Sen. Barack Obama has clearly absorbed more from his
mentorship in the Senate by Joe Lieberman than he should have. Despite my own personal high hopes for Senator Obama, he has once again demostrated a lack of understanding about democratic values. You know, those things he's supposed to be up there fighting for with that great charisma of his. From his
latest book, we get THIS Revealing Little Doosey of a passage, that demonstrates in just a few sentences what is wrong with much of our Democratic Leadership:
"We Democrats are just, well, confused," Obama writes. He goes on. "Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action."
"In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning."
Ahem. Let's just take this piece by piece, shall we?
1. In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action.
Perhaps, Sen. Obama, you were talking about military action, generally, in the anti-war sense. To that, I remind you that more than 90% of the country supported the war in Afghanistan. That means that 2/3 of all Democrats at the very least does not agree with this position and it is a mistake to characterize us as such. We might even be persuaded to support military action in, for example, Darfur, assuming we could get the rest of the world to come along. Kind of like we generally supported military action in Kosovo. So, if that's what was meant, you are certainly wrong and clearly out of touch with what Democrats think and believe regarding military action.
But, perhaps he means that we are suspicious of actual new military actions, like, say, an invasion of Iran. First of all, as the opposition party, it is our civic duty to be suspicious of everything the ruling party does, to, you know, question their evidence, to hold their arguments and actions up to scrutiny. If the Democrats were our representatives in a court room, that would be their duty, and if they didn't do that we'd have every right to sue them for legal malpractice. In fact, the Democrats are our representives before the court of public opinion, but unfortunately political malpractice isn't an actionable claim. But even beyond that implicit duty, Senator Obama, WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD ANYONE TRUST THE PEOPLE RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT NOW ON ANYTHING, MILITARY ACTION IN PARTICULAR? These people have demonstrated that they are liars, thieves and war profiteers, fearmongerers, and that they are willing to lie this nation into a preemptive war against a sovereign nation. Our duty as Democrats in the opposition party is to be suspicious, but that is even more true when our opposition has demonstrated, clearly and unequivocally over and over and over again, that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
You want to talk about reaction, Mr. Obama, then why aren't you acting by demanding leadership the American people can trust, whose statements regarding matters of war and peace and life and death can be believed? Why aren't you ACTING to demand the TRUTH? Don't you think that the TRUTH is a moral value? You have the nerve to blame us for our suspicion rather than hold this administration accountable for the lies that (naturally) caused that suspicion in the first place??? We have lost any measure of confidence in this administration, and that's somehow our fault? That's patently ridiculous. Clearly, it is your own moral compass that needs an adjustment here, Senator.
2. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems.
This one is easy. I hear no Democrats claiming that we can't use "market principles" (and what does that phrase mean, exactly, anyway?) to tackle our problems. I, for one, am happy to use whatever means works to make our economy as robust as possible. But, at the same time, that does not mean allowing businesses to exploit consumers or workers, to pollute our environment, nor to become too large or too politically powerful. Beyond that, and you can use "market principles" till you are blue in the face for all I care, preferably ones that distribute the wealth of the nation as evenly as possible, rather than concentrating the share of wealth into fewer and fewer and fewer hands. I love markets, we love markets, Everybody. Friggin. Loves. Markets. We just demand that there be some ground rules so that the market serves the public and not the reverse. The former implies economic freedom while the latter is equivalent to mass economic slavery. The moral question is clear here, too, Mr. Obama. There is a moral line that these "market principles" of yours should not cross and I'm sorry you apparently don't see that. There are plenty of Democratic morals that don't get nearly enough air time. If you are so keen about talking about morality, then let's hear it. Let's see you and your fellows on the Hill ACT to advance and defend that moral line of economic justice in regards to our economy.
3. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning.
And here, Sen. Obama, you have squandered what little faith and hope that I may have had left in you by this point in your little statement. You clearly do not understand progressive or Democratic values. Secularism, as a governmental policy, is tolerance, or rather the institutionalization of tolerance. That policy is the basis of a little moral principle called "Freedom of Religion." You may have heard of it? Yeah, it's that thing that means we have a right to think whatever the fuck we want to about God, The Universe, and Everything, without having the government use its considerable power to enforce one set of views over another. Secularism just so happens to be the position necessary to keep the peace between one religion and another. Prior to the institution of secularism and secularist principles as governmental policy (see First Amendment, U.S. Constitution) in the West, Europe had been fighting between catholics and protestants for at least a couple of centuries. Secularism is the only thing that keeps Christianity from re-splintering into the bloody rivalries we now see amongst the various sects of Islam, not to mention violence against and between Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else who doesn't have the "proper" majoritarian view.
We are not simply secularist just because we feel like it, or because we hate the religious right or because we hate Christianity, or religion generally. No, our frickin' moral values, our belief in tolerance and liberty, justice and democracy, require it of us. If we want a society that is fair to and has respect for all religions, we must require religious neutrality (a.k.a. "secularism") from the state. Anything less than that is not a democracy, it is a theocracy, whether of the theistic or atheistic variety. Religious positions must agree to compete in the marketplace of ideas rather than be implemented by brute force or by force of law or else one religion and its view is placed on a pedestal over others, given a public pulpit that others are denied, and becomes a tyranny against the inherent, god-given rights of the people to believe differently if they so choose. That is not equality. That is not fairness. And, that is certainly not freedom. It is tyranny and injustice and social inequality and division. So, the moral values wrapped up with just this one little principle are as follows: Freedom of Religion, Justice, Fairness, Equality, Peace, Marketplace of Ideas, Democracy, and, yes, Tolerance. If you wish to use moral language to "infuse our policies with larger meaning," then by all means: Warm up your charismatic speaking voice and take your pick from this veritable buffet of moral concepts. Let's see some ACTION informed by moral language advancing our Democratic values instead of REACTION, Mr. Obama. We're waiting. We've been waiting a long time, in fact... Bueller? Bueller?? Obama???
4. We Democrats are just, well, confused...Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction.
The shame here, Senator, is that despite being an elected Democratic official you apparently don't see or understand any of the above. You look at your base out here and clearly see something entirely different. Apparently, we are simply reactionaries who just do everything out of unjustified, reflexive hate for the Republicans, and we hate them not because we find their actions in regards to lying, to torture, to habeas corpus, to warrantless spying, to preemptive war based on lies, to, well, pretty much everything they've done since at least Afghanistan, morally offensive. We just hate them and oppose them for the gol-darned partisan heck of it. Right, Mr. Obama? How very...Republican of you to say so.
In this one passage, which ironically seeks to promote our talking in moral language about moral issues, you deny yourself the ability to talk about any number of moral issues and positions to "infuse our policies with larger meaning," and at the same time you demonstrate your lack of understanding of those positions, neither what they are nor why we might hold and value them. Maybe OUR values and ideals just aren't good enough for you to talk about and use to give meaning to our policies and discourse. But, I happen to like them just fine and this Democrat, for one, won't be chastised or criticized or labeled a "reactionary" by you or anybody else simply for holding them and standing up for them. In summation, Mr. Senator, consider the possibility that it is not we Democrats who are "confused" here. You are.