A letter to Obama about race-baiting

I just sent the following letter to the Obama campaign through their contact page:

Dear Senator Obama,

Like many Americans, I have been inspired by your message of hope and change, and by your belief that politicians should be able to "disagree without being disagreeable." Your victory speech after the Iowa caucuses gave me goose bumps -- and I am usually a jaded political junkie, not prone to such emotional reactions. But your campaign is something special, or so it has seemed to me. Thus, in the past few weeks, I've changed from a tentative Hillary Clinton supporter to a tentative Barack Obama supporter.

I am deeply concerned, however, by recent events surrounding your campaign. Media reports indicate that a number of your supporters and surrogates have suggested that recent remarks by Bill and Hillary Clinton were racially insensitive. Yet the remarks in question, while perhaps substantively wrong, had nothing whatsoever to do with race. Criticism of the Clintons' statements should be limited to the actual substance of what they said, without resort to such divisive rhetoric. I urge you to publicly disavow the cynical tactic of using race as a wedge issue, and to dissociate yourself from anyone who persists in using such tactics.

Bill Clinton's description of your Iraq narrative as a "fairy tale" may be factually incorrect and wrong-headed, and if so, you should rebut it on its merits. But it is certainly not racist; to claim otherwise is ludicrous and offensive. Likewise, Hillary Clinton's comments about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have inappropriately downplayed the importance of ideals and rhetoric, and if you believe that, you should say so. But again, there is no reasonable way to interpret her comments as being racist.

Although I am inclined to support you over Hillary Clinton, I believe the Clintons' record on racial issues speaks for itself. They are by no means racists. Now, of course, their record should not insulate them from criticism if they were to say something genuinely insensitive. But that is not the case here. As I said, their remarks may be wrong-headed and worthy of criticism on their merits, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to imply that the remarks are racist, and it is deplorable and indefensible to do so.

When I read Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, a prominent supporter of yours, arguing that Bill Clinton should refrain from criticizing your record (specifically, the "fairy tale" accusation on Iraq) because he and Hillary Clinton "owe the African-American community" for "saving his presidency," I am frankly disgusted. The African-American community is not a monolith, and no one should argue that substantive criticism of an individual African-American leader is somehow off-limits because of past support from other African-Americans. Assuming Mr. Jones was not misquoted, I urge you to disavow his comments and, if he will not publicly renounce them, disassociate yourself from him. (If he was misquoted, I hope he can publicly clarify the record about what he actually said.)

Similarly, I am deeply concerned when I read that Rep. James Clyburn is reportedly thinking about endorsing you in part because he believes it was racially offensive for Bill Clinton to state that your message of unity and optimism is a "fairy tale." First of all, that is not what Bill Clinton said; it was perfectly clear that his remarks were focused entirely on your Iraq position. Secondly, even if the former president had been calling your hopeful message a "fairy tale," that would be, again, wrong-headed but not racist. If Rep. Clyburn chooses to endorse you, I have no doubt that you'll accept his endorsement, and I don't blame you for that. But I hope you will make clear that you do not believe that the Clintons have said anything racially insensitive, as they have not.

A key reason I have been inspired by your campaign is because of your promise to change the tone of Washington's discourse, to move away from the bitter politics of the past toward a more hopeful and united future. Yet this sort of cynical, divisive race-baiting is a prime example of the very sort of poisonous tactics that have made our politics so bitter in the first place.

It is absolutely imperative that you avoid being associated with these race-baiting tactics. If you are to convince voters like me that you really intend to follow through with your promises of a new, more hopeful politics that unites rather than embitters, you must take a clear stand on this issue. Statements and actions that are truly racist or insensitive should of course be harshly criticized, but inventing racism where none exists for political or tactical advantage is deplorable and has no place in the sort of hopeful America that I hope to see you lead.

Sincerely,

Brendan Loy

P.S. By the way, I am a registered voter in Tennessee, which holds its primary on February 5. I will be closely following this issue, among others, as I finalize my decision of whom to vote for. I hope that, in the end, I will be able to cast my ballot for you.

Obviously, Barack Obama himself is not going to read my letter. But hopefully this isn't the first time someone has raised this issue, and hopefully it won't be the last (hint, hint) -- and if that's the case, then maybe it'll make an impression on whatever campaign staffer does read these things, such that the message percolates up. Probably wishful thinking, but hey, it can't hurt to try.

UPDATE: I only just now read this from today's New York Times article about the issue:

“Voters have to decide for themselves what they think of this,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declining to discuss the matter further.

That's not acceptable, obviously. Obama needs to distance himself from this crap, and fast, or he will risk losing my support (and I bet I'm not the only one). The prospect of having a president who will allow his surrogates to cry "racism" whenever anyone criticizes him -- about anything, no matter how unrelated to race -- is not something I want to deal with for four or eight years.

UPDATE 2: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Well, that should help with the "percolation" process. ;)

Seriously, folks, if you agree with me about this issue, tell Senator Obama so, especially if you are a potential supporter. He needs to understand that he will lose support if he doesn't nip this thing in the bud.

UPDATE 3: And now, welcome, Democratic Underground readers! My whole letter is posted verbatim there, so the link isn't generating too much traffic for me, but they're having a vigorous discussion of it over on DU, which is great. Several commenters agree with me, while others are accusing me of being a "concern troll." Sorry to disappoint, but I actually am a (tentative) Obama supporter, as my archives make clear; I'm not just pretending to support him to make a point. It's telling that folks would assume that, though. How dare I question the party line, eh?

Anyway, the DU link might help spread this meme even more usefully than the InstaPundit link will, since most of the Instalanched visitors aren't likely going to be supporting or considering Obama anyway, and are more likely to dismiss this whole thing as a result of me deluding myself that Obama was ever a good guy in the first place. Whereas the DU folks might actually see fit to write to Obama if they agree with me. Which is great. Please do. And that goes for the Insty crowd, too. Ideological differences should have no bearing on our common opposition to both racism and race-baiting (which is itself a form of racism).

UPDATE 4: I just want to clarify one thing for new and infrequent readers. I am leaning toward Obama for the Democratic nomination, not necessarily for the presidency. The latter is a separate question, and one that I can't even begin to answer until I know who the GOP nominee is. So I'm just talking about the battle for the Democratic nomination at this point. And among the Dems, Edwards is totally out of the question for me, so Clinton and Obama are the only two viable options.

I used to favor Clinton because I felt she'd be a steadier hand on foreign policy, but after a while, I began to sour on her due to the endless divisiveness and triangulation of the Clintons (and my lack of desire to replay the pitched political battles of the '90s), coupled with a sense that her "experience" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and -- not insignificantly -- my distaste for presidential dynasties. Meanwhile, I came around to the belief that I might be willing to take a chance on Obama with regard to foreign policy (depending on who he picks as his veep and other advisers), and that he's vastly preferable with regard to those other intangibles I mentioned. I haven't given too much thought to the candidates' domestic agendas, to be honest, in part because I get the sense that they're pretty similar. Anyway, Obama's soaring rhetoric after Iowa helped cement my positive impression of him, but it's by no means the sum total of the reason I've been tentatively supporting him over Hillary. And it certainly won't be enough to convince me to vote for him in November. (Well, unless he's running against Huckabee, in which case he could just sort of stand there mute for the entire campaign season, and he'd get my vote.)

More than anything else, what I'm looking for in a president in 2008 is a leader -- someone who inspires confidence in his or her competence, and someone who has a coherent, rational, non-radical philosophy on the important issues, coupled with an ability to articulate that philosophy in a way that can move us toward accomplishing things, toward solving our problems as a nation and a world. My personal opinions on a lot of issues, including some really important ones, are unsettled -- I have more questions than I have answers -- so I'm not necessarily looking for someone who passes a series of litmus tests on various issues. I'm willing to be persuaded on a lot of things. What I want, again, is a good leader, and someone whose judgment I feel I can trust. None of the candidates have yet convinced me that they fit the bill, but Obama and McCain are in their parties' respective driver's seats for me at this point (with Thompson maybe gaining some ground).

UPDATE 5: Hillary Clinton fights back. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign continues to decidedly not disavow this nonsense; on the contrary:

A spokesman for the Obama campaign, Bill Burton, did not back away from its original criticism of Mrs. Clinton. "People were offended at her words, and she can explain them however she'd like," Mr. Burton said.

Congratulations, Senator Obama, you've thrown me right back into the undecided camp. Perhaps my vote would be better spent trying to decide among the Republican contenders rather than wasting my time choosing between a cynical, dynastic triangulator and a fraudulent "uniter" whose campaign is perfectly willing to deliberately stoke the flames of an absolutely nonsensical racial controversy.

Comments

[mockmook]

And, obviously (to be consistent) you won't be supporting Hillary if she plays the sexism card.

Or, if she (through surrogates) suggests that Obama was a drug dealer.

Or, she (through surrogates) implies that Obama is a Muslim and/or attended a madrassa.

[Brendan Loy]

I have lots of problems with Hillary, mockmook; they're a big part of the reason I lean toward Obama. But Hillary's campaign is not fundamentally grounded on the idea that she will lift us up to a higher plane of politics where those sorts of tactics have no place. Frankly, everybody knows the Clintons are dirty; if we support them, we support them in spite of the tone of their politics, not because of it. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to paint himself as being above all that sort of thing, and to earn our votes because he represents this new vision of change, hope, unity, etc. If he allows this sort of thing to continue, that means his message is a fraud. Whereas if Hillary allows it to continue, that means she's exactly who we thought she was all along. ("They are who we thought they were!") That's not a defense of Hillary, it just means I'm back to square one, choosing between two uninspiring, down-and-dirty politicians -- in which case I probably vote for the one with more experience, namely Hillary.

[Donald Sensing]

A key reason I have been inspired by your campaign is because of your promise to change the tone of Washington's discourse, to move away from the bitter politics of the past toward a more hopeful and united future.

So were you similarly inspired by G.W. Bush in 2000, since that is exactly what he promised, too? Remember, "I'm a uniter, not a divider"?

The idea that Obama - or any other single politician - is going to move American politics away from its current corruption is simply ludicrous.

There may be a good reason to vote for Obama, though heaven knows I can't find it. But the notion that he's a broom to sweep clean the manure barn that forms our national politics is surely the most misguided one there could be.

[thebeef]

Brendan, I'm kinda surprised that you're surprised that Obama supporters are using the 'ol race-baiting card as they prepare for the South Carolina election. For someone who is a "jaded political junkie," you should have seen this coming from miles away.

Sure, Obama gives a good speech. Indeed, he's a phenomenal orator. But let's face it, even the devil is charismatic. Just because the man uses cotton-candy promises of "hope" and "unity" through "audacious courage," doesn't mean that he's not still just another politician.

He's a self-avowed Chicago-Democrat for crying out loud! And how did he begin his new senatorial term as Illinois' junior Senator? Buying property from a currently indicted Democratic fundraiser, in a deal that rightfully raises eyebrows. That's Chicago all right.

Anyway, i wouldn't be surprised. Clinton's right--the man is an empty vessel, selling a fairy tale.

[Brendan Loy]

I don't think Obama can single-handedly fix Washington, Donald. You're right, that'd be ludicrous. But you have to start somewhere, and I think he'd be a good start. Bush made the same promise, yes, but the force of his personality (or lack thereof) was such that there was no way he'd be able to back it up (and, as it turns out, the promise itself was fraudulent). Obama strikes me as, potentially, the sort of leader who can move people with the force of his personality. But I'm not naive; I don't think he is a cure-all to what ails us. I'm just willing, tentatively, to take a chance on him, to bet that maybe, just maybe, he can change things for the better -- because I get the feeling that he could. It's mostly a feeling, and I admit that. I also admit that, in assessing a political leader's traits, the ability to inspire isn't everything. But it isn't nothing, either. And if nothing else, Obama's rhetorical gifts mean he can effectively use the bully pulpit of the presidency to shame those who are playing the old cynical games. But if his own surrogates are playing said games, then obviously he doesn't have the moral authority I hoped he might, and that's what this letter is all about.

[Brendan Loy]

Beef, maybe you're right. Maybe I'm not jaded enough. But I really hope(d?) that Obama might be the one to turn the page on that sort of crap, to marginalize it as it rightly out be marginalized. So am I surprised? Eh, not stunned, but disappointed for sure, and I have the audacity to hope :) that perhaps that page might yet be turned.

[Brendan Loy]

One final point before I stop doing tit-for-tat comments and start getting ready for bed. :) What is unquestionably surprising about this particular round of race-baiting is that the allegations of racism are so facially implausible. I mean, there is really not even a remotely plausible argument that the Clintons have said anything racist here. The whole thing is completely illogical.

Now, I realize these sorts of accusations are always rooted in emotion, not logic. But usually, when people cry "racism," racism is at least one of three or four potentially plausible explanations for whatever the underlying offense is (and the main issue is that they're jumping to that one conclusion instead of considering the other, more innocent possibilities). But here, the cries of racism don't even make sense, particularly with regard to the "fairy tale" comment.

So this whole controversy is really bizarre, and I keep thinking maybe Obama will come out and say, "Um, WTF are you guys talking about? Can we please get back to discussing things that are real?" Alas, it hasn't happened yet.

[texasyank]

Are the Clintons the subject of unfair attacks?

I certainly hope so.

May the opposition Obama seeks to "unite" with be more open-minded than Bush's opposition has been over the last 7 years.

[somaking]

This is the tip of the iceberg. Expect the race card to get played, and played again.

This is all about identity politics. Nothing else. Don't play the fool.

[Steve]

Help me here. What issues of Obama's do you support? After reading your blog for a couple of years, you are the last person I thought would fall for the "hope and feelings" crap. Should we all start singing "feelings” and drinking a nice pink wine?" Seriously, the only thing I have heard Obama articulate is standard class warfare, which makes the race baiting that is going on understandable. He is a typical politician pitching one group against another.

[Cris]

Well said, Brendan. It is nice, however, to see the PC, multicultural Clintons hoist on their own petard.

[JohnAnnArbor]

(and, as it turns out, the promise itself was fraudulent).

That is WILDLY unfair. Bush, especially early on, was polite and tried to work with Democrats. For his efforts, they demonized him as a fascist.

[JO]

What you don't understand is that Obama owes his political career to Illinois Democrats such as Emil Jones. He was brought up by them and once you scratch the surface is the same as them.

[veng]

But what Obama's been saying in his soaring rhetoric hasn't been particularly real but mostly emotional claptrap. Sounds good but means nothing.

[william]

They call it the race card because it trumps the other cards. But the appeal of Obama was that he did not need to play that card to win the hand. If he plays it now in response to such mild criticism, he will get some backtracking from the Clintons, but no white person will think better of him for it. On the other hand, if the Clintons win in a way that blacks perceive as unfair, they will not turn out to vote in November. So both sides would be well advised to put on condom on their conundrum.

[AndyJ]

Obama can only be responsible for what he says or what his paid campaign staff say... The Clintons have/will make much use of proxy groups to provide hits on their opponents. Of course, they have/will say that their hands are tied. They may not co-ordinate any comments with any other group...

Obama is doing just fine. The Clintons have decided that he must be destroyed. They will worry about the black vote later. After all-WHO are they going to vote for? Some Republican-?

What is said, what is heard and what was meant may be three things, two things or one... How many things do you REALLY believe William Jefferson Clinton presented-?

Quit playing sophist with the Clinton wordsmithing... They will dance circles about all of us...They have-they will-they must. Honesty is never the savior of the truth with them. If a lie or truth will serve their purpose they will use the most believable... With extra spin..

[Jim]

Brendan, John AnnArbor hit the nail on the head.

President Bush not only promised a "new tone" in D.C., he practiced such. Letting Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy write the "No Yo' Child Left Behind Act". Refusing to rebut the manifold ugly accusations and statements towards and about him from various and sundry (D) notables, be they House, Senate or (M) Media.

Sadly, Brendan, President Reagan's term was perhaps before your time of in-depth political awareness.

Then, you would have seen what a New Tone in D.C. truly looked like. A man of Ideas and Principals, telling the truth and not sparing the feelings of his political opponents.

And in the end, President Reagan is venerated. Even his enemies respected him, for they knew were they stood, without ambiguity.

You think that Obama is some sort of Unifier, based on not much more than a soaring speech, and lofty words.

Yet, the entirety of his voting record, his statements of positions on such a weighty matter such as the 2nd amendment, taken with the thin veneer of the entirety of his public-service record but reveal him to be the sort of ultra liberal, lockstep servant to the fringe powers of the radical Left as to be completely without actual merit. And thus, unelectable on the face of his record, as to be laughable as a serious candidate.

That you see him as a viable candidate at this point, saddens me.

And here, I thought you held such promise.

I suppose Churchill was right. You're still enthralled with the passions of your left-leaning heart, and have yet to fully engage with the settled maturity of what I pray might be the more productive field of your conservative mind.

Enjoy your education, young man. Clearly, there are decades of it yet before you.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Jim C.]

For me, the fact that Obama is taught in college is a big plus. You have to be smarter than average to do that. In addition, I feel the pull of Obama's charisma very strongly. But I won't vote for him because a) he's a Democrat and by their constant attacks on Bush they've put this country through 8 years of hell and I will NEVER forget that; b) appeals to "hope" and "change" without details are completely insufficient; c) charisma by itself is insufficient.

Brendan wrote, "Maybe I'm not jaded enough."

If you're only 26 like your page says, yeah, too young to be that. Your idealism hasn't killed by the very people who inspired it.

Yet.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head." (attributed to Churchill)

[Brendan Loy]

Just so we're clear on this, the argument that all smart, mature people are automatically conservatives is incredibly, maddeningly condescending. Believe it or not, despite my incredibly young age of 26, I actually do have a brain, and I know how to use it. Maybe I'm too idealistic, or maybe you're too cynical. Both are legitimate possibilities to explain any differences we might have. There are probably a hundred other possibilities as well. (Like, how about, we just disagree. That happens too, even between two smart, logical, mature people!) There is certainly no need to resort to the "you're too young to know better" argument, for goodness sake. What a crock.

Incidentally, the you'll-understand-when-you're-older argument isn't just condescending (though it is that, in spades); it's also totally unconvincing (I mean, who are you trying to win over to your side by saying that?) and, last but not least, it's demonstrably wrong, at least as a universal statement of reality. There are old liberals and young liberals, old conservatives and young conservatives. There are people like my dad, who go from conservative in their youth to liberal in their (ahem) middle-age, and there are the stereotypical folks who get more conservative as they get older. In addition, there are smart/logical liberals and dumb/illogical liberals, smart/logical conservatives and dumb/illogical conservatives. You might think there's more of one group than the other, and you might be right about that (or not), but to pretend that it's necessarily true that a mature/logical/older person is conservative, whereas only a young, immature idealist could possibly be liberal, is just total bullshit. None of this is universal. None of it is inevitable. None of it is some fundamental part of the human condition, and claiming otherwise just makes the claimant look like a boob.

[Joe Loy]

"...There are people like my dad, who go from conservative in their youth to liberal in their (ahem) middle-age..."

Ahem, schmamem, shalom. ;> Lissen, ya punk, where does it say that the concept of a Soon-to-be Pulling-60 Phase of Middle Age is necessarily Ahemable. :) Why, I'd clobber your adolescent butt if I could just remember where the hell I put my Cane. Then again Finnegan, you're just Too Young To Know Better ;>. Better you should go back to singing Inappropriate folksongs to my darling granddaughter. And in conclusion, When I was a Young man in me prime, Away, Santy Anno. ;}

Excellent letter to the Senator, old Kiddoe. Maybe he WILL read it. Surely he Should.

Bottom line: NOBODY gets to assert Immunity from relevant campaign Criticism by virtue of Protected Status. Which means, among other things, that they don't Get Away with baselessly attributing Bigoted Motivation to plainly Nonbigoted (albeit often factually Rebuttable, or even Refutable) critiques. / E.g., no, My candidate's ultra-Feminist-faction advocates are Not entitled to take Umbrage at legitimate (albeit Debatable) criticism of her record, proposals, positions, alleged Experience, and/or political Tactics ~ and even, her public Persona ~ on the preposterous presumption that it obviously reflects the critic's Bias against her Gender.

[M. Simon]

Any candidate who is friendly with Al Sharpton is bound to reduce divisiveness in American politics. Al is a uniter. His respect for the Jewish community in America is well known.

And you know what? Democrats are especially lucky. All three major candidates are friendly with the Reverend Al.

=======

BTW I love the Democrat plan for raising taxes on the rich and the corporations to the point that they leave the country. Sound economics that.

If we punish corporations sufficiently perhaps we can get those blood suckers to leave the country. All of them.

I think if we punish the successful we can get them to leave the USA and prey on some other country's citizens.

[M. Simon]

Obama's dealings with Nation of Islam member Tony Rezko are above reproach. Fortunately Tony was involved with the top cadre of politicians in Illinois. All of whom are under investigation. I don't think such investigations will have any effect though. They are just a cheap Republican trick.

The end of divisiveness and corruption in American politics is within sight if Obama gets elected.

He is nothing like those Clinton folks from Arkansas. Illinois is known far and wide as one of the least corrupt states in the nation. The city of Chicago is particularly exemplary. Let me tell you that you can trust Chicago politicians. And you can take that to the bank. In small unmarked bills.

[Mark]

Not looking to threadjack, however, the discourse appears to be heading more towards the real principal of Liberty. Please refer to that paragraph as I will eliminate specific quotes to be brief.

Miriam-Webster defines liberty first as: 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

Our country was founded on this basic principle. When selecting a president, shouldn't we apply a measurement to this? In your discourse, I do not see a reference to liberty, instead, it appears that you are willing to let someone who has "confidence in their competence" to make decisions for you since "My personal opinions on a lot of issues, including some really important ones, are unsettled -- I have more questions than I have answers." And that, my friend, brings us back to the principles of liberty and freedom.

We do not need a leader to tell us what to do or decide issues for us. As soon as we surrender our liberty, we lose our freedom.

Here is where I'd like to see some investigation on your part and perhaps in future posts:

Do we really need a president to be "philosophical and be able to communicate that philosophy" or one principled in liberty that will ensure your rights to live your life? I chose the latter. I do not need my tax money spent on "philosophers." Us old folks value our freedom and liberty. We have seen for decades that socialism, communism, fascism, any ism you can think of, and they all have failed to deliver on any of their promises, rather, they have been responsible for the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. (Please refer to, oh, say Bolshevik revolution, any communist revolution-pick your country). The list goes on and on.
Okay, so what does that have to do with liberty, right? Well, there is no liberty under those systems which means, utlitmately, no freedom.
So when you ask yourself, "What am I looking for in a President?" I would ask you to once again reconsider your current strategem. If not, you become one step closer to having all of your decisions made for you.

[CMcD]

JohnAnnArbor:

You are right about President Bush. He did try to be a uniter, but the Democratic Party would have none of it except on their terms; and they used the power of the MSM to persuade America and the world that he was a divider. Sadly, it has now become the conventional wisdom. This has been unfair to our president and harmful to the country.

[Broadsword]

"Indeed, he's a phenomenal orator..." Hardly that! I hear mellifluous fluff, floating balloon ideas and sweet smelling cheers.

[Ryan Jacobs]

I think any of the mainstream candidates like Obama, Clinton or Edwards are going to use these types of strategies, and in fact they all have already. Thats politics and suggesting that with Obama it all ends is bollox. He is someone who knows how to work the citizenry but also someone that does think he can change Washington. But like all politicians over time this momentum for change dwindles.

Now I support Obama all the way, not most of all because it seems dynastic presidencies don't work. I really hope that he can bring about change, and like many other I'm taking a chance with him. But for some reason that magic 8 ball is telling me I'm going with the right man.

Ryan Jacobs
U.S. Politics Content Editor
Hubdub.com

[Margaret]

Brendan,

I like that you are beginning to catch on to the Obama clique and what really motivates them -- power and money, but mostly power to CHANGE -- they want to change the United States, the unique state based on individual freedom (not license) and representative government.

Hiterto in man's history, humans were ruled, were subjects not citizens, and under the control of the chief, tribal head, lord, or king. That is still the reality in most of the world.

When our founders created the form of our government, they realized that it could only survive if people were decent ("religious" to them), law-abiding, and willing to sacrifice, even their lives, for this experiment.

The dumbing down of our educational standards and increasing anti-Americanism since the 1950's and the creation of welfare-dependent classes of non-producers, have started our own downfall. The completion of that downfall is allowing hordes of unassimilated, uneducated Latin Americans to pour into our country and inviting additional millions of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christian folks to our shores; giving them all minority status and benefits at the expense of our tax-paying citizens.

Far too many of these immigrants are here to benefit economically with no allegiance or understanding of how our society is meant to work peacefully.

We who have been fortunate to be the inheritors of our ancestors' sacrifices in building this magnificent country have an obligation to preserve it for our descendents.

Rent "The Lives of Others" to see how life is lived in "socialistic paradises." Watch the return of control and terror in Russia under Putin or how Hugo Chavez used one election to begin the process of becoming a dictator for life to realize how quickly precious freedoms can be lost.

Vote for a Democrat promising to give you "free" medical care and shelter you from cradle to grave and you will find yourselves living in a hell in your old age -- unable to speak out because every form of free speech is outlawed ("hate speech laws" anyone?) and guns are outlawed, and all free enterprise has been regulated or sued (thanks, John Edwards) out of existence -- everyone will work for the state; no work for the enemies of the state. Just like in England, health care is free, if you can find any. Ditto Cuba for its own people.

Oh, and those lovely secularists will have no trouble getting rid of the useless old. Yes, you'll be taken care of, just not in the ways you are being led to believe.

[Joe Mama]

Not to restate things or go slightly off-topic, but Brendan's characterization of Bush's campaign promise to be "a uniter, and not a divider" as "fraudulent" is nonsense. Perhaps the country has become more "divided" under the current administration, but whether that is due to Bush or the Democratic Party is hardly a foregone conclusion, and calling Bush a fraud on that account strikes me as nothing more than either the reflection of fashionable attitudes, or the intellectual laziness of attributing a particular effect or result on an individual as opposed to a group.

I wonder, if a President Obama succeeds in implementing his liberal agenda of higher taxes, govt-run health care (along with the govt being the answer to every other ill), retreating from Iraq come what may, eliminating the Patriot Act, etc. (Americans for Democratic Action give Obama a 100% voting rating, 5 pts better than Ted Kennedy) and draws the ire of the Red half of America in the same way Bush has drawn the ire of the Blue, will all of Obama's campaign talk of unity likewise be "fraudulent"?

[HumanityCritic]

It is a campaign's job to take complete advantage of any miscues that other campaign blurt out - it is not Obama's job to constantly apologize for everything that his surrogates say. Compared to Clinton's surrogates, Obama being "Muslim", Kindergate, claiming that he was a "drug dealer", Mark Penn saying the word "cocaine" on Hardball - Obama's campaign comes across squeaky clean. Even though I agree that Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment wasn't racially motivated - Hillary's LBJ commentary was pretty condescending to all who fought for civil rights in this country.

[Aaron]

When I first read this comment thread, I mostly just blew past the half-bright "watch out for the liberals" warnings from the Reynolds people. But it occurs to me that Mark's appeal to M[e]r[r]iam-Webster could indeed be the jumping off point for a philosophical debate, though perhaps not quite in the way he had in mind.

I wonder, for example, whether Mark really endorses each of the five sub-definitions he quotes. (b) and (c) pretty well capture the classical liberal (that is, modern libertarian) definition of the word. I assume that's what Mark has in mind. Margaret too - though she doesn't quite live up to that standard, since real libertarianism doesn't recognize national borders as morally legitimate barriers to freedom of association.

More to the point though, definitions (a), (d), and (e) come closer to the modern liberal sense of the word "liberty." (It says "power to do as one pleases" - not "right") This is liberty in the Rawlsian sense of the word, and I doubt Mark would endorse that.

And even if we stick to the classical liberal definition, it's far from clear which of the two modern American political traditions (let alone modern American political parties) a classical liberal should prefer. That would make for an interesting debate.

ps. for the record, I like all five definitions, though I recognize there may be some unresolvable tensions among them.

[reagan sucked ass]

In Love with Random capitalization Much, Joe Loy?

[Joe Loy]

not Exactly, rSa ~ just kind of A longterm inFatuation :)

Humanity Critic, none of Clinton's surrogates (including but not limited to Mark Penn), nor anyone else that I know of, have Said or Suggested or implied that Obama was a Muslim or a drug dealer, or for that matter a Muslim drug dealer. / Now, Mark Penn did very Stupidly use the C-word on TV. Perhaps Mark was using not only the Word but the C, Itself, at the time. Not that I would ever want to Suggest or Imply such a thing. :)

Aaron, very thoughtful commentpost. / I like all those definitions, too. :) Guess we're both just unresolveably tense. (Tensely Unresolveable? :)

[Alasdair]

The Pluperfect Elder Strikes Back ?

[Aaron]

For Aaron: Being a conservative, it doesn't matter if I endorse the definitions provided by Miriam-Webster, the definition provided is the truth and the truth shall set you free.

I like the comments I have seen regarding education. I firmly believe the educational system has failed terribly, and it all started when I was in school. There were people that wanted "changes" in education and so I was schooled in a culture of, "What do you think?". I think that is the most disengenuous question. Honestly, when being educated, it doesn't matter what I think, only what the truth is.

So you see, I will caution you once again point to the relevant and recent history of the past century. When people embrace change rather than the truth, usually a lot of people suffer and get killed. Look not to what you think is correct, but apply the scientific method to all arguments in order to determine which way is really up before deciding things need to "change."

[Aaron]

The previous comment was not from me, obviously. I'm guessing it was Mark responding to me, but I can't really be sure.

The comment itself, whomever it's from, is nothing but gibberish.

[anonamom]

Spot on letter, Brendan.