1 America or 2 Americas? Which statement do you agree with?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Note: One was from 1984 but can easily be applied to 2007. Which type of thinking do you prefer and which would be a more effective pitch to defeat the Republicans?

Statement 1: "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Statement 2: "Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families, and their futures. The President said that he didn't understand that fear. He said, "Why, this country is a shining city on a hill." And the President is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.

But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city; there's another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city.

In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation -- Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a "Tale of Two Cities" than it is just a "Shining City on a Hill."

Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places; maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds; maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn't afford to use.

Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President. But I'm afraid not. Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.

You know, the Republicans called it "trickle-down" when Hoover tried it. Now they call it "supply side." But it's the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded, for the people who are locked out, all they can do is stare from a distance at that city's glimmering towers."

[Adelante]

1. One doesn't negate the other

I think Cuomo and Obama would both see that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Of course not but we are choosing a nominee

Which is a more accurate diagnosis of the country's situation? Which theme would fare better in the general election? I think this is one of the fundamental differences between an Edwards nomination (Edwards' theme is similar to Cuomo's "Tale of Two Cities") and an Obama nomination. If we asked this question last time perhaps we would have a Democrat in the White House. "I was in Vietnam 30 years ago and the other guy is incompetent" is hardly a compelling rallying cry for a candidate.

[MissWaverly]

3. wealthy elite with tax cuts vs workers with tax burden

workers who are working and getting less and less, while Bush's base gets more and more.

[jefferson_dem]

4. You offer a false choice. In fact, the first statement reinforces the second one.

Obama reminds us that we are all part of the same American family, with common values and ideals, no matter how hard the politicans and pundits try to slice up and divide us. Cuomo speaks of our common humanity, and our responsibilities we have to one another, especially to those who are most in need.

"Social Darwinism" is a theme Obama has picked up quite often. Here are two excerpts from speeches if you're interested....

I believe if the American people could truly see what was going on here they would oppose this nomination, not because she is African American, not because she is a woman, but because they fundamentally disagree with a version of America she is trying to create from her position on the bench. It is social Darwinism, a view of America that says there is not a problem that cannot be solved by making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery and does not consider who our parents were or the education received or the right breaks that came at the right time.

Today, at a time when American families are facing more risk and greater insecurity than they have in recent history, at a time when they have fewer resources and a weaker safety net to protect them against those insecurities, people of all backgrounds in America want a nation where we share life's risks and rewards with each other. And when they make laws that will spread this opportunity to all who are willing to work for it, they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections. Republican, Democrat, or anyone in between. Those are the types of judges the American people deserve. Justice Brown is not one of those judges. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination.

http://www.barackobama.com/2005/06/08/remarks_of_us_senator_barack_o_1.php

***

It is called the “ownership society” in Washington. But, you know, historically there has been another term for it; it’s called “social Darwinism” – the notion that every man or woman is out for him or her self, which allows us to say that if we meet a guy who has worked in a steel plant for 30, 40 years and suddenly has the rug pulled out from under him and can’t afford health care or can’t afford a pension, you know, life isn’t fair. It allows us to say to a child who doesn’t have the wisdom to choose his or her own parents and so lives in a poor neighborhood, pick yourself up by your own bootstraps. It allows us to say to somebody who is seeing their child sick and is going bankrupt paying the bills, tough luck.

It’s a bracing idea, this idea that you’re on your own. It’s the simplest thing in the world, easy to put on a bumper sticker. But there’s just one problem; it doesn’t work. It ignores our history. Now, yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on self-reliance and individual initiative and a belief in the free market, but it’s also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, our sense that we have a stake in each other’s success – that everybody should have a shot at opportunity.

Americans understand this. They know the government can’t solve all their problems, but they expect the government can help because they know it’s an expression of what they’re learning in Sunday school. What they learn in their church, in their synagogue, in their mosque – a basic moral precept that says that I have to look out for you and I have responsibility for you and you have responsibility for me, that I am your keeper and you are mine. That’s what America is.

And so I am eager to have this argument with the Republican Party about the core philosophy of America, about what our story is. We shouldn’t shy away from that debate. The time for our identity crisis as progressives is over. Don’t let anybody tell you that we don’t know what we stand for. Don’t doubt yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end we know that it’s not enough just to say that we’ve had enough. We’ve got a story to tell that isn’t just against something but is for something. We know that we’re the party of opportunity. We know that in a global economy that’s more connective and more competitive that we’re the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, life-long, top-notch education, from early childhood to high school – from college to on-the-job training. We know that that’s what we’re about.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/16/the_end_of_small_politics.php

[Greyhound]

7. This statement, false on its face, gives the fundamental lie to the American myth,

"Now, yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on self-reliance and individual initiative and a belief in the free market, but it’s also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, our sense that we have a stake in each other’s success – that everybody should have a shot at opportunity."

Our greatness (if you choose to define us as great) has never been the result of "self-reliance and individual initiative", rather it has been the result of stealing the work and property of others and then declaring that theft to be legal.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle">The Rolling Stone article on the Iraqi loot-fest is just the latest example of how America became "great". A few insiders, almost exclusively well connected members of the ruling class, are told about the upcoming pillage so that they can position themselves to get in there early and grab the biggest and best pieces, before the plebes even know it is happening.

Pick any example of American capitalism at "its best" anywhere in history and simply scratch the surface. You will find that it is the result of the "well-healed" stealing from those unable to defend themselves. We haven't had a "free market" since the 1830s and it becomes less free all the time.

The saddest thing is that the Democratic Party has been the enabler of the theft at least half, if not more, of the time.

[wildhorses]

5. rich america vs poor america -- the color green

not enough of it to go around ....

or

economy vs ecology ....

[Democrats_win]

6. One America AND a hope that Americans will have a better economic future.

The statement about America being a "Tale of two cities" is true, but it doesn't provide the right route to fix the city that One America lives in. (A small group lives in the other city.)

[saltpoint]

8. The most compelling, forceful, and inspiring political photographs I have ever

seen are of Robert F. Kennedy, reaching into crowds of people, many of them impoverished citizens, who in turn are reaching -- almost lunging -- right back to him, as if their moment of contact could ignite and galvanize the bond between the duty of a government to protect its most vulnerable populations and the yearning those citizens had to be counted, to matter, and to exist with dignity.

It is not merely inspiring. It is spellbinding.

I mention it because of John Edwards' deliberate and extremely wise acknowledgement of this bond in our society. If government, as Lincoln suggested, is of, for, and by the people, then a candidate's worth can be gauged correspondent to his or her response to the populations who are not heard, who are not represented in advertising or commerce or political lobbying, and so forth.

Edwards' has grafted Robert Kennedy's message onto this more contemporary time and found that as a government, we have abandoned core principles we must reclaim.

That's why it has such resonance and that's why it's making the media uneasy.

[robcon]

9. One America

n/t

[Nimrod2005]

10. Yes