dish and discussion of the latest news and events from the U.S. political scene
By author, catfish. Originally posted at Partizane on October 27, 2008. Reposted with author’s permission.
In college we all mull over the idea of Socialism or reparations, but it’s a phase that passes with a little reading of history. Right?
We assume that when Barack Obama asked his law students this question in a 1994 course syllabus, he was trying to get them to see the fallacy of such an idea:
10) Given the perceived failures of the traditional civil rights agenda in bringing about racial equality in the US, a number of black commentators argue that a program of reparations is the only legitimate means of making up for more that three-hundred plus years of slavery. More recently, some white commentators have also supported a variant of the reparations concept — for example, the government financing a Community Reinvestment funds that would be controlled by the black community and render affirmative action obsolete. Do such proposals have any realistic chance of working their way through the political system? Would there be any legal impediments to such a broadly-conceived reparations policy?
And when he mentioned reparations on the campaign trail this year, he was speaking figuratively, right?
“I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
“I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”
Hey, MSM - you want to earn your credibility back? This would be a great time to ask Obama what his views are on this. Or, you know, you could wait until after the election.
(And before any lurking Obots go there, these questions are not racist, they are legitimate. One more thing: the Clintons believe in the dignity of work, and would raise taxes to create jobs or to get the country in working condition. Redistribution crosses the line into handouts. Voters have a right to know how Obama views welfare and redistribution.)
Frankly, the Republicans have equated raising taxes with Socialism so many times it no longer catches my attention. But redistribution and reparations are a little beyond the mainstream and deserve a fair and open hearing before Nov. 4th.
Editor’s Notes:
A spelling and punctuation error were corrected and a quote was extended. Also a note on Reparations (from Wikipedia):
Reparations for slavery is a proposal by some in the United States that some type of compensation should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people, in consideration of the labor provided for free over several centuries, which has been a powerful and influential factor in the development of the country. This compensation has been proposed in a variety of forms, from individual monetary payments to community-based improvement schemes related to health and education. The idea remains highly controversial and no broad consensus exists as to how it could be implemented.
Obama has said that he opposes reparations; however, is he to be trusted? I don’t trust him. Even his own supporters and reparation advocates know that Obama cannot openly support reparations and get elected.
“Let’s not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life,” said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. “In light of the demographics of this country, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he’s done.”
And what is it that he has done, Kibibi? Hide the truth about himself and his intentions to redistribute wealth as part of reparations? I want to reiterate what Catfish said:
[The] Clintons believe in the dignity of work, and would raise taxes to create jobs or to get the country in working condition. Redistribution crosses the line into handouts. Voters have a right to know how Obama views welfare and redistribution. [emphasis added]
Oh, the change! New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson drops bid for Obama's Commerce Secretary in wake of federal grand jury investigation into government contract exchange for campaign contributions.
When will it end? Should government bailout newspapers? Connecticut lawmaker wants state to bailout two local newspapers, sparks debate about government involvement in the press.
Former DNC chair and Clinton loyalist, Terry McAuliffe, announces run for Virginia governor.
Democratic controlled Congress gives itself 3% pay raise despite recession ... Congress denies raises for federal judges ... Universities, factories and even hospitals force employees to take unpaid furloughs.
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
You are free to share material with proper attribution. Follow Fair Use rules. You may not use this material for commercial purposes or alter, transform, or build upon material. Leave a comment in a post thread to obtain use permission that extends beyond this license.
catfish
October 28th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Yeah the full syllabus question really jumps out, doesn’t it gp?
He also structured his faith-based initiative proposal as a trickle-down structure, where bigger “neighborhood” churches and organizations (such as Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United?) would teach and mentor the smaller organizations. Put together with his syllabus question, his 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, his quote on the campaign trail that the US must offer reparations in “deeds” and not just “words”, well, it just raises some questions.
grlpatriot
October 28th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Exactly, catfish. I’m seeing a very troubling pattern in Obama’s ideology. He has hidden his background with the media’s help which has made it easier for him to fool the electorate into believing he is a centrist, when he is far from it. Hopefully, voters will catch on to his game before the election. Thanks again for this post. You raise some excellent questions.
catfish
October 28th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
gp did you see this?
“Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might “arrogantly” ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.
Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama’s positions on Iran, concluding that they were “not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open,” the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama’s advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment. ”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html