I'd really like to know which genius on the Obama campaign thought it would be a good idea to have their candidate conduct a major campaign rally in Europe with three months to go till the election and their candidate, despite an incredibly favorable climate and a fumbling opponent, still clinging to a 2-4 point lead in the polls?
Yeah, the kind of voters Obama needs to cross over to vote for him -- are they really going to be impressed with the fact that Europe loves Obama? Or will this make Obama seem more like an out-of-touch elitist, a Europhile metrosexual (hey, Your Working Boy knows from Europhile metrosexuals!)? But look, Ohio, at how much they love Obama in Germany? I mean, when JFK and Reagan went to Berlin, it was at the front lines of the Cold War. That was the context. And, um, both men were President of the United States at the time, not a candidate for the office.
This hubris really, really ripe for mockery. Of course, if Obama gives a world-changing speech today, I'll revise my remarks.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
As I recall, David Hasselhoff is/was quite the celebrity over there as well. That doesn't say much for Barry...
As usual, Francis Beckwith doesn't have much of an argument. I'll go through his points briefly, because I have better things to do than spend much time on this.
1. Obama isn't trying to forbid religious people from using religious arguments in public policy debates. He's just pointing out the obvious, namely (i) that if you want to convince people who aren't of your religious persuasion to agree with you on an issue, you might want to use secular arguments that prove your point (just saying "because Allah said so" isn't much of an argument to the infidels) and (ii) in a society whose government is at least nominally secular (or at the very least, religious-pluralist) in its relationship between religious and political institutions, overtly religious appeals lack a certain degree of legitimacy. No totalitarianism there, just pointing out some inconvenient truths to those who like to wear their religion on their political sleeves.
2. If marriage is going to be a legally recognized bundle of rights, then by definition the government is going to define the terms of what marriage is. Such is the nature of rulemaking in public life. While marriage may have predated the state as an institution, that's not really relevant here. Unless you are going to argue that the banning of polygamy or the recognition of interracial marriage are two paths to totalitarianism (absurd arguments both), the argument that recognition of gay marriage is a path to that endpoint fails.
3. While the issue of health care is one of great importance, in the end it comes down to mundane issues of payment and regulation. While a universal health care system (which Obama isn't supporting, actually) would obviously involve more government involvement in that part of the economy than there is now (though there's no shortage of government involvement in health care right now), unless you want to argue that every other Western nation is basically a quasi-totalitarian state because it they have more state involvement in the provision of health care than the US, that argument fails also. Social democracy does not equal communism, and it's arguable whether Obama is really pushing the former very hard.
4. As far as "politics as the means of the end of hope", it's a pretty standard part of political rhetoric to argue that support of a particular party's or politician's program will make life better for everyone, or at least for the people who support that program. That's not totalitarianism, that's just politics. Sorry if that makes you break out in a cold sweat.
Basically, Francis's definition of totalitarianism is "stuff I don't like". Thankfully, thinking people have come up with more useful definitions of the term. And the "ordinary working people" posting is just a collection of lame GOP talking points, so I'm not going to waste time with that.
Reaganite in NYC says: Knock it off with the snice comments about Professor Beckwith. My only acquaintance with the man and his work is from watching an hour-long TV interview done with him about a year ago. I was impressed by his intellectual curiosity and honesty.
Funny, I thought the Gong Show was canceled years ago.
Dear Mr. Beckwith:
Re: Health Insurance Coverage
Let me preface this by saying that every man, woman and child should have access to adequate health care here in the US of A, regardless of financial status, class, race, whatever!
I've mentioned this before on Rod's blog, but perhaps you weren't paying attention, so here goes again:
The Swiss Model:
I have close and dear friends in Switzerland, whom I see several times a year here in the US of A. I've quizzed them on the health care situation in Switzerland.
Here's the story: Everyone in Switzerland must have health insurance! Mandatory! It's bought mostly through private insurance companies and costs approximatly what it does here, say, for a family of three, about $800-$900 per month.
There is no Medicare when you become 65, you just continue with your private insurance.
If you have problems paying, i.e. if you are poor or low-income, there are is government assistance with the premium payments. (Not that the looney right would approve of that, would they, Francis, hey, let them eat cake)!
And, No, they don't have socialized medicine in Switzerland! Doctors don't work for the state!
What's not to like?
newenglander: "Everyone in Switzerland must have health insurance! Mandatory!"
Or else, what? Sounds totalitarian to me. Looks like the ghost of Zwingli still haunts Zurich and all of Switzerland.
Upon reading many of the blogs posted here, I must clarify something.
Most Americans agree with the lofty words and visions for world peace that Obama so eloquently pontificates in his speeches ... It's Obama we don't trust. those of you who hypnotically fawn over Obama take everything he says as gospel. But, you don't even know the man. You assume that because his words are worthy, he is trustworthy. People they are just words! Obama, the man who is speaking those words has a horrible track record. He did nothing as a senator. He spent the last 20 years accepting an anti-American racist as his mentor. His associations have been with extremely unsavory people. However, you Obamabots keep trying to characterize the rest of us as disagreeing with what Obama says ... when it's Obama himself we don't trust ... nor should you!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.