This was a speech given today by Barack Obama. It blew me away. If you have 40 minutes sit and listen, if you only have 10 minutes, sit and listen to 10 minutes. If you say you don't know anything about politics, I think this might help you learn.
21 comments:
You should write a little more and talk about what you liked about it, specifically.
I'll pipe in here...
The first thing I loved about his speech is that he wrote it himself over the past two days, only showing it to a couple of his closest advisers. This is not an example of typical politics, where so-called leaders only say something if it has been tested with focus groups.
The second thing that I love is that it is a new way of looking at an old problem. And the newness of it and the self-evidence of the truths he speaks gives me hope.
He approaches the issue not by denying the legitimate beefs that both sides of the racial divide feel, but by using those complaints as motivation to heal and unite. Take the following:
"But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
In my opinion, this is the most meaningful speech about race in the past 40 years.
In the words of Oliver Willis:
"One of my personal maxims has been that politicians will disappoint you. The ones you like will have personal failings, while the ones you detest will fail time and time again. With Senator Obama, for the first time in my life, I have watched a political leader who I don’t worry if he’ll be up to the task.
It’s like you had Michael Jordan in his prime or Joe Montana with 2 minutes to go. It’s that feeling where you say to yourself: Ok, breathe, he’s got it.
Chill, Barack’s got it."
Whether or not you agree with Obama's politics, the words he spoke today are worth 40 minutes of your time.
I had to add this comment that I read on a blog somewhere:
"Up until now many people have been asking if Obama is deserving of the presidency. They said he was too young and inexperienced. They said he had come this far only because he was black. They said he had just been lucky.
With this speech, the question flips on its head. Are we deserving of a president like him? Are we mature enough to look past our previous divisions and recognize the vision and dignity of the man in large enough numbers to put him in office?"
I've been involved with the seminar business since 1989 and have seen many a polished speaker. Obama is as good as they come. He's truly a gifted orator and speech writer.
Because of his eloquence, it makes me cautious. Like any politician, he's selling me on the idea that I should vote for him. But, is there substance behind the finely-woven words?
I'm not sure why the race card had to be played. True, he was saying racism should be done away with. For me, whether a person is black or white makes no difference. So I asked myself, what's the point? Well, it must matter to him. Does it mean he's prejudiced towards others? I don't know. It's surely on his mind.
It's easy to stand up and say "we need to eliminate the racial tension and we need to create jobs, we need to end the war, we're going to do this or that, etc." but exactly HOW? Is the answer just to raise taxes? If so, how does raising taxes incentivize entrepreneurs to start businesses that will create jobs? It doesn't. What jobs did he create for Illinois? I don't know.
I believe he wants universal health coverage. Hmmm, not sure but I think offering something for "free" to everyone sounds too good to be true. Who is going to pay for it? I guarantee you someone is. In other countries where universal health is provided, taxes can exceed 50%! Sounds like an invitation to raise taxes, which spurns growth.
It's a given... Obama can speak like no other. I think that's what I like about him. It would be cool to have a president that was smooth and polished.
However, more importantly for me is his actual voting record. Did he vote for and does he stand for a majority of the same things I believe in? Does he vote for legislation that supports lifestyles that aren't morally correct? Does he support abortion, does he support the right to bear arms, etc., etc.?
I'm not sure yet if I agree with all the issues Obama seems to be a strong proponent of.
What is interesting to me are some of the people that are supporting him. Some tend to be quite liberal and that usually stands contrary to the things I believe in. My good buddy, Ted Kennedy, is a strong supporter. Additionally, some of his strongest support comes from people in the lower socio-economic classes. While this can be good and I am certainly not making a judgement on anyone just because of their income, it makes me wonder "are they voting for him because they believe they'll get something for free just because he's of the same ethnic persuasion?" Or, does he truly have plans to improve the lives of all Americans or is he just pandering for delegates? The reality is, I'm all for improving people's lives--as long as they help themselves and don't just expect a handout. Does Obama feel the same?
Saying all that, and sorry for taking up so much of your blog, I really enjoy your comments, I'm still learning about the candidates and try to be very objective. Some of my concerns and questions are felt towards the opposing party. I'm not blind to political rhetoric. Thanks for putting this out so I can learn more and more. You're right, Obama is a gifted speaker.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Beej. (Do I know you?)
A couple of points:
I admit that I am inspired by his oratory skills beyond what he is proposing to do. I joked with Brook last night that I may be in his thrall a little bit. But I think this is his greatest strength for changing the country. I'm not as interested in how effective he'll be in managing the country. We've had a very effective leader for the past 7 years. I'm interested in his ability to appeal to the best in people, and to motivate them to come together.
We just visited the Reagan library and it struck me that President Reagan was a similarly inspiring speaker. I don't agree with all (or even much) of his political philosophies, but I appreciate his ability to inspire people through words alone. His optimism was infectious.
As far as Obama's political beliefs, I think they are pretty well spelled out. He and Senator Clinton have basically the same voting record. So I'm don't see him as an untested wild card. That is just a talking point from his opponents. Experience does matter, but he has plenty of experience where it matters. More important is his judgment, and he showed powerfully with the rush to war that he has superior judgment.
He is a strong proponent of universal health care in principle, a very strong point for our family. In fact, my greatest disappointment with him is his pledge to work more through the existing system to provide broader health care coverage. But maybe that is the only viable start to fixing the health care system. (I can't get much into it, but I think that it is highly immoral for a country that is as rich as ours to let people suffer because they don't have the means to pay for insurance. Some people lose their insurance through no fault of their own, by losing their jobs or getting cancer. It's sad.) And no one is under the delusion that universal health care is free. If you are worried about people getting something for nothing, think about the oil companies getting billion dollar subsidies for exploration while they are earning record profits. And every "self-made" millionaire has benefited from the infrastructure and economy that all of us have built. Everyone in this country gets a handout at some point. I don't get the sense that Obama's support comes from lower socioeconomic classes. Yes, he has solid support from the African-American community. But in all of the primaries, he has won with every age group under 65. This might be his greatest liability in the general election because young people are notoriously unreliable as to whether they'll turn out to vote.
I don't think that Obama wants to focus on race, and though some people are truly color blind, race has obviously become an issue, with some opponents suggesting that Obama would not be a viable candidate because he's white. He has been made to answer for things that his religious leaders have said while all the white candidates get a pass on what their religious allies are saying.
That's all I have time for now. I appreciate your openness.
I did not get to listen to it all (kids) but he is a great speaker.
Brook-- I don't know if you needed to practice the song together before Sunday. It is pretty easy, although there are a few high notes..
I can come over if you need me to. If not-- we can just work through it on Sunday.
Beej would be your neighbor :)
Why would Skyler go by the name Beej? ;)
Me commenting...
I'm spreading the love whether you need it or not! Thanks for the lazy afternoon and the v-shaped sunburn on my chest.
Ryan,
Great post and response. Thanks for summarizing a lot of what I have been thinking.
I was really bummed that this speech took place about a five minute walk from my office, but admittance was by invitation only. Guess the $25 I've contributed so far doesn't put me on the list.
David
I too admire a man (or woman, except Hillary) that can motivate--providing they are motivating me to something I believe in.
I've spent the past couple of days identifying why l feel uncomfortable with universal health coverage.
First, I have a slight problem with what the word "universal" conjures in my head.
While I like the fact that it makes me think that everyone is going to be treated the same, it also makes me feel like everyone is going to be forced into something.
I'm not opposed to having the government help those that can't help themselves. However, I believe that person should then be asked to contribute something back--whether it's money over time or public service of some sort. This would give a person their dignity that they didn't get something for nothing.
I remember feeling as a young college student that I was only a "taker" because I was living off the generosity of a dear family that took me in. I couldn't handle it anymore because I felt like a complete schlep so I gave them back their car and got out on my own. Hard? Yep. Free. Absolutely. Self-worth? Finally.
I loathe those that feel they're entitled to something just because.
I am also concerned that the government would have even more control than they do already. I don't feel that is the government's role.
I look at the waste and the inability of the governmental agencies to control costs (we've all heard the stories of how even the most miniscule of items costs hundreds of dollars, such as a widget) and it makes me shudder to think of how they would bungle the medical system (albeit not perfect).
As for this country being rich, it's true. But I believe it is rich because our system ALLOWS people the opportunity to succeed and it also allows people the opportunity to fail.
Regarding those companies that make billions of dollars and receive subsidies, I don't see a problem with that.
Those companies employ thousands of people and produce products we use daily and this great nation of ours allows them the opportunity to make a profit. Those jobs pay for people's needs and also creates a retirement income when their stocks go up. It allows them to buy homes and provide education to their kids.
Do I feel bad that there are those that don't have the means to buy insurance? Yes, but I only feel bad for them as people--that they're not doing things to change. I still would opt for protecting the system that allows opportunity and failure over being forced into something.
Oh, and guess who it is that is offering the companies the subsidies? Yep, our good friend Uncle Sam, the same who would run the health care system. And, let's not forget that those subsidies are only offered in exchange for something Uncle Sam wants. It's a two-way street.
The thought just occurred to me... who is it that is turning people away from treatment? Is it the doctors? If so, why don't they just do the work for free? Don't they have that right?
My hunch is that they want a paycheck too. They deserve it. They've busted their hump and sacrificed to get where they are. It perplexes me how people can bemoan what those in the medical field make. Most people aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices.
I admit that I don't know a lick about the proposed plan Mr. Obama is behind but just the thought of empowering the government to take more control is enough for me to pass on the idea.
Regarding handouts... Who is receiving something for nothing? Aren't we all paying taxes?
This has been helpful for me to put in writing some of my thoughts. I really do like Obama as a speaker. I really don't like some of the things he's voted for and would promote if he were elected. I feel the same conflict with his opponent, Hillary. Even the Republican is not perfect.
For me, I guess I'm still of the opinion that I admire Obama for helping the country capture a vision. He's causing people to think. I admire that. I'm just having a hiccup with how that vision would be implemented and what he's voted for and also how his voting record would influence the Supreme Court judges that he could nominate. Oh, don't get me started. Love, Skyler
Hey "Skyler",
This is probably not the most coherent treatise on universal health care, but oh well. It's a blog.
The bottom line(s) for me with universal health care are the following:
1) In a country as wealthy as ours, it is not morally right to force people to go without health care. Are there going to be deadbeats in a more generous system? Of course. But I feel that we are lifted up by giving, whether or not the recipients are deserving of our aid.
2) Our system is the most expensive in the world and it buys us mediocre care when you look at many endpoints (like infant mortality).
3) Medicare overhead is somewhere around 2 or 3 percent, much lower than in the insurance industry.
4) Everyone talks about worse access to socialized health care, but I hear story after story of people being unable to get a appointment here for months and months. The rheumatologist that comes to St. George has a year-long waiting list. In the UK, Canada, and France, people can go to any doctor they want. Waits in the ER are totally reasonable because people there don't use ERs as their primary care physician. It is true that there is rationing of some services (like MRIs), but it obviously doesn't worsen their overall health care by any standard measurements. People in those countries complain about their socialized care, but who doesn't complain about government programs? Most people in those countries wouldn't dream of going to a system like ours. Their most conservative politicians would never even suggest such a thing. They think we are barbaric.
5) Am I comfortable with the government acting as the gatekeeper for my health care? I have some misgivings. But I trust insurance companies way less. They are not beholden to their policy holders. They are beholden to their stockholders. At least a community can fire the politicians.
Insurance companies are happy to insure you as long as you are well. If you get sick, watch out. This subject hits close to home for us as our family is ineligible for insurance. It is only because of federal law that we can get insurance through my job. If I lost my job, we would immediately lose our insurance, even though we have faithfully paid into the system for all our adult lives. And our situation is hardly a consequence of something we did wrong.
6) How many people are staying in dead end jobs because they can't do without their health insurance?
7) Imagine the sense of well being that would settle over this country if everyone knew that they would always have access to health care.
By the way, I don't think anyone has a problem with doctors getting paid well. That is not what is costing our system so much. In fact, doctors' compensation has been dropping for years.
The problems is that the insurance industry is profiting from other people's misery. In fact, they cause even more misery by denying people access to the care they need. Having to spend that much money to support insurance company shareholders and CEOs is a total waste. They don't input enough into the system to justify their compensation. It is robbery. I say get rid of the insurance industry altogether and we'll save a few percent of our GNP right off the top.
I highly recommend this article about Canadian Health care.
http://tinyurl.com/2gpm64
Imagine what we could to with our national health care system given that we spend so much more than Canada (15% of our GNP). We can certainly make a better system than all of those other countries. We're Americans!
Again, sorry for the disjointedness of this post. I have pretty strong feelings about this even though I suspect that I would make less in a single-payer system.
Oh, one more thing. Our big companies are getting killed with health care costs and it is hurting our economy. Car companies can build cars for cheaper in Canada, largely because they don't have to pay for their employees' health care.
You two need to get a room!
Wow, this is great! I'm so glad I asked, and I am not being sarcastic. I'm sorry, but I'm just going to read these great comments and file them away in my own judgment and not make a further comment here as I don't feel I have anything more to offer. So, thanks!
OK, I'm jumping in (and putting on my flame proof suit).
I take issue with this:
"He has been made to answer for things that his religious leaders have said while all the white candidates get a pass on what their religious allies are saying."
Can you give me an example of where Hillary or McCain's religious leaders have said 'G*d d@mn America'? Or that 'the white man gets Blacks hooked on drugs, builds more jails, invents the 3 strikes law just to get rid of the black man'? I'm sorry but if my religious leader said ANY of the inflammatory, untrue things that Barack's religious mentor and 'friend' said I would not set foot in that church again. ~Janet
John McCain actively sought the endorsement of John Hagee, who argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. In the best-selling book, Hagee insists that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West.
I'm sorry, that is just scary.
As far as your question as to why Obama continues to count Wright as "family", I'll let Barack answer:
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."
I recognize that that explanation might be too nuanced for today's political environment. His statement challenges us to not think so dichotomously. I think his approach to this issue shows how Obama will be a uniter as president. The us-versus-them mentality of the past 2 presidential terms have not served us well. (Freedom fries, anyone?)
Here's one more thing about Wright if you'd like more context than what you get from a few clipped sound bites:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88552254
While I don't agree with most of the crazier things Wright has said, I will vigorously defend his right to criticize his country and the right of his critics to denounce him for it. Many of the great advances in American history have come because of people who called on America to be better. If what he says is wrong, then we can say, "I disagree" and move on. If what he says is right, we can make changes for the better. It's a win-win situation. Why are we so afraid of it?
I don't know... Maybe I have more empathy for Barack on this issue because if I rejected every loved one with whom I have a profound religious or political difference, I would be a sad and lonely person.
Ryan,
As another physician (who happened to go to your high school), I think you have it about exactly right. The record-setting 15.3% of our GDP we spent on healthcare in 2007 because we insist on using private insurance companies is criminal, and a terribly expensive habit. In fact, it is almost as bad and expensive as warmongering in the middle east.
I also really appreciate your comments about Obama. It is especially refreshing to see how similar my worldview is to yours (and, it turns out, Dave's). I think he (Obama) is the most inspiring and hopeful politician in my lifetime.
I wonder if it is all due to Craig Glover's influence....
Wow, Craig Glover...
I haven't thought of him in years, but I think you may be onto something. Dr. Laura could hold him up as evidence of the evils of public schooling, seeing how we all apparently turned into pinko liberals. :)
I'm so confused... how can two guys in the medical field want to be controlled by the government's system.
Also, are you two refusing to treat people that don't have insurance?
--Beej
We are spending more money for less care. That's what the current, for-profit system gets us.
You have to remember that doctors already deal with government care. It's called Medicare and while there are frustrations (like them trying to cut our reimbursement 5% every year), I'm not aware of people going without the care they need. I know many cases where people delay treatment until it's too late because they don't have insurance.
As far as control, it's either control by a government that we have some control over, or control by a for-profit corporation. And as I have mentioned before, even if single-payer government care did cost us a significant amount of money, it would be worth it for the benefit to society.
There are doctors who hate the idea of socialized care. But I would say that a majority of the physicians that I have talked to about this are in favor of universal health care. I think this is especially true of the younger doctors.
I think the reason people have such different ideas about universal care is that it is not possible to put a monetary value on some of the benefits of that care. What is it worth to know that your financial health isn't at the mercy of your physical health? What is the value of knowing that you aren't chained to a job because of the insurance coverage you get?
The University of Iowa gives all of their resident physicians universal care. There are no premiums, co-pays, deductibles, anything. We got a couple of bills by mistake and we just had to take them to the resident office. I can't overstate how much that contributed to our sense of well being while we lived there. We could concentrate on caring for Simon and didn't have to wonder whether we should use his $50/dose medication less often so we could afford food. We didn't hesitate to take him to the hospital when he started vomiting bile with a bowel obstruction. People in our current system are faced with that impossible dilemma every day. Do I get the care I need, or do I go into denial about that skin tumor because I can't afford a visit to the hospital. We too frequently see the results of delayed care and it is tragic.
We evaluate every specimen that comes to us without thought as to whether the bill will be paid. So we do write off some bills. Intermountain Healthcare has a similar policy. So people without insurance do get care that they need in our community. But seeking that care requires people to accept charity and to feel some humiliation to get care. Even though there is a hospital that has explicitly said they will treat uninsured patients, people still delay getting the care they need.
Post a Comment