Michelle Obama in New Hampshire, January 6, 2008
This week, radio talk show host and conservative blogger, Hugh Hewitt has been playing excerpts of Michelle Obama's speech at UCLA on February 3. It is not the first time I have heard or seen her speak on TV or radio. Hewitt's reaction is that the tone of Mrs Obama's speech is quite negative as to the country and our people. I have to agree here. I have drawn the same conclusion from previous speeches Mrs Obama has made. If her husband is viewed as being hopeful and optimistic, his wife's words come across (at least to me) as negative and angry.
Make no mistake about it. Michelle Obama is an impressive figure. She is obviously bright, attractive, and has an effective speaking presentation. Yet, like her husband, I wonder if her listeners are really stopping to analyze her message. To me, Mrs Obama is an angry woman who has some pretty negative opinions about her country and our people.
In the UCLA appearnce at Pauley Pavilian, Mrs Obama went through a litany of all the things that are wrong with America. Much like John Edwards, she complains about the inability of everyday people to obtain health care, insurance, and this and that, as if we were living in Bangladesh. I have heard her make these complaints before. At UCLA, she also complained that Americans are walling ourselves off from each other (I am paraphrasing). According to her, we fear and distrust each other. I found myself wishing that she would have gone deeper into this theme. Who specifically was she referring to? Was she really saying that white people fear and distrust black people-or vis-versa? If that is what she means, then it might be worthwhile to spell it out and let's have a discussion or debate on that topic. But, alas, she let it hang. After all, she was getting so many cheers from the young audience, that she didn't need to take it any farther than that....But she did. She went on to inform us that "our souls are broken." Really?
Then, of course, Mrs Obama told her audience that the only person who could turn things around in this country was her husband, Barack Obama-then led the crowd into the old demogogic chant of "Yes, we can, Yes, we can, yes, we can!"
I should concede here that many listeners on the left have commented very approvingly of her speech, but those on the left generally do enjoy hearing the negative points of America, so that is hardly surprising.
If we need to dig deeper into Barack Obama's words and look beyond the soaring oratory (which we should), I think we need to do the same with the prospective First Lady. Her message seems to be very much like that of John Edwards; the negative thesis, the negative tone, what's wrong with our country, class envy, and so on. Michelle Obama may come across as inspiring to many, but to me, she seems angry, with a rather negative outlook on our country. It reinforces my concern that there is a hidden agenda behind the Obamas' vision for America.
9 comments:
Why is it that when liberals/Democrats point out the problems in this country, they're being negative? The conservatives point out all sorts of problems as well - just different ones. I mean, you praised Romney's speech when he talked about "the decline of our culture, welfare, liberal judges, corrupt unions and other topics..." Sounds pretty negative to me. Don't get me wrong, his topics deserve to be addressed as well, but it boggles my mind how you see Obama as being negative, but him being great.
As for Romney's speech, I will say that all the "decline of the culture" speeches are nothing more than political pandering. Comments like that were old back when Socrates said the same thing. From what I've heard of Romney, he speaks of going back to a time that did not actually ever exist.
A great point, Lance. I'll try to respond.
Let's face it. Boththe right and the left have complaints about what is happening in our country. We both agree that things are wrong or going the wrong way. We just disagree on what the problems are.
For example, Edwards and M Obama seem to see an America divided by class, race and economics. True enough, but conservatives see a country where anyone can rise from humble beginnings and rise to the top through hard work, initiative, education etc.
Edwards, Obama and liberals encourage class envy against the rich and those BIG corporations, pharmaceuticals, oil, insurance etc. Conservatives see them as having contributed greatly to what America has become. That is not to say that Capitalism should be completely free of controls to protect against corruption. Rememebr, it has been under Bush that Enron and others have been prosecuted for what they did in the 90s. The point is, rather than demonize the rich, people should aspire to join the rich, and we should not inhibit them from doing so.
Maybe I am getting off topic. I think the point is that most conservatives want to preserve most of the things that made our country great to begin with. We do decry the decline in our culture from what it used to be. That is not to suggest that some changes are not necessary. We all agree (except for KKK etc) that the Civil Rights Era of the 60s was a necessary change. But that very change shows that America can reform when the wrongs are pointed out-our very system is built for that-without a violent revolution-which would be necessary in many countries to bring justice.
I think the difference here is that most conservatives have a positive view of the country and want to preserve what is good about it-not destroy it. A lot of liberals-or maybe I should say those on the extreme left- see very little good in America including capitalism and want to use an expanded government to fix every little problem-real or imagined. I want to see less government becuase I believe in the innate ability of the people to manage their own lives-if we let them. That doesn't mean there are not people who need government intervention-the mentally ill for example- but not everyday folks.
Your point is valid though, both sides see many things happening in our country that we don't like. I just don't think that expanded government is the vehicle to deal with these things.
Back in 2004 I saw Theresa Heinz Kerry speak at a Seattle community college. At the time I was a pretty strong Kerry supporter and had worked for the DNC but I found the whole thing underwhelming. Kerry was equally impressive in her biography to Michelle Obama, but I imagine intellectually there's not much there with either of them.
I don't completely disagree with what you wrote, but there are a few things that your response makes me think of:
1. I've heard the mantra by conservatives of how "anybody from humble beginnings can make it" before, but I think that's a little bit simplistic. While we certainly have examples of people who started with nothing and have made good, that doesn't mean that there's an equal playing field for all. Also, some people, by subject of the conditions of their birth, have to work much harder than others to achieve success.
Have you ever heard of the book Savage Inequalities? It tells about the disparities in education in this country, where the schools in the poor neighborhoods are falling appart, but the schools in the rich neighborhoods have all the best resources - and sometimes these extremes are merely miles away from each other! Shoot, the school I teach at is middle class and we're better off than the inner city, but it looks like the poor house compared to the high schools where my wife works!
So, if somebody grows up in one of these poor neighborhoods, then they're not exactly getting an equal opportunity. Sure, the ones who are super-intelligent and incredibly talented can make it for themselves, but it's arrogant for somebody like myself to wonder why they can't all "rise above" when I've never had to do the same.
I could go on and on, and I realize that many conservatives seem to think that vouchers will be the magic cure-all for these ills, but wouldn't it be nice if all of the schools in this country were equal? Does this mean that I'm attacking the rich? I don't think so; I'm just pointing out that something that's undeniably true, and many conservatives seem to be allergic to hearing what's true. (And yeah, I know the whole thing about vouchers - we could do an entire debate on that one, I'm sure. I've dealt with too many apathetic parents to believe in that one!)
2. I find it ironic when conservatives talk about "less government" and then they usually support the government having sovereignty over issues like abortion and the death penalty. I don't know your stance on those issues, but the Libertarian view of these issues seems to at least be more consistent to me. (No, I'm not a registered Libertarian, but many of their platforms make sense to me - as little government as possible!)
3. I think your statement "most conservatives have a positive view of the country and want to preserve what is good about it-not destroy it." is true for most Americans in general, but it's easy to build up strawman arguments and accuse others of not loving America when they say things that make us uncomfortable.
Reply to editor,
To me, Teresa Heinz Kerry was (and is) a flaky, left-wing activist. You should check out the Heinz Foundation under her leadership.
During her husband's campaign, she embarassed herself and her husband. Examples? Her speech at the convention, where she talked almost exclusively about herself and tried to impress us simple folks with her ability to speak several languages-greeting French-American women, Portuguese-American women....
Then there was her "shove it" comment to a critical reporter.
I don't know how I would compare Michelle Obama to THK, I don't she is as downright flaky as Kerry.
Lance,
You, of course, are correct that different people start off differently due to the circumstances of their birth. Heck, we didn't start off equally with the Kennedys did we? But that is life.
As for Obama (Barack), he didn't start off with great beginnings either, but look what he accomplished. Same with Bill Clinton. Same with John Edwards. The point is that when people like Edwards talk about two Americas, his own life contradicts what he is saying.
As for the school situation, as a parent, I saw that even in the so-called "good" schools, you still have to deal with the drug issues. As for the "bad" schools in the inner city, wouldn't you say that most are a reflection of the community where they are located? What I mean is that if students bring baggage with them into the schools, such as broken families, apathetic parents, drugs, gangs, violence and all that, then learning will not occur to any great degree, notwithstanding the quality and dedication of the teachers. (Sure, there will always be exceptions.) Are vouchers the answer? I don't know, but I try to keep an open mind on the subject.
Of course, education is the answer (a quality education), but it seems like we are in a vicious circle. On the one hand, if we can deliver education to everyone, then we will all be socially and economically equal, but on the other hand, the social ills that plague us work against effective education.
What the liberal social scientists don't seem to get is this: If every person was given a million dollars tomorrow, a year on down the road, some would have 10 million, some one million, and some nothing. That's just the way it is. Mind you, this is not about race; this is about all the differences between individuals in terms of intelligence, character, initiative, willingness to work, study, etc. All we can do is try to guarantee equal opportunity-not equal results.
As for your comment about abortion and the death penalty, I would say that government's primary role is to protect its citizens. Issues like life and death are a legitimite concern of government. Unfortunately, government is involkved in all kinds of issues that it should not be-and we have to pay for it in higher taxes. Look at Calif.
Talk about saying things that make people uncomfortable, you should hear some of the things I say at UCI. (in the school paper or among other teachers-never in the classroom.) As you know, conservative ideas are not too popular on college campuses.
Regarding the schools, it's a viscious cyle though, isn't it? The schools are bad so the kids get a bad education. A bad education leads to poor paying jobs and one can only afford to live in the poor neighborhoods with the lousy schools and so on.
I agree 100% with what you said about everybody getting a million dollars, because you're right, simply throwing money at a problem isn't going to solve anything. However, you know that it MUST affect the self-esteem of the kids who go to those poor schools when their campuses are literally falling apart and they know that the school in the rich neighborhood has it much better. If they had schools with better facilities and teachers who were treated like professionals, that would be one small step towards solving the problem. Would it fix everything? No way, but over time, maybe even a few generations, I honestly believe that things would get better. The problem is, most people don't want a solution that takes a while to fix - they want magic cure-alls like standardized tests (which hurt more than they help.)
I don't agree though that when people like Obama talk about "two Americas" that their lives contradict what they're saying. The way I see it, they're saying, "Hey, I've seen the other side, and there a lot of good people who are being ignored!" You're right that one of the great things about this country is that people have been able to make good for themselves, but there are probably a lot of talented people out there that we'll never hear about because the right opportunities haven't presented themselves to them.
As for abortion and the death penalty, I long for a day when abortion is no longer performed, and I believe that when a person kills somebody that they forfeit their own life. What I don't think is that the government should get involved in abortion (because the facts seem to indicate that the abortion rate would remain pretty much the same if it became illegal - there'd just be more dead women) and I don't trust the government to enforce capital punishment. (After all - how many people have gone off death row with the advent of DNA evidence? Pretty scary.)
Lastly, I can't fault you for your stance on how things are on university campuses. I went to San Francisco State, and even though I agreed with much of the politics, I found myself to be a bit annoyed with the political grandstanding! (Especially the graduation speeches - geez!) I'm against the sorts of tactics that are used against conservative speakers for two reasons:
1. I'm for free speech - even if what the person is saying is bat-shit insane.
2. I don't think it's a good idea to feed into the martyr complex of many of the conservatives out there!
Okay, I'm going to make my own blog now about Bill O'Reilly...something I just wrote made me think of him. Heh.
Looks like neither one of us has the answer do we Lance?
Oh, I know; I'm just not telling.
Post a Comment