DISQUS

I don't know the context in which E.C. delivered his view but if it was in the spirit which you attribute to him then I find it lamentable that a brother as deeply immersed in the classics as he is would miss the most important rule for living which the ancients espoused, moderation. That is the lesson of King Midas. After all, where is the discipline and sacrifice in accepting 10 million dollars? And in traversing Classical to Western civilization this principle of sacrifice is taken to its extreme in the form of Christianity.

A cadre of persons who are skilled at accumulating resources and intelligent in directing their productive use is a good and necessary thing for human progress. Even Jesus had his disciples. But when mere acquisition becomes the goal and productive applications are replaced by the hoarding of luxuries and privileges then the entire structure suffers. So Christianity, for example, doesn't decay because the mass of adherents are sinful but because of the hedonistic individualism of its elders.

To quote C. V. Wedgwood, "Few men are so disinterested as to prefer to live in discomfort under a government which they hold to be right, rather than in comfort under one which they hold to be wrong". The task for the "few who strive" is to discover the happiness of Sisyphus.

—

Dr. Spence, Obama is a "socialist" in the same way that Bush is a "conservative. " I have learned that such labels as presently used by the mainstream are immune to the facts that you bring to bear. These are code words for subjective identity based politics completely unhinged from symmetrically applied neutral and scientific criteria. For us words like conservative and socialist have a specific meaning and can be objectively verified. But for the folks like your daughter's teacher and sher747 who toss them around, these words are adjectives rather than nouns. They might as well be calling Barack ugly or fat.

This is why I think it's so important for progressive critics to get used to the art of dissembling and using Obama as they would a Trojan horse to advance their desired agenda. Who cares that Barack doesn't talk confrontationally about race and class if he is the best available option? The unvarnished reality is that it is a marker of political weakness, ineptitude, and delusion when pols speak forthrightly like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

The error that Cobb shares with progressive critics of Obama is thinking that the president is selected primarily because of the laundry lists of policies that s/he carries. The truth as Jeffrey K. Tulis has written is that ever since Woodrow Wilson the chief executive has been chosen on the basis of their rhetorical power.

Of course, the appeal of the rhetoric depends on how much it advances a corporate interest and encapsulates the asprations of the masses. Carter had done this but ran into trouble with the military industrial establishment. In the post Vietnam, stagflation era this was provided by Ronald Reagan. He gave voice and the benign face to a right agenda.

I also meant to add that beyond the visual or stylistic aspects there are some eerie political and substantive resemblances to JFK as well. I would refer you to Clark Clifford's memoir, Counselor to the President, where he describes Truman's ambivalence if not outright disdain for Kennedy. Kennedy also had a detached style and surrounded himself with older figures but was intensely focused where it matters in terms of preparing for future governance while going through the requirements of campaigning. Today's Huffington Post reports that Obama's transitional team has an efficient, fully charged operation while MCCain's is barely existent.

Below I'll reproduce a comment I dropped yesterday.

His campaign is effectively over and he knows it. A McCain comeback would surpass Truman's 1948 victory and in that race Truman had the advantage of being the incumbent and mounting the first relentless grassroots campaign in the form of the so-called "whistle-stops" in which he would travel to cities and towns and speak to citizens from the back of the train.

If you get a chance, look at the rebroadcast of last night's debate. Note the contrast in body language. McCain is feral. While Barack is speaking, he paces back and forth across the stage like a caged animal. He is unable to assume a position of comfort. His attempts at levity are forced and unnatural. He is also strangely petulant. My wife, too, picked up on the paternalistic undercurrent of McCain's response to the black man.

Obama, meanwhile, is reposed. He is sipping on water while McCain is on the attack. He is still using phrases like "John and I agree." He remains seated while McCain is speaking. He shares the intimacy of his mother's dying days and affectionately calls out his wife during his final remarks. But at the debate's closure, Obama pointedly does not walk over to shake the man's hand. He is accommodating but not subordinate.

The supremacy of Obama's confidence is confirmed by his and Michelle's dalliance at the end of the event compared with the efficient exit of McCain. If you are a sports enthusiast, this is the equivalent of the winning team staying on the court long after the game is over as the losing team quickly withdraws.

The purpose of debate in the modern era is not to deliberate or educate. It is to serve as a sort of presidential fitting room in which you get to try on a suit, pose in front of the mirror, and see which one makes you look good. Likewise, we get to see which candidate best reflects our self image. It's as entertaining as theater and sports. Of course, there are plenty of folks that don't like either, but for those of us that do it doesn't get better.

Did John McCain cuss during the debate?

Did John McCain cuss during the debate?

I have always believed that Barack Obama's ascendancy is an outgrowth of black cultural hegemony. The rub is how do we transform dazzling personal achievements into a vehicle for sustained social progress of the groups that they emerge from?