- living in subsidized housing, collecting food stamps, gaining full tax refunds each year, etc.
It’s no better when the recipient is a corporation. When corporations are given property tax abatements on the basis of the jobs that will be created, the services are still provided, and the cost is passed on to everybody else. Etc.
It’s just pure drain on the non-recipient citizenry. It’s worse than zero-sum.
Speaking of which, I have to write my checks to the IRS and the Indiana Department of Revenue this week. I am “wealthy” now. (Somehow, I don’t feel rich. All I did with the windfall was pay off all my credit card debt, pay off my wife’s car & student loans, and take one fabulous vacation.) Because I am now “wealthy” by virtue of a good and productive year like no other, I lost all deductions-child care credit, IRAs, Indiana 529 college fund contributions, home mortgage interest, charity, the lot. I know, cry me a river. Alas, it feels more unjust than ever this time of year.