when his former Pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was all over the news and Youtube espousing Black liberation theology, "miss the mark and expose general ignorance about Protestant liberalism and mainline black churches," according to an insightful piece by Anthony Bradley. You can read all about it here.
I concur with Professor Bradley that we ought to be debating his economic policies (and social policies), not his ties to Rev. Wright. Although I am more in agreement with the free market than Obama's plans for government intervention and redistribution when it comes to economic policy, I think Bradley's comment about Obama resurrecting Karl Marx is definitely an exaggeration. What do ya'll think?
3 comments:
I got to say Joel, Mr. Bradley's article was half right. It is a waste of time to try to tie Obama to his Pastor in "guilt by association." I can't think of any pastor of a church I have been in who I have agreed with totally, especially when it comes to politics (I mean come on, I am democrat in the white evangelical church).
But the other half I just had to shrug at. Basically what Bradley was saying is that the real problem with Obama is that he is a democrat.
He wants government health care, and to repeal the ridiculous Bush tax cuts on the rich. Well so do all democrats. So do I. You can't cut taxes while you are at war. Its unprecedented, and it turned a budget surplus in 2000 to a new record deficit, placing our national security in jeopardy by increasing foreign debt.
And yeah, I think healthcare should be provided like the police or fire department. I think everyone has a right to it.
In terms of economic intervention, it always seems like the free market folks don't want it when it will benefit the common man, but Bear Stearns didn't turn down that bailout while regular people all over this country are losing their homes.
So while I think the debate should shift from these more sensational stories to the issues, I just don't disagree with Obama on said issues, which is one of the reasons I support him.
I also just realized I left a comment larger than your original post. heh.
Derek,
I hear you, but I am still leery about Federal control of Health Care. And Health Care is a much more complicated animal that the police or fire departments. Is there a way where everyone could have coverage, and where there are enough checks and balances between the three primary entities involved or potentially involved in Health Care (HMOs, doctors/hospitals, and the government). Because of our fallen nature, whatever entity that has the most power will ultimately screw it up in some way or form. Right now, the HMO's and the blood-sucking lawyers are both too greedy. I am attracted to a system where checks and balances of power (like the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) which keeps our fallen nature in check. What if a system was created that the HMOs, doctors/hospitals, and the government all had a hand in making sure everyone has health care without destroying the privatization and the quality of health care? I guess this show my moderate side, where I distrust government, doctors, hospitals, and Big business HMOs.
You are right that the war is bleeding our economy. In fact, that may be one of Bin Laden's strategies.
As to economic distribution, even some conservatives were upset at the intervention of Bear Stearns but you do make a good point about fairness. But for a democrat such as Obama, to succeed in office, he will have to compromise his economic and health platform to a certain point with the moderate republicans for any positive change to take place (the same goes for McCain with the centrist democrats). Right now I am skeptical.
Post a Comment