Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Cynicism and the Obama campaign (15 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    Everyone used to say that Hillary was "the chosen candidate," pre-approved by the elite string-pullers. And now that Obama is a viable competitor, or even a leader, we are supposed to be cynical of him as well?

    Sure I'm skeptical, but I'm exhausted and I think we deserve to feel good about this development. Obama is better than Hillary and both are better than what we've got. I'd rather continue with our radical activism against an Obama government than a McCain one.

    Obama may have Zbig and other scary people supporting him, but that doesn't disqualify his authenticity. He's establishment, obviously if he got this far. But maybe he's got a more radical side that he's hiding until elected. He's got good credentials on the environment, healthcare, etc. so why not be just be a little bit heartened by his campaign?

    http://www.oilempire.us/obama.html

    Obama campaigned for the odious Senator Lieberman over his more liberal challenger Ned Lamont

    That's pretty bad, I do admit.

    Strange that the other rising young black star politician, Cory Booker, also supported Lieberman.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    I've heard that Clinton would have to win 55% of the delegates in all the remaining states in order be in the lead and that this is nearly impossible. She does however have more superdelegates and might, with some heavy lobbying, be able to take the nomination despite the fact that Obama will have the popular vote.

    Many are saying that this would cause major ill will toward the democratic party, alienating the democratic base, independents, and republicans who have been voting for Democratic candidates. From what I understand the Hilary camp thinks they can get away with this if the margin of delegates in Obama's favor is about 30 or less. Meaning she's still willing to undo the popular will in an election year with unprecedented turnout.

    However, the party is more concerned about who can go up against McCain. First of all, in a recent poll Obama had a 3 point lead against McCain while Clinton was about even. But then again, POW McCain just voted against anti-torture legislation with bipartisan support, if you can believe it, and I don't think he's got a shot either way. The endorsement by Bush doesn't help either.

    Obama is not a liberal. But that fact is his best hope for winning the election, and signifies the possibility that he might be able to draw bipartisan support for legislation that we badly need in this country. All the anti-establishment folk will always be critical of whomever is leading. We all agree that Obama isn't going to be able to greatly alter the morally corrupt nature of this system. But as you imply above, it might be psychologically healthy to be thankful on occasion that things aren't a lot worse than they are.

    Obama is a LOT better than Clinton. And McCain is a LOT worse than either of the Democratic candidates.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    There is also talk that she may go after the delegates from Florida and Michigan - claiming that (despite the boycott agreed-up by all the candidates) their delegates must count.

    I don't know about you - but i'll be damned pissed if Florida is at the center of yet again playing the spoiler in yet another national election.

    call me a misty-eyed idealist - but i do support Obama.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. mark
    Member

    Actually, his environmental position is terrible.

    He is pro-nuclear, pro-coal.

    He doesn't support cutting the Bush military budget.

    One of his key economic advisors is in Skull and Bones.

    Ha ha, joke's on us, again.

    www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics...

    Nuclear plants become a factor in elections

    Democrats soften their stances on traditionally GOP-backed solution

    08:58 AM CST on Sunday, January 27, 2008

    By ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News

    Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an energy option.

    http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&fil...

    January 5, 2007

    "U.S. Senators Jim Bunning (R-KY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced the "Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007." This bipartisan piece of legislation is based on the bill first introduced by Senators Bunning and Obama last spring and would help create the infrastructure needed for large-scale production of Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) fuel. It is a comprehensive bill that expands tax incentives, creates planning assistance, and develops Department of Defense support for the domestic CTL industry. "

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    John,

    Yeah, the Michigan/Florida issue is a total nightmare waiting to happen.

    First, for those not following this so closely, the Michigan and Florida Democratic leadership decide to move up their primaries AFTER they are made to understand that the DNC will not allow their delegates to be counted as a result. That's the big mystery to me. They moved up their primaries so that they would matter more while knowing that would prevent them from mattering at all. Did I miss something?

    Then all the candidates have to sign a pledge that they will not campaign in those states and will not put their names on the ballot.

    Then Clinton keeps her name on the Michigan ballot after Obama removes his and yet claims victory.

    Then Michigan, Florida, and the Clinton camp falling behind, decide to make a stink and start calling for the delegates in those states to be counted, making the party look indecisive and divided.

    Now, Nancy Pelosi has stated that it would not be appropriate for the delegates in those states to determine the outcome of the election.

    The scandal goes on...

    As you suggest, if it all comes down to Florida again, I'm going to go nuts. I'm pissed the voters down there have been disenfranchised yet again, but they can't make a call and then ask to take it back later. If its wrong now it was wrong then.


    Mark,

    Obama's position on energy is one of my biggest problems with him. No one supports nuclear energy unless they are ecologically naive, or being influence by the industry. And coal is a total nightmare. So many politicians are acting like the only problem with petroleum is that it makes us dependent upon other countries. They propose that we need energy independence but not that we need to protect our environment. Saudi Arabia, bad. Radioaction waste and strip mining, whatever.

    Obama is not going to steer our country off its suicidal path. He might help provide a bit of morphine to make the plunge a bit less frightening. So we get better health care to deal with how much they are poisoning us.

    And yet...its still a step in the right direction. A step away from Bush.

    Although, maybe a part of what Bush really succeeded at doing was pushing our expectation of the right so far over that fascists look liberal to us now.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    He's got good credentials on the environment, healthcare, etc.

    Yeah, I'll admit that I just read this in a couple places (like here: Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/04/griscom-... ), and don't actually know that much about his stated policies.

    I'm just kind of sick of being cynical of everything and I think we do need to recognize differences between those within the establishment. It will be interesting to see what a supposed "liberal" black president does in office. It won't be very interesting to see what McCain or Hillary would do in office.

    Yes, the environmental collapse (or another "terrorist attack") will probably nullify a lot of the small differences between these capitalist candidates, but I want to at least say, I'm glad Obama is ahead and not Hillary. And I hope it's not just false hope, but realism.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    Obama campaigned for Senator Lieberman's re-election and wants more nukes and more coal. Can we vote for the speechwriters and not the candidate?

    The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. -- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time (one of Bill Clinton's teachers)

    www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_b... BEYOND BUSH by Michael Ruppert

    July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW) -- Let's just suppose for a moment that George W. Bush was removed from the White House. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What would that leave us with? It would leave us stuck in hugely expensive, Vietnam-like guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and Total Information Awareness snooping into every detail of our lives.

    It would leave us with a government in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. It would leave us with a massive cover-up of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 that, if fully admitted, would show not intelligence "failures" but intelligence crimes, approved and ordered by the most powerful people in the country. It would leave us with a government that now has the power to compel mass vaccinations on pain of imprisonment or fine, and with no legal ability to sue the vaccine makers who killed our friends or our children. It would leave us with two and half million unemployed; the largest budget deficits in history; more than $3.3 trillion missing from the Department of Defense; and state and local governments broke to the point of having to cut back essential services like sewers, police, and fire. It would leave us with a federal government that had hit the debt ceiling and was unable to borrow any more money. And we would still be facing a looming natural gas crisis of unimagined proportions, and living on a planet that is slowly realizing that it is running out of oil with no "Plan B". Our airports however, would be very safe, and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and DynCorp would be paying excellent dividends.

    This is not good management.

    Leaving all of these issues unaddressed is not good management either.

    And this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article, the decision has already been made by corporate and financial powers to remove George W. Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself three questions: "If there is someone or something that can decide that Bush will not return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him there in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's really responsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors". Who are they? Are they going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them?

    What can change this Board of Directors and the way the "Corporation" protects its interests? These are the only issues that matter.

    So now the honest question about the 2004 Presidential campaign is, "What do you really want out of it?" Do you want the illusion that everything is a little better while it really gets worse? Or are you ready yet to roll up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant but necessary fixes?

    The greatest test of the 2004 presidential election campaign is not with the candidates. It is with the people. There are strong signs that presidential election issues on the Democratic side are already being manipulated by corporate and financial interests. And some naïve and well-intentioned (and some not-so-naïve and not-so-well intentioned) activists are already playing right into the Board's hands. There are many disturbing signs that the only choice offered to the American people will be no choice at all. Under the psychological rationale, "This is the way it has to be done", campaign debates will likely address only half-truths and fail to come to grips with - or even acknowledge - the most important issues that I just described. In fact, only the least important issues will likely be addressed in campaign 2004 at the usual expense of future generations who are rapidly realizing that they are about to become the victims of the biggest Holocaust in mankind's history. The final platforms for Election 2004 will likely be manifestos of madness unless we dictate differently.

    Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be attempted again?

    And has everyone also forgotten that in the 2002 midterm elections the proprietary voting software, in many cases owned by those affiliated with the Republican Party or - as in the case of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - the candidates themselves, has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be immune from public inspection. (Hagel won by a lopsided 83% majority). Throughout the United States in 2002 there was abundant evidence that the so-called "solution" to hanging chads did nothing more than enshrine the ability to steal elections with immunity and also much less fuss afterwards? Who in their right mind would trust such a system? Why have none of the candidates mentioned it?

    And, if all else fails, we can have more Wellstone plane crashes. It has worked with three Democratic Senate candidates in key races over the last thirty years. Maybe that's why no one in Congress is talking about the election process. Plane crashes are part of that process too.

    Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and betrayals of trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there is no chance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that things will get worse. ....

    There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yeah, the more I think about this, the more it does seem like appeasement. There are a hell of a lot of enraged, depressed, and desperate people in this country who have been suffering through the Bush years. These people have been getting increasingly organized and visible. Many of them feel like they don't have anything to lose or any hope left in "the system." If I was a fascist strategist, I would probably plan to take some wind out of these people's sails by giving them a reason to be "hopeful." Even temporarily, even if Obama doesn't become president, his current prominence may serve to pacify otherwise outraged and active citizens.

    This doesn't all have to be consciously conspiratorial either; it could be a combination including collective unconscious needs/desires to blow off pressure, rationalize inaction, and remain asleep.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. truthmover
    Administrator

    The following is not a critique of Obama but an attempt to get past the hype with an examination of the records of Clinton and Obama. If you don't feel like you know much about what these candidates have done while in office I recommend it. The author makes clear that while both candidates have demonstrated a commitment to similar concerns, that Obama has simply done more to accomplish his goals.

    "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype" http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807...

    And for anyone who thinks Obama has lost his connection to the Black community, I recommend the following.

    "Barack Obama in Beaumont, TX" - Addressing education in a Black community. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Am I really going to vote for Obama in November? I don't know. Will McKinney be on the ballot? Will I see a point in voting for her, if she forefronts 9/11 truth?

    This is likely to be an eventful year - how will things break in terms of exposures of the Bush regime, Iraq and the always simmering Iran confrontation, and the likely financial armaggedon? How will Obama react to each?

    I certainly refuse to buy the hype - I am merely considering the merits of lesser-evilism. (The last Democratic presidential candidate I voted for was Walter Mondale. The last presidential candidate was Nader in 2000, though I might have gone with Kerry in '04 for the purpose of turning the 9/11 perps into ordinary, indictable citizens. Except by circumstance as I was far away from New York that day - which of course did not go for Bush.)

    Here was my take on the election circus from "Super Tuesday" at DemocraticUnderground, a time when Clinton still looked like a 50-50 and on a site where you are not allowed to say you might not vote for the Democratic candidate in the general, hence the cautious phrasing.


    A Sighing Endorsement for Obama

    It’s axiomatic--and tragic--that our democracy is far less “one-person, one vote” than “one-dollar, one vote.”

    The acceptable issues and the very narrow bounds of debate are defined by the money of the ruling class, the corporate media, and the weight of historic ideologies. Well in advance of anyone getting to cast a vote, the money and the media choose the “viable” candidates within the party duopoly, which retains an iron hold over nearly all offices. But in observing the Presidential dramas since 1976, I have never seen one as completely pre-arranged as this one, with controlled players in each of the usual roles years in advance. It’s like watching the perfection of a system, which may be a good thing since in human affairs perfection often indicates a coming upheaval.

    Obama was conjured out of nowhere and declared as the only possible alternative to Clinton on the Democratic side. The money and the media and the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski fell in line to guarantee it, more than a year before anyone could vote. He did not use any of the usual catapults out of obscurity. He did not have national base, a long career as a politician, a single-issue focus, or a role in a defining event. The unprecedented way he just appeared overnight indicates some deal or set of deals, to which we are not yet privy, must have been cut. At the least it indicates he has been judged as safe for the status quo arrangements of power.

    And yet he offers the last sad glimmer of hope that anything the least unpredictable might happen once the election is done.

    A frontrunner always generates an “anything-but” opponent. This goes double for a frontrunner with the baggage of the Clinton name. If Obama had not been set up as the alternative to Clinton from the start, someone more genuine, someone who had more to offer than empty promises of “Change” and “Hope” might have arisen to take on that mantle. But I doubt Edwards was that more genuine contender. With hindsight, his role also appears arranged: he talked like the real thing, but in the end he merely ate up the oxygen that might have gone to a potential left insurgency. (There's almost never really a danger of a left insurgency in U.S. politics, but the mind of the ruling class remains forever scarred by the Sixties, and tends to exaggerate the possibilities.)

    Let’s look at what Edwards actually did: His voting record and reliability in enabling the Bush agenda are indistinguishable from Clinton’s. In running against his own record, he is necessarily full of shit. But at least he says the right things about corporatism and to a lesser extent the occupation, unlike any of the other "allowable" frontrunners. Yet after stirring the pot with class-war rhetoric, he drops out just before most people get a chance to vote for him! Does anyone doubt he would have polled 15 percent and more in today’s contests, picking up a similar proportion of delegates, perhaps becoming the kingmaker at the convention? Instead, he denies a voice to the people stirred by the issues he promoted. In his farewell, he laughably says he is glad that Obama and Clinton have now adopted his concerns for workers and the poor. (!) This a betrayal. Edwards mobilized the left in a safe, predictable way, then dumped them suddenly, leaving no choice but Obama, Clinton, or irrelevancy.

    The role of Ron Paul on the Republican side is similar, in that he marshalls a potential insurgency in an ultimately harmless fashion. But Paul presents a number of paradoxes. The only remaining principled stance against the Iraq occupation and imperialism (other than Gravel!) is coupled with the same free-market delusions that drive imperialism. The only direct challenge to the power of capital (at any rate, “bankers” ) comes with a fatally fantastic view of economic history. The one guy who wants to end the drug war and roll back USA PATRIOT also wants a wall on the southern border, and fails to see that his idea of an immigration policy necessitates the very same biometric, REAL-ID police state that he ostensibly opposes. Add semi-medieval positions on abortion and gay rights, and a view of Constitutional history that apparently ends after the 11th Amendment. To his credit, and unlike Edwards, Paul may show the integrity to take his campaign to the convention. (LATER EDIT NOTE: Ha ha!) Although I could not conceive supporting him, he may be the least compromised politician in the running.

    Then there is the paradox of his supporters; many of the most active of them attracted through the 9/11 truth movement, in an act of mass self-delusion; he can hardly be accused of pandering to them, as he has even endorsed the 9/11 Commission.

    McCain, Romney, Clinton, and 99% of Obama - is there a risk any of them will go against the will of the top quarter-percent, the owners and the power elite? Given the crisis, of course, the will of the "powers that be" (PTB) may prove to be less monolithic than usual.

    What's interesting is how each of the "viable candidates" comes ready-made with a grenade pin allowing their instantaneous implosion-by-media. This was always true of duopoly party nominees, but perhaps never to this extent. McCain's an obviously sick man, liable to be spun into an unstable ogre by the media on command. He'd better avoid screaming, like Dean once did. Romney's a nothing and a nobody, a sad blowhard, a car salesman, another actor, and no way doesn't he have his crooked deals and perversions on file with Spook Central. By this time, it is pointless to again review here the ways in which Clinton and her gang turned fraudulent many years ago; there are those who see it, and those who do not want to see it.

    In each case, the vulnerabilities of these candidates, more than their putative strengths, paradoxically attract the money and the nods from the power elites. Integrity and a lack of personal corruption are a disadvantage.

    Obama, besides whatever secrets or bad real estate he may have been involved in, comes with the advantage--for remote-control saboteurs--that his race, which so far has been played as a strength, can be turned into negative among the white majority. It need not even be done by a direct attack. For example, any murder case involving a black man can be turned into this year's bogus media tsunami a la OJ Simpson (or Willie Horton), until no white person fails to associate it with Obama. One reason I will vote for Obama in November will be in an effort to counter the many white people who are likely to vote against him only because he's black--the vast number of them covert in their racism, so I'm talking about North and West as well as the cliché of the Southern redneck. (This endorsement depends of course on how horrid he gets rhetorically and whether I can still stomach him by then.)

    Obama may finally get the nod from the PTB as a re-branding offensive. This country can sure use a new face for its global P.R., and it's hard to imagine anything that will set off more positive symbolic tremors in the world (without actually disrupting business as usual) than an African in the White House. This may make a real difference, if he's serious about talking to the "Axis of Evil."

    Certainly the worst imaginable outcome is to continue the dynasty. I do not question Clinton’s gender, qualifications, talents or “experience”: it suffices to remember her record. As economy and society crash, HRC is guaranteed to follow the Clinton program of hold the fort and capitulate to the right.

    Worst of all, her actions, no matter how egregiously imperialist, will be spun in the media as products of a hard-left or “liberal” mindset. Her enemies will celebrate her clan's return to power: they will never shut up about complete bullshit, and it will be faithfully echoed by the television. They will attribute all that goes wrong to her being “a lesbian,” or to Bill Clinton's godless dick. And have we not already seen how this routine sticks well enough to gum up all other business?

    Let us hope enough primary voters wise up to the game before it’s too late. Obama is someone Republicans secretly think they can beat in 2008, simply because he’s black. But Clinton is the Republican choice for president. They expect to lose this election; she makes the perfect foil for Jeb Bush or some equivalent nightmare in an overtly fascist landslide in 2012.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    I doubt Edwards was that more genuine contender. With hindsight, his role also appears arranged: he talked like the real thing, but in the end he merely ate up the oxygen that might have gone to a potential left insurgency...

    The role of Ron Paul on the Republican side is similar, in that he marshalls a potential insurgency in an ultimately harmless fashion. But Paul presents a number of paradoxes. The only remaining principled stance against the Iraq occupation and imperialism (other than Gravel!) is coupled with the same free-market delusions that drive imperialism. The only direct challenge to the power of capital (at any rate, “bankers” ) comes with a fatally fantastic view of economic history. The one guy who wants to end the drug war and roll back USA PATRIOT also wants a wall on the southern border, and fails to see that his idea of an immigration policy necessitates the very same biometric, REAL-ID police state that he ostensibly opposes. Add semi-medieval positions on abortion and gay rights, and a view of Constitutional history that apparently ends after the 11th Amendment.

    This summary of Ron Paul is great. It parallels the critique I have put forward in conversation with Paul supporters for the past few months, specifically his advocacy of the Constitution minus all those pesky amendments. The level of hypocrisy is unbelievable to me. And the extent to which his supporters are able to ignore that startling.

    "Marshalls a potential insurgency in an ultimately harmless fashion." I think Obama is now serving very much the same function. He also, as you suggest, will serve a vital international PR role for the US. Its quite apparent that he has been groomed for this role, and that people have been guiding him into position for a Presidential run, recognizing that Clinton might appear too dynastic to beat a decent Republican candidate.

    I don't think anyone here is assuming that an Obama presidency will bring fundamental changes. But personally, I just can't help feeling excited about have our first Black president. Maybe those feelings have been orchestrated. But I simply need to let a bit of optimism leak past my pragmatism here and there just to stay afloat.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Yeah, one could view it optimistically: the empire is forced to resort to a black man as figurehead just to keep a lid on the rest of the world.

    One could almost view 9/11 optimistically: the empire is forced to resort to false-flag psyops cannibalism because just launching the desired invasions with a draft army (as was the case up to the 1960s) is no longer possible.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. What is the effect of the candidate?

    Are you going to care about your overwhelming hangups?

    Barack Obama is ultimately doing more for 9/11 Truth than the skeptical brigade. Cause we all know the skeptical brigade is 1000% about their very fragile ego.

    Should we really vote skeptic? I'm tired of their compensation, but that's me.

    What, do we want magic, or absolute reality.

    Okay skeptics, tired about your talk about karma.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Barack Obama is ultimately doing more for 9/11 Truth than the skeptical brigade.

    Really now? Please show.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. truthmover
    Administrator

    This thread is addressing whether or not its worthwhile to have any sense of optimism about a candidate who merely represents the lesser of two evils. I get the sense that Truthmod and I are suggesting that we can acknowledge the practical reality of the situation while still retaining a bit of hope that the difference between them will have some positive outcome.

    We know that Obama is a proxy for real change. A place holder meant to direct the public desire for change into an institutional outcome. That's not cynicism, but a relatively practical assessment. We have good reason to be cynical about the outcome of this election, and yet it is quite possible to overdo it. And by that I mean always being depressed about the state of affairs to the extent that you are no longer able to register any progress, even when small.

    Nick seems to be more cynical than I. Also more informed and likely more practical in some ways. But he might also have a tendency as many of us do to be depressed about all of this from time to time. Cynicism and practicality are two different things. Cynicism may be logical, but its not necessarily the path to mental health. Then again neither is avoidance.

    Somewhere in the middle is being willing to face the truth while also looking for reasons to be hopeful that help keep your head above water. I know things are going to shit. But if that's all I keep in my head because I'm trying to remain totally practical, then cynicism can set in that might squash my motivation to work for change.

    In other words, total practicality that leads to cynicism may actually be impractical from the standpoint of taking action. We need hope. Maybe something a bit more real than the rhetorical hope that Obama is offering. But the world is really just too depressing right now to motivate me to action without some impractical sense that I could help make things better. Maybe I can't. But if we all gave up because it seemed practical to do so, we most certainly would be in not better a position than we are.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.