Why I can not believe in Barack Obama

[rodeodance]

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Why I can not believe in Barack Obama
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4386154#4386154
4386154, Why I can not believe in Barack Obama
Posted by Kurt_and_Hunter on Mon Feb-04-08 12:26 PM

To me, “believe in” is not the same as vote for, root for, or even work for. I will have no trouble voting for Barack Obama. Versus any Republican, he and Hillary are both clearly the lesser of two evils.

In World War II I would have volunteered to package food-shipments to Russia (we provided a lot of the Russian diet during the war) because it was desirable that Russia defeat Germany. But I would not have been one of the Americans who believed in Stalin simply because he happened to be on our side for the moment. I try to separate my beliefs from mere politics.

All of us have, I hope, some core that transcends politics. My core value is objectivity as a goal. Total objectivity is as impossible as total social justice, but it is none-the-less a direction.

I cannot believe in a cult. This is a personal disability… I cannot believe in any religion either. Not that I refuse to, I am actually not able to. Some Obama supporters think that people who haven’t gotten “the BAM” enjoy being cynics. I cannot speak for everyone, but for me it is Hell… but it is not optional.

So whenever someone asks me to suspend everything I know in favor of what salves a psychological need, I head for the exit.

I want to say something about the difference between a political movement and a cult of personality. When Martin Luther King was taken from the world, anyone could say what he stood for, and could see that what he stood for was something independent of MLK, and something no more or less just or desirable for his passing.

If Barack Obama retired from public life tomorrow, what dream would survive? The dream of using manipulative language to fool Republicans into supporting liberal positions? The dream of “newness?” The dream of a larger public role for religion as a means of building demagogic majorities? These are techniques, not goals. (Let alone “dreams”)

There is no “there” there, unless you feel the inspiration. And I do not. No only doesn’t the man inspire me, he dis-inspires me! He robs me of hope. Nothing makes me despair for mankind’s prospects more than a revival meeting. It indicts speaker and audience alike.

Barack Obama is probably a fine man, but his campaign is a step backward for American civilization. It represents nothing except people’s desire for something. And it seems that to defend a personal emotional identification, a DESIRE, that there is no principle that some Obama supporters (only some, of course) will not trample upon.

Case in point: Health insurance mandates.

EVERYTHING that defines the difference between Democrats and Republicans, or more usefully, classical Liberalism from classical Conservatism, it summed up in the mandates issue.

The first time an Obama partisan said. “Hillary has no right to decide what I can afford,” the mask was dropped. No statement better encapsulates the petulant disdain for the public good that defines modern Republicanism.

This is not to say that all Obama supporters think like this. In a two person race there are doubtless many Obama supporters who would prefer someone else, but prefer him to Hillary. I am speaking only of the "true believers" who will say, or even believe, anything that seems to serve the cause.

One can say the Clinton plan or Obama plan is better for practical reasons, but one cannot mount a categorical ethical objection to mandates as a step toward universal health coverage and be a Democrat or progressive of any stripe.

Ayn Randian economic libertarianism is okay as something to talk about, but it is not at home in the Democratic party, and must never be… without the concept of some level of shared sacrifice to achieve minimal goals of social justice, there is nothing left.

There are things to argue about, and then there are core principles. Some people reading this understand exactly what I am saying. Others will never get it.

If a dream demands the abrogation, for tactical convenience, of the entire philosophical basis of liberal democracy, then the only dream is for one person to win. Nothing more.