By your own argument, we can disregard Obama's use of terms like "collective" and "nationalized" as simply "semantic" applications of out-dated phrases, right? His insistence that the good of "society" outweighs" the good of the "individual" isn't SOCIALISM, it's simply the rational application of an obsolete definition of a political ideology.
If I am going to hold the Obama camp accountable for the terms and phrases they use to describe policy and planning that will be implemented should Barack become President, why wouldn't I hold McCain accountable for the same thing? ESPECIALLY since it was Big John that told the American people everyone should read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith during the Republican debates... sheesh.
My friend, I am CONVINCED that the quickest way to determine the difference between these two candidates is by looking at what they SAY NOW and compare it to how they have acted in the past. Barack Obama has a proven and indisputably LIBERAL track record in his 3 short years in the Senate, and prior to that, everything points to a very left-leaning ideology... thus I feel that his use of such words as "collective good" and "needs of the society" are, indeed, socialist in nature and foundation. Government solutions to every problem under the sun can only be achieved by greater Governmental control of every aspect of our individual lives... something I KNOW you aren't going to argue with, and my single, biggest beef with Barack.
Yet, when the "Straight-Talk Express" comes around and promises the re-institution of "free market principals" into the American economy, I am forced to ask "When did we LAST have free market principals as the basis for our economy?" By his very words and actions, he has FOUGHT free-market principals for much of his tenure in the Senate, and is STILL reluctant to vote for the crisis resolution now on the table because it DOESN'T have enough Government control.
Thus, according to your argument that "semantics" is simply too much attention to trivial details on my part, Obama is the "straight talker" in this election, and if I were going to cast my vote for the candidate that SAID what he was going to DO, rather than saying whatever will get him elected... I'd have to vote for Obama.
In short, Obama is PROMISING to continue his past course of action into the White House, should he win, while McCain is promising to "change" his ways. This is the ONLY conclusion I can draw from listening to the two camps discuss national financial issues, but a more stringent adherence to ACCURATE use of political terms and phrases would eliminate this "interpretive" need you seem to be advocating in continuing through with the misuse and misapplication of well-established and VERY well-defined language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Lord ... do what you like. I just think this is maybe to being too clever by half, at least in ore political reality. The "inferences" regarding Obama lend itself to further discrediting him in my opinion, for when he says "be my brother's keeper" I, as an informed listener, KNOW to translate that into "higher taxes, socialism, etc." That was my only point - that we all, with a wink and a nod, know what the inferences are surrounding the modern political speak. If the fact that the wink and the nods and implied qualifiers are distracting and ill serve the less informed (or occasional listener) or simply annoy you, then fine. I have no quarrel with that opinion/observation, and would even agree. It just doesn't seem to bother me as much, I've just accepted this is the verbal world in which we live. And you are going to find yourself "annoyed" for many years, for this is the benign coded language in which politicians will continue to speak. But like I said, I have no quarrel with your observation that more accurate language (thus argum,nts) would better serve the national discourse, I just think we won't see the day (anytime soon) in which elected officials speak as accurately or bluntly as pundints (be they Limbaugh, Brit Hume or bloggers like ourselves). So I'll go on decoding words post debate - hell 90% of the talking heads better hope the status verbal quo stays in place - otherwise whom would need their post debate decoding, translating and analysis!? He, he ...
I guess I'll ocnsider this thread "closed" then...
I understand your point, and I always have... but your "decoding" efforts always seem to end with the efforts made on behalf of YOUR favored party, while you insist on a "literal" interpretation of everyone else's statements.
I'd simply rather hold EVERYONE to the same standard.
Post a Comment