Monday, January 28, 2008

The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?

Yesterday, Figgins and I heard Senator Ted Kennedy endorse Senator Barack Obama, as his choice for the Democrat Party's 2008 Presidential Nominee. Kennedy did an expert job with what I recognized as an old-style-politics approach to whip the audience into a frenzy. To me, this approach magnified the irony of the current "Change Candidate" exulting in the endorsement of a man who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1962. But, whip them into a frenzy he did. The challenge for Figgins and I, as we listened, was trying to find substance in Kennedy's passion-evoking rhetoric. For us, this reached its peak when Kennedy described Obama by saying, "... he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to the better angels of our nature." At that, we just cocked our heads and looked at each other. Though neither of us said a word, you could tell we were both thinking, "What the heck does that mean?!"

Since this is Figgins' first time around with a Presidential campaign, I knew we would need to draw on my experience, in order to try to answer that question. As I thought back and as I considered that much of the endorsement event's rhetoric made allusions comparing Obama to JFK, I realized something about this comment did seem familiar. It did remind me of feelings that had been stirred up in me by JFK's Presidential candidacy when I was just a young teenager. Though I probably couldn't have pointed out a single thing I objected to with the Eisenhower administration or with the heir-apparent, Richard Nixon, there was just something excitingly appealing about that handsome young Kennedy, his beautiful young Wife, their idyllic young family and the emotions he aroused with his rhetoric.

Reflecting on the time of JFK's Presidential candidacy ... what that time was like and how I felt then ... was an interesting reverie for me. But, of course, looking back, I couldn't limit my consideration to just that "moment in time". I, also, had to consider what followed that time. In my view, much of what followed that time causes me concern for what could follow the present time. A time when, like those days of "Camelot", we elected a President who's rhetoric was inspiring but, in many significant instances, it lacked substance.

With these things in mind then, I knew it was important for me to respond to this question with advice for Figgins. Advice I'd like to pass along to all of America's youth, who are getting involved in Presidential politics for the first time. Advice that comes from lessons I didn't begin to fully grasp until I was nearly thirty years old. My advice would encourage our youth to be as fully involved as they can be in the Presidential election process and that there is nothing wrong with getting excited about a particular candidate. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with looking to a leader for inspiration ... in fact, the ability to inspire is an excellent leadership quality. But, most importantly, before you commit yourself to a candidate, be sure they have the substance to match. If they inspire you by talking about "change", demand to know in detail "change from what and to what". And when they use rhetoric that makes your pulse race, discipline yourself to ask, "What the heck does that mean?!" and don't rest until you have a crystal clear answer.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess you've never heard of Abraham Lincoln. Also, it looks like you know how to use a computer. You can go to Barack Obama's website and get his stance on all the major issues. He also has Podcasts on iTunes you can download. Your thoughts are deluded and narrow-minded.

Gary Wiram said...

You're, actually, emphasizing the point of my latest posting, "Waving the Redstate Flag in the Bluestate's Face" ... "Obama's campaign often positions him as a 'post-partisan politician' ... based on (your)comments ..., that doesn't seem to be bearing fruit or even taking root ... so WHERE'S THE CHANGE?"

And, since you too seem to be able to use a computer, perhaps you should check a couple of places where I acknowledged that the words Kennedy used were "Xeroxed" from Lincoln:

In another posting, entitled "We gotta keep callin' it what it is - BO-loney!!!!!!!", I said: " ... Senator Ted Kennedy's old-style-politics approach to whip the crowd into a frenzy when he endorsed Obama (ironically, quoting the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln) ..."

And, prior to that I commented on Kennedy's reuse of Lincoln's words by saying: "Though overly elegant and obscure for today, I didn't say that the words Kennedy used could have no meaning. Obviously, Lincoln used those same words with great meaning, in urging his fellow countrymen against civil war. He was very specific about what he wanted to change and the substance he brought to accomplish the monumental task is very well detailed in our nation's history. Where is the substance of Kennedy's words and the specifics of 'Obama's message of unity to solve America's problems?'"