Wednesday, November 5, 2008

On not being more upset over Obama's victory.

Someone wrote me expressing surprise that I wasn’t more upset over Obama’s victory. I’m surprised that he was surprised. If I were upset, it would mean I was partisan; and though I get accused of partisanship regularly, I don’t think of myself as a partisan. I believe in arguments that have the weight of evidence on their side. I also consider if/then arguments as being important. Let me explain:

I examined the evidence that Obama came out of a Leftist milieu. The evidence was persuasive that he was associated with Bill Ayers to a greater extent than he confessed to. This evidence seems to have been largely ignored by the media, but setting that aside, the most important question is, if Obama retains his Leftist views, then he may be a dangerous president. Of course that is something we can’t know. Perhaps Obama has grown out of his Leftist views. Perhaps his views weren’t as strong as other Leftists in his neighborhood. I would have preferred a candidate who either had no Leftist background or else had it and denounced it.

Another matter I investigated was Obama’s associated with the Reverend Wright and his Black Liberation theology (as defined by James Cone). Obama sat under Wright for almost 20 years. He heard Black Liberation Theology a lot during that period. So once again we must conclude, if Obama believes in racist Black Liberation Theology then he may not be a trustworthy president in regard to his treatment of non-blacks. However, this also is something we can’t know. Perhaps he dozed off each Sunday Morning. Perhaps he disagreed with the pastor. Only time will tell, but I would rather we didn’t have a Black Liberation Theologist as president.

However, those arguments and others have been ignored (more probably not known) by the people who voted and they elected Obama president. So what next? My primary concern is foreign policy and since I considered the Bush doctrine back in 2002 as something that would probably be carried on by a Democratic successor in 2006, and if he pursued this foreign policy through 8 years then it would be very nearly impossible for a Democratic successor to reverse it in 2008. And I was encouraged by what I heard from Obama on that subject. He wants out of Iraq, but he won’t leave precipitously, and I was most encouraged by his desire to beef up American forces in Afghanistan – even lean on Europeans to send troops. He isn’t sounding at all alike a pacifist in regard to Afghanistan.

Also, I like the idea of the Europeans getting off our backs for awhile. They got the president they wanted; so let’s see how this plays out with them. They have looked into Obama’s heart and seen goodness there. Let’s hope they see better than Bush did when he looked into Putin’s heart.

Also, I listened to Carl Rove being interviewed by Chris Wallace last night and Rove listed all the things the Republicans did wrong. He said that next time the Republicans should have a “clear message” of how they will provide better health care, better education for children, better funds so parents can send their children to college, etc. That’s all well and good and I don’t oppose those things, but they are not inherently Republican. They are welfare-state-type entitlements. Which means, if Rove has his way, that the Republicans will move closer to the Democrats on domestic matters – and since the Democrats are moving closer to the Republicans on Foreign Affairs . . . how upset would Marcus Aurelius be?

No comments: