THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DREAMS AND FANTASY

ClericJohnPreston

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-02-08 02:02 PM
Original message

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DREAMS AND FANTASY

Edited on Sat Feb-02-08 02:29 PM by ClericJohnPreston

As William Butler Yeats so eloquently stated:

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."

This quote appears in my sig line, such is the power of having dreams. Dreams, properly channeled, can be transformational, transcendent.

On the other hand, dreams which are predicated upon mere manipulative speech and a marshmallow foundation, will never stand the test of time or the harsh realities they try to hold at bay.

It is the latter, which precede a fall from grace, and leave those who were along for the ride, with a pounding headache and a bewildered countenance.

John F. Kennedy was an American original. There were no other Presidential candidates who preceded him, that spoke in lofty terms , using the imagery of imagination to energize his supporters. However, Kennedy did not deliver a BLANK CHECK of only hopes and dreams, but gave his supporters a SECOND message; that there was a price to be paid for the dreams to which they aspire. The price for those dreams was a commitment to be better citizens.

"Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country".

That phrase was understood and comprehended by that generation and the young, to mean a commitment to the needs of the poor and lowest members of society. Internationally, it meant the creation of the newly minted service, "The Peace Corps". This gave an opportunity to idealists to sacrifice their free time and give service to the weak, poor and oppressed of the World.

Kennedy's era, was not an era of ME,ME,ME.

Turning to Barack Obama, there again is a clarion call to "HOPE and DREAMS". In a landscape littered with the sparse and destitute Bush legacy, bereft of any tone of uplifting message, these words fall like golden rain, on a parched desert of thirsty citizens. Predicated on a hopeful message, like Kennedy, to accompany a campaign to help people, the message would be one that truly spoke to a new way of seeing our ills, and of working together to accomplish goals that furthered COMMON problems, or those that reached OUTSIDE of the community we live in.

Thus, we come to look at what Obama is offering.

In researching Obama ( yes, once upon a time people actually looked into what a candidate stands for and what their history is, without joining based on mere entreaty )it was said that he always enjoyed making people happy. It was also said he learned early on that rather than deal in specifics, it was easier to dispense mere hope of something, than delivering something. Getting bogged down in specifics was counter-productive to obtaining support.

Maybe this explains my uneasiness with Obama, and many more like me, who are put off by Obama supporters who are unable to specifically describe his plans for ending poverty, regulating the credit industry, bringing back American jobs from overseas, and many more questions which define his priorities and character.

I was raised to be a critical thinker and to question everything. Law School will do that to you, by design. Does that make me cynical? Hardly. I'm a father of a precocious five year old and understand what it means to surrender thought for an appreciation of the simple things.

Being a father though, I am uniquely aware of the fact that there are STARVING children in our inner cities and in pockets such as Appalachia, where people are desperately poor. While we act as keyboard heroes and toast our candidates victories, as if they were our own, hundreds of thousands of children are going to bed hungry each night.

Where is their champion?

I was, and continue to be a supporter of John Edwards. I will vote for him in our New York primary on Tuesday. He made the fight against poverty his number one priority. Despite all the dreams that Obama offers to the first time voters he so specifically courts, I have seen no counter-balance to the price of such a victory. I have listened intently to this new group of voters, not that much younger than I am; but unlike me, I see and hear no sense of social responsibility, and no sense of accountability. They merely assume a victory, because they have a need to be a "winner". I have fought causes for victories that were personal and private, for the benefit of the many, not a shared gestalt of "we're winners"! It is the latter, which defined Kennedy, a call to social responsibility, that distinguishes Obama from the ORIGINAL JFK.

Obama's dreams and hopes are perfectly tailored to today's Republican reality of tax cuts for the wealthy and wars without personal cost. Once upon a time, there was a War in Viet Nam, with a DRAFT, that meant that the young of that generation were asked to pay the ultimate price. Bush, with his volunteer army of the poor and disadvantaged, has been able to sweep this war out of public consciousness. Latte liberals can banter about our victory to come, without once sharing the burden of their liberty with those less fortunate. Obama sells a dream with only an UPSIDE, asking nothing more than blind allegiance.

Has there ever been a victory so cheaply bought?

I am no more a fan of Hillary Clinton, for her corporate minded and inspired candidacy. She, like Obama, has too much business inspired policies, to be truly dedicated to the needs of those with the least in our society. Still, Hillary has shown she has some connection to the deprived. Moreover, she isn't selling herself on a DREAM platform. Those voting for her, at least KNOW why they are voting for her. Her supporters don't have to link to some website for answers.

It is said that a society can best be judged by how it treats the WEAKEST among it's constituents, not the richest or the strongest. If we allow children to go to bed starving each night, not in some far away place, but our own backyard, we should be ashamed to call ourselves LIBERALS. The liberals I know, understand the debt we have being better off than most, and therefore invest time and money in alleviating suffering. I don't do golf courses in my free time, I do soup kitchens.

Dreams do not come without a price tag. John F. Kennedy knew that , as well as the young of his generation, who were eager to pay the price of his unbounded optimism. Are today's youth willing to commit to pay a price for the dreams Obama hands away for free? If his supporters want a victory at all costs, they would be well reminded that Kennedy and his supporters in his era, built their success the old-fashioned way-THEY EARNED IT!

Anything less is just a fantasy.