Thomas Sowell's republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial:
Gives me the impression of revisionist history. Where Mr. Sowell does speak to the issues he has to apply the wrong lessons of history to Senator Obama's quite historic campaign. Instead of applauding a self-made African-American advancing far enough to run a credible campaign on the Democratic side, he has to try to tear him down on snippets of history that associate Obama to Chamberlain meeting with Adolph Hitler during the 1930s. Chamberlain? Oh he was that Brit envoy that talked "peace in our time" in the face of Nazi Germany taking by countries all of Europe before we officially entered World War 11. So, trying to equate Chamberlain to Obama becomes quite a farcical stretch considering that Obama knows all about our enemies and also knows the advantage of talking to them. That by talking to them (not on a presumption of "peace in our time") we may with time negotiate a truce with them, perhaps even an alliance with them against common foes. Such common foes as international Jihadists that can threaten any nation. Trudy Rubin spoke of that herself in a recent republished column, also to the Spokesman-Review. What Sowell didn't make note of, was that even though the late President Ronald Reagan did build up the arms race in the face of the Soviet menace; he wasn't opposed to talking to the supreme government of that Soviet menace. Unlike GW today, who won't even talk to his "friends" if they P.O.ed him off on his agenda. IE having a different view gvt by gvt a foreign policy view that differs from his own Whether it involves the Kyoto treaty, trade deals and the Iraq war. As a consequence, GW has managed to create the wrong sort of enemies--vis a vis Iraq. The wrong sorts of "friends"--vis a vis the Global War on Terror. Maintained trading alliances that have proven dangerous to the immediate welfare of the American people and the future of this nation. But of course, Sowell doesn't plan to mention that sort of 8 year history. Because, after all, to mention it would put Obama into quite a departure from all that had gone wrong with the present Republican administration.
Isn't it lovely to blame "liberal politicians" for soaring crime rates? The GOP in the 80s were happy to do that, but their "tough love" in response to crime may have built and filled more jails, but it didn't end the crime rate. Their social engineering on "family values" did not return a Utopian society in which the ideal family reigned universally. Instead, as though in response to "conservative politicians" crime rates now existing guarantee that our schools have become as much a part of the mean streets as any "'hoods" carved up by criminal gangs. Walk into a public school and walk in to and maybe not survive a school shooting. School shootings that have struck any school from Columbine to Virginia Tech. Republicans have sought to gain dominance as the political party. They did so on the basis of being the 1. Law and order party, 2. Party of God, 3. Party of family values, 4. Party of national defense, 5. Party of personal responsibility. Yet for all of what the GOP have chosen to stand for, this nation now sees crime rates in areas where back in the 1960s, crime rates had not existed; our schools. Even though we most assuredly had riots in the 60s and 70s, and those riots I have good cause to remember well, the cause of them should be well known to anyone who cares to research the history of this country. Apparently, one must blame "liberal politicians" for riots but not say the rage of minorities against the system and against what they perceived as injustice. That African-Americans rioted in the aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination, yes; and Sowell just managed to leave that out. "Liberal politicians" were to blame for racists engaging in cold blooded murder? "Liberal politicians" were to blame for "Jim Crow" laws that would make an unknown Reverend come to prominence on the national stage? Actually, "liberal politicians" did a lot to put another African-American, Thomas Sowell into a well-placed position, I am sure, at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.
As a Republican who happens to believe in limited gvt and personal responsibility, you can't blame "liberal politicians" for promising the moon and delivering at least half of it in the face of what they see going wrong in this country. In his time, the late president John F. Kennedy not only promised the moon, he was also instrumental in putting together NASA that would get us ultimately to the moon and back again. Without Kennedy, your cell-phone would not now be possible. Without Kennedy, tracking hurricanes would not now be possible. Without Kennedy, being able to spy on the enemy would not now be possible. And Kennedy was a liberal politician.
So, while Sowell is tearing down the "liberal politician" for all that he sees as wrong in this society today, the "liberal politician" is not now the "liberal politician" of the 1960s to the 1970s. Either they are the big gvt Democrats who will promise the moon in the way of hand outs to the poor, or the minorities, the sick, the elderly and provide comfort to illegal aliens. Or they are going to be big gvt. GOP who give hand outs to the radically religious, business interests and guarantee that jobs go to illegal aliens on the behalf of those same business interests. Both parties are in their majority "liberal politicians" who are very generous to the "base" at the expense of the rest of us. But while the Dems only want to tax you now, the GOP wants to tax your grandchildren. So, on the basis of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, where are you better off? Too bad that Sowell can only see history through the narrowest of keyholes.
Obama offers change for the worse
Gives me the impression of revisionist history. Where Mr. Sowell does speak to the issues he has to apply the wrong lessons of history to Senator Obama's quite historic campaign. Instead of applauding a self-made African-American advancing far enough to run a credible campaign on the Democratic side, he has to try to tear him down on snippets of history that associate Obama to Chamberlain meeting with Adolph Hitler during the 1930s. Chamberlain? Oh he was that Brit envoy that talked "peace in our time" in the face of Nazi Germany taking by countries all of Europe before we officially entered World War 11. So, trying to equate Chamberlain to Obama becomes quite a farcical stretch considering that Obama knows all about our enemies and also knows the advantage of talking to them. That by talking to them (not on a presumption of "peace in our time") we may with time negotiate a truce with them, perhaps even an alliance with them against common foes. Such common foes as international Jihadists that can threaten any nation. Trudy Rubin spoke of that herself in a recent republished column, also to the Spokesman-Review. What Sowell didn't make note of, was that even though the late President Ronald Reagan did build up the arms race in the face of the Soviet menace; he wasn't opposed to talking to the supreme government of that Soviet menace. Unlike GW today, who won't even talk to his "friends" if they P.O.ed him off on his agenda. IE having a different view gvt by gvt a foreign policy view that differs from his own Whether it involves the Kyoto treaty, trade deals and the Iraq war. As a consequence, GW has managed to create the wrong sort of enemies--vis a vis Iraq. The wrong sorts of "friends"--vis a vis the Global War on Terror. Maintained trading alliances that have proven dangerous to the immediate welfare of the American people and the future of this nation. But of course, Sowell doesn't plan to mention that sort of 8 year history. Because, after all, to mention it would put Obama into quite a departure from all that had gone wrong with the present Republican administration.
Isn't it lovely to blame "liberal politicians" for soaring crime rates? The GOP in the 80s were happy to do that, but their "tough love" in response to crime may have built and filled more jails, but it didn't end the crime rate. Their social engineering on "family values" did not return a Utopian society in which the ideal family reigned universally. Instead, as though in response to "conservative politicians" crime rates now existing guarantee that our schools have become as much a part of the mean streets as any "'hoods" carved up by criminal gangs. Walk into a public school and walk in to and maybe not survive a school shooting. School shootings that have struck any school from Columbine to Virginia Tech. Republicans have sought to gain dominance as the political party. They did so on the basis of being the 1. Law and order party, 2. Party of God, 3. Party of family values, 4. Party of national defense, 5. Party of personal responsibility. Yet for all of what the GOP have chosen to stand for, this nation now sees crime rates in areas where back in the 1960s, crime rates had not existed; our schools. Even though we most assuredly had riots in the 60s and 70s, and those riots I have good cause to remember well, the cause of them should be well known to anyone who cares to research the history of this country. Apparently, one must blame "liberal politicians" for riots but not say the rage of minorities against the system and against what they perceived as injustice. That African-Americans rioted in the aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination, yes; and Sowell just managed to leave that out. "Liberal politicians" were to blame for racists engaging in cold blooded murder? "Liberal politicians" were to blame for "Jim Crow" laws that would make an unknown Reverend come to prominence on the national stage? Actually, "liberal politicians" did a lot to put another African-American, Thomas Sowell into a well-placed position, I am sure, at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.
As a Republican who happens to believe in limited gvt and personal responsibility, you can't blame "liberal politicians" for promising the moon and delivering at least half of it in the face of what they see going wrong in this country. In his time, the late president John F. Kennedy not only promised the moon, he was also instrumental in putting together NASA that would get us ultimately to the moon and back again. Without Kennedy, your cell-phone would not now be possible. Without Kennedy, tracking hurricanes would not now be possible. Without Kennedy, being able to spy on the enemy would not now be possible. And Kennedy was a liberal politician.
So, while Sowell is tearing down the "liberal politician" for all that he sees as wrong in this society today, the "liberal politician" is not now the "liberal politician" of the 1960s to the 1970s. Either they are the big gvt Democrats who will promise the moon in the way of hand outs to the poor, or the minorities, the sick, the elderly and provide comfort to illegal aliens. Or they are going to be big gvt. GOP who give hand outs to the radically religious, business interests and guarantee that jobs go to illegal aliens on the behalf of those same business interests. Both parties are in their majority "liberal politicians" who are very generous to the "base" at the expense of the rest of us. But while the Dems only want to tax you now, the GOP wants to tax your grandchildren. So, on the basis of 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, where are you better off? Too bad that Sowell can only see history through the narrowest of keyholes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment