Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama in Philadelphia: A Closer Federalist Look

Much has been written by spinners and pundits about the meaning, effect and success of Barrack Obama's address in Philadelphia. I have chosen to instead go directly to the text and examine it for its own meaning. I believe that the text as delivered was heartfelt, and that it revealed much about the thought process of Mr. Obama. So let us look at some of that text together, of course from a Federalist prospective.


"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy."

Note the very first line of the speech is enclosed in quotes, yet it is if anything a dowdified quote, missing of the United States. A Federalist would also argue that there was no experiment in democracy to launch. The states convened in that Philadelphia convention launched a representative constitutional republic. It is perhaps merely gloss to pass over this distinction in a political speech, but if it is truly representative of Mr. Obama's thought we must wonder.

'Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787."

There may have been a few at the convention who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and prosecution, but for the most part the men who assembled at that convention had been born in America and many had never left its shores.

"And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States."

In general the constitution confers some limited powers to the federal government it forms enumerates some of the preexisting rights of the people and sets forth the organization of the branches of government. The constitution did not create or provide any rights. The people, in adopting it, retained all of the rights they previously had, as the Declaration of independence noted, as a gift from their Creator.
Taken together with an apparent misconception that the political system of the United States is a democracy this comment displays a stunning lack of understanding or willful misconstruction.

"Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students."
"Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities."

The segregated schools of Brown were segregated by force of state Jim Crow laws. It was governors (of the Democratic Party) standing in school house doors, in Arkansas and Alabama and Virginia who stood in the way of enforcement of national civil rights laws. It was laws passed by democrats that permitted unions to exclude black workers from work places, and government work. it was laws passed by democrats that encouraged black women to avoid marriage and seek sanctuary in government handouts. That history which continues to today that explains far more some of the apparent gap between black and white.

"In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well."

Perhaps a more central article of faith which is sufficient in itself to end the politics of envy is found in the tenth commandment to not desire your neighbor's house, or field, or ox or anything that is your neighbors.
"We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words."

I doubt that the question today or later will be whether the American people think Mr. Obama believes anything in particular, but whether he actually believes one thing or another. I am sure there are few who think Mr. Obama accepts, asserts or agrees with Reverend Wrights most offensive words, whatever they are or whoever defines them. It is all those other less offensive words, which one must believe found resonance with Mr. Obama to succor twenty years of attendance that the American people will need to consider.

"This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."

The shuttered mills that once provided a decent life are no longer producing products decent American wish to purchase. If they once were open simply to make a profit, they are not now open because they do not make a profit, and nothing, no hope or dream, will make them profitable ever again. It is men and women who risk all of their own wealth to create goods and services which they hope their fellows will purchase from them at a fair price and earn for them a profit, who create jobs which provide a decent life, who create products and services that make that decent life worthwhile and who inspire others to do it over and over again.

3 comments:

James Atticus Bowden said...

Well done. Two points of amplification.

The sovereign states determined the legal requirements for citizenship and voting rights. Not the Federal Government. Likewise, it was the responsibility of the state legislatures to end chattel slavery. As many did before 1861.

Government regulation and taxation helped push some businesses into the unprofitable - thus non-employing status.

Mosquito said...

Geat job of distracting.

You missed the main points of the speech.

Bottom line...you must love the status quo and the course this country is currently set on....

I definitely want change and the new direction that Barack Obama can deliver.

It would be awesome to finally get a President who represented the American people who supported him/her instead of the typical candidate who owes a big payback to the special elite corporate interests who crrrently control our media and our government.

Buzz...Buzz...

Cominius said...

Thanks for the buzz.
I don't think I missed the main points of the speech. Mr. Obama was laying out an argument, one that had premises and conclusions. I carefully examined the premises first as one would do in any logical argument. If the premises are false the conclusions not supported. As I noted, some of the premises are false.

In addition, Mr. Obama has in the speech has made us privy to some of his thinking. For example, Mr. Obama expresses a desire to apply a religious maxim, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, as a philosophy of government. But in reality this can be a religious maxim only. Government can never provide charity. It has nothing it does not take at gunpoint from others, and it can obtain no salvation in the exercise of its charity. Only individuals, freely, can provide charity and charitable service in obedience to a heavenly commandment. All else is coercion and not charity.

If you believe Mr. Obama is free of special interests, you might ask his position on school choice where his position is bound to the NEA, a special interest group. You might ask his position on the free trade where his position is bound to protectionist unions and corporations. There are no special interests, only the interests of citizens who collectively seek to advance them, from the Congressional Black Caucus to the SEIU to the AMA to the NRA to the Farm Labor Party. A politician who is not listening to special interests is not listening to his constituents.

The control in all of this is adherence to the limited powers delegated by the people to the national government. When we give the congress and the president unlimited power we open a bidding war to exercise that unlimited power in behalf of one group or another.

Finally I would ask you to think about what Mr. Obama's position might be on reparations. It would take real courage to state it clearly and openly.

TVF Recent Posts

Recent Conservative Posts

Planet Romney