I have to admit, the theatrics surrounding Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech this past Thursday were impressive. Yes, his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency is truly history making however; as an independent voter, I am under no obligation to see that we make history this November by electing Senator Obama solely to prove to ourselves as a nation, or to the world at large, that the United States has moved beyond the racial hatred of our past. Indeed, I have found it disturbing to hear the murmurings that have begun to surface on the web, as well as oratorically, expounding the view that if his election falls short, we as a nation will have proven that we cannot rise above the racial miasma of our historical past. I am not naive, some amongst us, unable to escape the narrowness of their racial viewpoints, will not vote for Obama but; is it unreasonable to question whether or not the overwhelming black vote for Obama is also somewhat accountable for the possible racial narrowness of their vote? Hopefully, the electorate votes on the issues at hand and on their personal definition of just what "change" means.
I listened to Senator Obama's speech live and then listened to it another two times on the web where I was able to pause his delivery, take notes, and move on. In my opinion, if one subtracts from their consciousness the skill of Obama's oratorical delivery, and then dissects the meaning of his sentence structures, and paragraph themes, it is easy to come to the conclusion that there is really nothing new going on here. It seems to me that Senator Obama seeks to realize the social goals of former President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". The over-arching themes of Obama's speech were big government, big spending, and wealth redistribution. I heard only fleeting comments urging Americans to strive for ideals such as, self-reliance, personal responsibility, or regardless of political views, a humane social code of conduct. I wanted to believe him when he ascribed to a "new" type of political interaction however; after listening to his acceptance speech, as well as his choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that he is no different from the big government politicians of the 1960s.
Our nation remains philosophically divided. This division of thought is not new. President Andrew Jackson came to Washington with these very divisions simmering throughout the land. East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, and urban versus rural life, are just a few of the issues which still separate us. These differences should be celebrated for we are the only nation, with the exception of the Civil War, which peacefully settles these issues every four years. That said, given the desire, it is every citizen's right, if not responsibility, to give voice to his or her opinions on national issues. In doing so, it is paramount that each citizen battles in a civil fashion and utilizes only facts for weaponry.
Senator Obama has marketed himself as an agent of change. According to him, his candidacy represents a new form of politics in America. I beg to differ with him. Senator Joseph Biden came to the Senate in 1973. His voting record is readily available for public purview. According to the website; http://www.ontheissues.org/ Joe Biden is a typical standard bearing liberal democrat. Personally, I like Joe Biden. His in your face attitude is often fun to watch however; we diverge on almost every political issue. He is pro civil rights and yet he is, for all intensive purposes, in opposition to the 2nd Amendment. How can this be? After all, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are all civil rights not extended to governmental restriction. Senator Biden supports almost every social issue contained within the vision of President Johnson's "Great Society". Senator Biden rarely crosses the aisle so I fail to see how, if elected, his views would enlighten President-elect Obama's desire to work in a bipartisan manner. Let no one be deceived, Senator Obama realizes that if elected, he will have an unobstructed path to achieve his social goals. Republicans will be unable to stop him with legislation or override any of his vetoes. By all means, if you want big government, big budgets with earmarks, social restructuring based on the lifestyles of the East and West coasts, then you must vote for the Obama-Biden ticket however; you also need to be honest with yourself. You are not voting for change, you are seeking the total acquisition of political power. Mind you, I'm not complaining, I'm just fatigued with all of the fallacious hype attempting to obscure the real goals of the Democratic Party. All of us should be honest with one another.
The preceding paragraph highlights the reasons why the liberal establishment has had such an acrimonious reaction to Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. They have wasted no time in their attempts to belittle or destroy her. If you doubt me, I ask that you read the piece written on August 31, 2008, by Maureen Dowd of the NY Times. The title of her editorial says it all: "Vice in Go-Go Boots". I find it humorous that the feminist movement as represented by the likes of Maureen Dowd, is so afraid of Sarah Palin. How dare the governor of Alaska be pro-life, mother of 5, pro-gun, republican, and anti big government to boot! Doesn't she realize that feminists have a requisite socio-political template that they must adhere to! Sarah Palin has made a living cleaning up corruption at the state level in the Republican Party. If you doubt my assertions, simply go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin . The democrats have longed planned to run against the personal and fiscal corruption of the republicans in 2008. Sarah Palin's arrival on the scene has thrown a massive monkey wrench into their plans. Palin is the standard bearer of East versus West, financial elitism versus manual labor, small town versus big city, and even though I do not concur with the subliminal meaning of the word, "progressive", progressive versus historically long standing family values. Like her or not, she has changed the landscape of the presidential race. Unlike Obama, it is McCain who has thought outside the box.
At the end of the day, we all vote for the ticket which most closely aligns itself to our personal system of individual and civil values. Voting is an inherently selfish activity and there is nothing wrong with that. All I ask is, don't tread on me and I will attempt to not tread on you. The great thing about our nation is that every four years we get to fight these same battles once again. Unlike some, I know that our ability to argue amongst ourselves at a national level in a peaceful manner, is our greatest strength. Nobody, republican or democrat, will ever get my vote just because they market themselves as a new model. After all, as Senator Obama has himself noted, words matter. As for me, I'll be voting for the ticket which most closely represents the values I hold myself accountable to.
De Oppresso Liber
