Thursday, January 13, 2011

Is Obama Right to Quiet Debate?

By Lawrence Davidson
January 13, 2011

There are two groups responsible for last Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson Arizona.

Read on.


JonnyJames said...

This article digs a bit deeper than many and points out some important factors.

Mr. Davidson roughly classifies our D leadership as center/liberal. Of course this can be very subjective. If one goes to and take the test based on the policies of Dem. Congress and Obama WH in the last two years, the result is that they come out very clearly in the upper-right quadrant: neo-liberal (pro-business) economically and solidly authoritarian on the state control level.

Obama et al. are right there with Ronny Reagan, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Maggie Thatcher and almost but not quite with Cheney/Bush. The differences are largely superficial.

In our political spectrum the only choices offered by the Corporate Media and the BigMoneyCampaign system is between a pro-business authoritarian, or another pro-business authoritarian with more sophisticated rhetoric.

rosemerry said...

I agree with your points. It is breathtaking to note in Palin's speech that she claims criminals are responsible alone for their own acts; there is no reason to blame anyone but the criminal. By this "reasoning" she would be unknown, as nobody is influenced by public figures.
I find Obama, and former Dems, much too passive, and Obama seems to lack any passion or care about any issue. War crimes cannot be swept under the carpet, but Obama now is committing his own, so it is too late.

James Young said...

What a self-serving, sanctimonious re-write of history! You aren't even self-aware enough to recognize the gall in citation of the "magnanimous words of other Democratic leaders, such as Al Gore’s concession speech in 2000 after George W. Bush muscled his way to a presidential election 'victory.'"

It makes no sense at all to try to have a dialogue with the delusional.

Ethan Allen said...

I think professor Davidson's take on the ostensible "responsibility" for the violence is cogent and definitely a reasonable step in the direction of understanding both the cause of our society's complacent and sometimes indifferent tolerance of jingoism and the general effect that such hyperbolic behavior can have on those who are not taught the virtues of reason; especially the more easily impressionable youth.
However, it is far too declarative, and indeed simplistic, to claim that only "..two groups.." bear responsibility.
It is my contention that the dissembling and pejoritive rhetoric that passes for political discourse in our society is symptomatic of a greater and more pervasive subjugation of reason by those who are themselves products of a prevailing system of education that allows dogmatic and subjective beliefs to dictate the paths of rational reason. This is a dangerous reversal of the basic logic of any educational philosophy. Such fealty to dogmatistic belief can not serve any purpose of educated reason, and human history is replete with evidence of this fact. If our progeny are to inherit the "more perfect union" that our forbears envisioned, then it behoves us to provide them with the intellectual tools to develop an unadulterated power of reason.
Who amongst us wants our sons and daughters to have to live their lives without a sense of reason to be able to discern between the charlatans and the truthsayers?