Are You Positive?
My book group once read the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I remember it started out pretty good, listing a lot of negative rights, where the state had to leave you alone or, if it had you in its clutches, treat you properly. (I admit the UN hasn't followed up well on these rights, but at least it had them as an ideal.)
But then it got into a more modern concept of rights--all the stuff the state owed every citizen. This is where I got off the boat. It's nice to get stuff, but I don't think it's a right. It may even sometimes be a good policy, though the further you go, not only the worse it can get--it can go so far as to deny you many of those negative rights (including property rights, which are in the Universal Declaration).
I get the feeling Barack Obama is a big supporter of negative rights. He'd let the courts see to them if he could get away with it. But he definitely believes the government should get involved--in sharing the wealth, as it were.
Obama's economic ideas would sound to many like a fairly large departure from what we're used to. Who knows, maybe the public would support it. (Whether our negative rights should protect us from this majority is a separate question.) But I get the feeling the public isn't quite aware of just how radical Obama's politics have been on this issue, or, for that matter, how readily a Democratic Congress might go along.
Why? You could blame the media--you know, all those people who complain we don't talk about substance. But it says something about the McCain campaign that they haven't been able to get across the Obama that you can hear in the video above, an Obama that's never been hidden if you looked for him.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:37 AM
12 Comments:
Which is why videos like this are just now surfacing, right? Look, you'll get no argument from me that - with the exception of Sarah Palin - McCain has run a lousy campaign but it all comes back to the media. Without the legitimacy of the MSM, a video like this is easy to trash.
Besides, Obama supporters would rather watch Red, White & MILF.
I'd be amazed if this convinced even one Obama supporter not to vote for him. If they like the idea then hey, value-add! If they don't like it, they'll say his views have changed or he didn't really mean it.
If a 527 wanted to help McCain out, they'd buy a 1/2 of prime time TV, right after the Obama/Oprah special, and fill it with this stuff. Maybe it would do some good.
Maybe.
I found it quite good right up until the 3 minute mark, when they stopped quoting his actual language and started listing things he didn't actually say as though he had said them. It's really hard to avoid the temptation to gild the lily, ain't it?
Oh, and if Obama supporters do say that "his views have changed or he didn't really mean it," will that put them in the same boat as folks who say that about McCain's views on the Bush tax cuts? I don't believe a word either of them say when it comes to tax policy. When asked at the debate what they'd have to postpone or cancel to pay for the wall street bailout, neither one would give a straight, adult answer.
Did anyone see McCain bash Obama's"socialism" yesterday with Brokaw and then in response to the very next question about the bailout and his own mortgage bill, offer the standard defense of it (something like "It is the role of government to intervene when things aren't working")?
Hit job. Law professor comments about rights taken out of context, obviously saved for this week by the whining conserverati
I love when someone states his beliefs clearly, but, since they may be unpopular, defenders claim they're taken out of context. Obama has believed, and probably continues to believe, that basic justice and civil rights involves a large transfer of funds (has to be a transfer--you can't just print the money) by government to ensure everyone, regardless of their situation, is well-fed, clothed, housed and has the best medical treatment available. (I almost typed "well-medicated.") Many people find this quite admirable, so why pretend he doesn't?
So this "hit job" just spreads the truth, as opposed to what you hear most of the time from Obama supporters. And as far as the timing, I think it's too late. He should have been bombarded with this stuff, and a lot more, for the last several months.
The last several months? I thought we weren't supposed to pay attention to anything until after Labor Day?
Yes.
See, this is why you have to get your arguments out early. Because when you listen to the whole interview, without cuts and misstatements popping up on the screen, it becomes pretty clear that Obama is agreeing with the more conservative view -- i.e. that courts are not the appropriate venue for bringing about "redistributive changes," but rather such change must happen through the political branches. The best discussion of the issue is going on over at Volokh.
If you want to accuse Obama of supporting redistributive change (aka spreading the wealth) through the legislative process rather than the courts, this interview indeed supports you. But I can't imagine that's anything new or exciting: his tax plan that takes more from the richer and gives to the poorer, including some folks who currently don't pay income taxes except as payroll deductions, has been public for quite a while now. And he has not backed away from the share the wealth line one inch. In other words, nothing to see here other than his view on the limited role courts should play in some controversial areas.
Listening to the whole thing, it sounds like Obama wouldn't mind the courts taking up the cause of redistribution. He only doubts it'll happen due to the judges appointed (that problem can be solved by a President) and that the heavy administrative duties are tricky for a court to manage.
Regardless, the main point is he seems to want, as a civil right, a much heavier regime of redistribution--a fairly radical one, in fact, even though in his current campaign he has done everything he can to run away from the radical views he has espoused most of his political life.
FYI -- In Alaska, they don't have a progressive income tax. In fact, no income tax at all. Instead, they impose hefty levies on the oil companies for leases of their oil fields. Then they write a check each year to every man, woman and child in the state. Governor Palin has been popular because she increased the size of that check by $1,200 -- to over $3,200 apiece. Now that's socialism you can count on!
(A few weeks before her nomination as V.P., Gov. Palin told a journalist: "Alaska is set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE IN THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs." (Emphasis added.))
I'm starting to understand what VermontGuy sees in her.
Credit "Like Socialism" in THE NEW YORKER, Henrik Hertzberg, Nov. 3 2008.
It's spelled "Hendrik" and he has the most serious case of BDS anyone has ever seen.
Socialism depends from your starting point. If you have a free market and the state takes over it, that's moving in the wrong direction. If you already hae the state taking in taxes and they decide to return it to the public, that's better than nothing.
As to the payoff, anyone who's ever watched The Simpsons Movie knows all about that.
Wait, sharing the wealth is ok, so long as you've already taken it from oil companies? Awesome, just awesome, anon.
Post a Comment
<< Home