Like everyone else in this election season, I've received lots of e-mails about the election, supporting one candidate or the other. Following is one I received recently. I usually read and delete messages along these lines, but this one prompted a response, mainly because it was from my hometown (Charleston, SC) and from someone I know, which probably makes me think--and cringe--a bit more. Here's the message I received:
If You Agree, Will You Send This To Your Paper's Editor? Send it to everyone you know around the nation, please. I have submitted this to the Post & Courier
Regards,
Kyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe in spreading my wealth. I do not believe that relatively wealthy people should pay higher taxes than people with less wealth as the Democratic party believes and apparently the Republican party as well. We already live in a society that has changed dramatically in my lifetime due to higher and higher taxes. If not already, we are on the very verge of becoming a socialist nation. Very clearly Obama stated that he wants to spread the wealth. To each according to his needs, and from each according to his abilities certainly defines "spreading the wealth." Scarier still, is that most American voters are not aware that "To each according to his needs...." was a communist policy and was first personally declared by Joseph Stalin. I believe that the requirements for a president of the United States, as specified in our Constitution should be followed. The DNC and RNC should certainly and precisely identify and declare that the simple requirements to be the president of United States have been met by their candidate. Barack Obama's proof that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States is still outstanding. As some of you may know, a lawsuit in Pennsylvania (started by a lifelong Democrat and NAACP supporter) to discount Obama's qualification to be a president of the United States, because he cannot prove that he is a naturalized citizen, was ruled against by a federal judge this past Saturday. Of course, the DNC lobbied heavily to have the lawsuit thrown out. I suspect Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya, and not Hawaii. Where is the rage by the RNC to have this charade exposed? Where is your rage? Contact your representatives now. I do not believe that any political party should endorse any candidate who spent two decades listening to and agreeing with his pastor who damned America. I do not believe that anyone should support a presidential candidate, whose wife openly declared that she was not proud of America (until her husband became a presidential candidate). The allowances, perks backbreaking efforts, etc. of the American people and the United States government to help blacks in this country over the last 40 years that surely helped the Obama's amass their one- half million income per year, is another subject for discussion. I do not believe that an unborn child should be killed if "my daughter makes a mistake" as explained by Obama. I do not believe that a person should be elected to be president of the United States after his own vice presidential pick earlier declared that he was not qualified to be a president, as stated by Joe Biden (his vice presidential pick). I do not believe that a person should be elected to be our president who refuses to produce documents regarding his past, who has basically zero executive experience, who has had and has ties with people who have backgrounds of national terrorism, who initially refused to wear or an American flag on his lapel, is a Marxist, whose national and foreign policies were conceived on the campaign trail and whose presidential candidacy is supported by Iran. People, if you are considering voting for Barack Obama because of his race (half black and half white) or his "change" mantra, please reconsider. You may not believe this now, but our democracy, what's left of it, is at stake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
Hi Kyle,
When my brother forwarded this message to me, I was going to just file it away, since I've read most of what you said in one form or another, looked into the issues you raise, and made up my mind. But since I just figured out that we actually know each other, and your message contains a number of common attacks on Obama, I thought I would write back.
You ask in your message "Where is your rage?" I've tried as best I can not to let rage rule my views on this election process, although that's been difficult. However, the source of my anger is different from yours. Mine comes from the spread of misinformation, fear-mongering, and racism on the part of many, a process to which I believe you contribute in your message. It's a process that has become a popular tool in politics, and is mostly responsible for giving us the worst presidency in our lifetime and a country that is in tatters at the moment. If I thought that Obama would actually make things worse, I might be more sympathetic to your message. But I have a hard time believing that's possible.
I think you're entitled to your opinion, and even though I support Obama enthusiastically, there are some legitimate concerns raised in your message. Like you, many people will disagree with Obama's stance on Roe v. Wade and he certainly has less experience than McCain. However, I think that most of the other points you raise are seriously misguided. Just to address the most egregious:
First, a bit of history: "To each according to his needs...." was not "first personally declared by Joseph Stalin". It was popularized by Karl Marx (who borrowed it from someone even earlier) and then adopted by the Soviet communist leaders Lenin and Stalin.
You imply that Obama has endorsed the Marx quote and you later call him a Marxist. I seriously doubt he's ever endorsed that statement, but if so I'd be interested to know your source. If you mean that his "spreading the wealth" comment suggests that he supports Marxism, that's a pretty big leap. I know his comment has been used by the McCain campaign to suggest that Obama endorses socialism, but if you read the whole conversation in which he used that phrase, he was simply arguing for progressive taxation. To call Obama a Marxist is either not to understand Marxism, or just to be name-calling and fear-mongering. He would not be getting the endorsement of so many conservative newspapers and Republicansif they thought for a moment that he's a Marxist.
You obviously don't agree with progressive taxation, and that's fine. But we've had progressive taxation in the US for 150 years. The only difference has been a matter of degree. Even under Reagan, Nixon, Bush and every other conservative president, we've had progressive taxation.
You say that society "has changed dramatically in my lifetime due to higher and higher taxes. Since you're focusing on the presidential race, I assume you're mostly interested in Federal taxes. I don't know how old you are or what your income is, but if you just consider the income tax rates for the wealthiest citizens--those that Obama wants to raise--if you're older than 20, then taxes have certainly not increased in your lifetime. In my lifetime (I was born in '55), the top tax rate has gone from 91% to its present 35%. So, just the opposite of what you claim has happened. In fact, income inequality is at its highest point since the 1920s. I hardly think we're on the road to socialism.
Regarding the lawsuit in Pennsylvania challenging Obama's citizenship, the guy who filed the suit, Philip Berg, is a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Don't believe me? He's also got a court case against Bush and Cheney saying that they were co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he's right about that, too, but as much as I distrust the two of them, I doubt this is a credible claim. And Obama does not refuse to turn over his birth certificate. If he did, he would not be eligible to run for president. This is one of the many smear attempts that is making the rounds. His birth certificate is published on his Fight the Smears website. It's been authenticated not only by Factcheck.org, as Mr. Berg says, but also by Politifact, a non-partisan service of the St. Petersburg Times. It's also possible that the so-called "liberal media" is ignoring the story. But at least 50 newspapers that supported Bush in 2004 are now endorsing Obama and can hardly be considered liberal.
You mention that "presidential candidacy is supported by Iran". I'm sure if you asked the KKK or any white supremacist group, they'd support McCain, but that's not McCain's fault, is it? I don't think we can hold candidates accountable for who supports them, but for who and what they support. And here's a news flash: If the rest of the world got to vote in the election--including Iran, but also including every English-speaking country--it wouldn't be a close race.
Now, we come to the really nasty stuff. Do you seriously think the Obamas get "their one- half million income per year" because of some affirmative action program? Let's put aside that whatever fortune the Obamas have pales in comparison to the McCains. If you take even the smallest amount of time to investigate Obama's biography--rather than relying on racist stereotypes--you will know that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School along with being president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. I think it's fair to say that he succeeded on his own merits. Compare that to Bush and McCain, who got into their respective universities and were helped in their careers because of rich and/or powerful fathers, and performed somewhere between average and pitiful at university: McCain graduated 894 out of a class of 899 and Bush was a C student.
Finally, your comment that "if you are considering voting for Barack Obama because of his race" placed, as it is, at the end of your message, is very telling. Race is obviously very much in your thoughts. I don't doubt that there are many people who will vote for Obama because of his race--and many others, like you, who will vote against him because of race.
There's lots of negative stuff I could say about McCain in response, but that's an issue for
another blog post. I'll just end where you did, Kyle: Our democracy is at stake. But in my mind, the biggest threats are not those you articulate. Rather, they're fear, hate, ignorance, and racism that lead to hysterical rants and an inability to engage in informed and civil discussion about differences. Whoever wins, I hope that we can find a way to have that sort of discussion.