On Unity (Long Version)

non-... yeah some of the anti-McCain folks are pretty nasty about it.  I've been dealing with Libertarians forever and a day who believe they're the only true conservatives and the only people who know how to read the Constitution right.  Most of the arguments are the same, principle-blah-blah, coalitions bad-blah-blah, don't care if an even worse candidate gets in because if we make it bad enough we'll get [insert perfect candidate] later.

I think if the Dems can kiss and make up soon they can repair a great deal of the damage they've done and the Conservative split on support and campaign donations will become a far more serious issue.  If Obama can pull off a Pennsylvania miracle, it might just work out the way.  Currently not looking too good, but a lot can change in a few weeks.

xian... that's kind of the point I'm making.  Obama's claim of being the unity candidate is on par with Bush's in 2000.  He has absolutely nothing up his sleave that will make the country unite under his Democratic platform than Bush did to get the country to unite under his... the other side doesn't like "uniting" to screw their own agenda.  It's all BS.

Exact same issue with foreign affairs.  Obama has nothing that will make any of our allies shrug off their interests so they can support ours.  As much as people give Bush crap about upsetting our allies, they certainly like to neglect that France, Russia, and the UN were just as adamant against action on Iraq under the Clinton Admin as they were with the Bush, in spite of continually agreeing that they were in violation of the ceasefire agreement for the same or similar reasons as us (under both Admins).  As much crap as people give Bush and his Admin for being too rough on them for disagreeing with us, the same arguments were made by Democratic leaders under Clinton's watch... often worse.  Kerry's line about them being spineless, greedy, and uncaring because they stood to benefit from the sanctions expiring was classic.  6 years later he's trying to convince the nation he'd be better suited to suck up to our allies in some magical way that will get them to act against their own interests?  Obama has already made it clear he won't act on genocide without the UN's (and by default Russian and Chinese) approval.  That's practically a green light to China on Taiwan, makes Darfur a look-the-other-way issue forever, and lord knows how many other issues over the next 4-8 years where some despot merely needs to buddy up to a UNSC member they're in bed with to avoid any real pressure to stop grievous human rights violations.

Not to mention that the pressure that seems to have worked to get the Iranians to halt their weapons programs included us leaving military options on the table.  As much as Obama and Hillary want to equate that to wanting to invade tomorrow, they've made it clear that Iran will face no real pressure beyond the sanctions they're already used to and bypassing enough to do whatever they want.  Our allies are already cooperating on that, as our allies have done with every issue that coincides with their interests as well as ours, in their opinion.  The flaps over Iraq didn't result in allies pulling out of Afghanistan or ceasing to cooperate in other anti-terror efforts.  In some cases it led to more pro-West and/or pro-American leaders coming to power.  This mindframe that our allies have basically abandoned us because they disagreed on one issue just doesn't add up.  Kerry wasn't going to convince them to help by hooting and hollaring that it was a quagmire.  Obama and Hillary have even less hope as they push the same idea on top of some crazy idea of sitting on the border and re-invading on regular basis for flare ups.  Neither of them have some magic way of improving our foreign relations with other governments.

I can understand someone voting for Obama on the issues.  It makes sense if the status quo Democratic platform is the "change" they're looking for.  For many, that is exactly the change they're looking for.  It's too late to vote in a qualified candidate.  Obama is obviously the best of the rest which ain't saying much.  But the sad part is he honestly has less relevant experience than Bush (even less than Dan Quayle for crying out loud).  Is he going to run foreign policy like his opposition on Iraq?  With no facts, evidence, etc to support it until hindsight proves him right?  So far he's backed up his opposition to invading Iraq on all the information we collected because of the invasion.  Will he have a time machine for foreign policy decisions?  Given that all the Democrats seemed to have been "misled" by Bush before he was even in office, perhaps he has one available we don't know about.  His big "solution" on Iraq is a carbon copy of Hillary's... tell voters that you'll "bring the troops home" and "get us out of Iraq" but then later qualify that (after the news has their soundbites) with the fact that the plan involves leaving the troops on the borders and regularly invading when things inevitably flare up again (as even the NY Times pointed out happened time and time again when we quickly withdrew from any area in Iraq... the problems just got worse for us later).  That's not change, that's repeating some of the worst mistakes of the Bush Administration's policies on Iraq and amplifying it.

Not to mention his non-interventionalist rhetoric (except when it comes to a nuclear armed strategic ally, of course).  I know it's a popular anti-US-hegemony concept at the moment but his position on needing the UN's (and thus anyone on the UNSC in bed with nations allowing genocide within their borders or desiring to forcibly acquire territory) to take action for the greater good is baffling.  Especially when that would be the biggest green light China ever got to finally take advantage of the next Taiwan excuse... it'd remove one of the key parts of the pressure on Iran that led to their halt on nuclear weapons programs by essentially taking military options off the table and leaving it up to sanctions that we already have and aren't effective enough to pretend like we're pressuring them... Darfur?  No chance.  It might actually move that situation backwards because people can rest easy that we won't pull any maverick moves to demand the genocide stop... any new crisis... same boat.  All it takes is one UNSC member to be in bed with the guys who make "never again" happen again and again and again...

But in trade for that we have the "hope" that he'll somehow have enough executive authority to manage how school districts are arranged to stop the appearance of segregation that the federal government has little to nothing to do with nor any real power to have anything to do with it.  The segregation you talk about isn't even instiutionalized on the State/local level anymore so it'd be difficult for anyone in the federal government to impact those issues at all.  We also have a guy who can talk the talk but has yet to show one instance where he has ever walked the walk in relation to such a job.  He even explained how he'd be too inexperienced for the job.

But as he likes to do, he partially quotes King about the "fierce urgency of now" as an excuse that is supposed to make up for his lack of leadership, experience, etc.  The problem, of course, is that King walked the walk.  He didn't just talk the talk.  King was a proven leader.  And the fierce urgency of now was about the People doing something about the racial problems facing America, not excusing some inexperienced yahoo in his insanely ambitious attempt to lead the free world.  From that same speech:

"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

Hope without leadership isn't what the nation needs.  King didn't make his mark through rhetoric alone.  He was a leader, a great one at that.  He didn't just have the audacity to hope that this ungodly situation facing the nation would end... no matter how monumental or unfathomnable such a victory would be in that era.  He had the audacity to prove himself in the trenches and lead people to face the ugliness and do something about it.  He didn't start out at Washington D.C. relying on hope and rhetoric alone to convince people to follow him.

Plenty of folks had hope that segregation would end someday back then.  It required no audacity to do so.  It did require leadership to make it become more than just a dream though.  Obama's use of the expression is extremely irritating to me... as if he was running on some sort of significantly unique platform than any other Democrat up there beyond Kucinich and Gravel.  His campaign strategy of hope over action, change over experience, and ambition over common sense is pretty troubling.  For him to justify such nonsense with "the fierce urgency of now" by stripping it of the context and misusing it for his personal gain is confounding.

He's not the best candidate seen in a long time.  He's just another ambitious candidatee doing anything and everything to acquire power.  The only difference between him and Hillary are that the distortions are anywhere near as blatant and he sells it better.  For what it's worth though, I'd much rather see him at the head of the DNC than Howard Dean.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

King started off in the trenches and worked his way up by demonstrating his leadership along the way.  Obama's experience would be irrelevant if he was merely starting a movement as opposed to wanting to become numero uno in US leadership.  Obama has nothing on King.  Obama's big mentor on such racial issues was more akin to Malcolm X in his naive years of hatred... nearly a bipolar opposite of what King preached.  And his rhetoric to explain it away was so back and forth and notedly planned that his disavowals came off just as empty to anyone keeping track.

Ending segregation took audacity, sure.  But not mere hope.  King himself pointed out how hope alone did little to change the state affairs for blacks even after a century from the first bold move towards equality.  Talk, rhetoric, etc... was alive and well during those years.  Hope aplenty.  Action?  Sometimes.  A massive organized movement with strong leadership?  That's what finally made the big changes.

I realize the "appearance of segregation" bit bugs you, but since segregation has been ended as far as the government's implementation of it, and policies supporting it have ended, the role of the government to infringe upon the liberty of others who make decisions we do not like isn't what is normally viewed as segregation except by folks like yourself.  I realize you believe your way of looking at it is right, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to many of us, myself included.  Where you see "non-direct legisislation" of segregation others see race-neutral legislation.  Where you see intent, others do not.  I'm not sure if this perspective difference is one that can be bridged.  You feel passionately that you are right, and I feel just as passionately that you are only sometimes right.  Some laws seem unfairly applied and executed to me, whether the intent is there or not that I feel need to be changed.  But many of the laws and regulations you feel are absolutely necessary I feel are totally useless in this day and age.

Best example is that you think Brown vs Board was reversed.  I see Brown vs Board still standing just fine since it's application was to schools implementing segregationist policies... not whether the people themselves tended to end up in disproportionate amounts at various schools... where honestly the government has little real influence.  Personal choices, no matter how shaped by social/cultural/etc factors isn't automatically a compelling state interest.

Obama has offered nothing significantly new in this area.  Same Dem policies but with a twist.  Affirimative action based on economics, not race.  For me that's a big improvement, but hardly a novel concept.  It has been scrapped time and time again by the NAACP and other groups that absolutely want to keep race as a factor, for both ideological and political reasons.  Otherwise he has shown no leadership up to this point to change anything and no experience that would lead an objective observer to believe he could pull it off... nor any actual policy specifics on how he would pull off the political feats you describe beyond hope.

Hope ain't enough.  Never was.  Hope alone leads to more misery and suffering for all.  Hope beats nothing at all, but that's not our options today.

For the record, Mandela did have leadership and relevant experience to lead.  Dismissing his actions as terrorism was popular at the time of his imprisonment... people generally took a much different view at the time of his release.  But he certainly had leadership experience.  King had leadership experience and new that hope alone changed little.  Obama has hope alone... and he will change little.  That's my opinion of it anyways.

I'm sorry we can't agree more on the racial issues... but at least we agree some and can appreciate the other point of view, even if we think the other is wrong in many regards.  I know you get a lot of crap for your viewpoint from many folks here, but I'm glad you can stand your ground, even on issues where we disagree.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

 "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

I could see how one would take that as being irregardless of the cause.  I read that in the context of forced segregation only.  I think both could be valid points of view.  The precedent in the courts has trended towards the context view, many legislative policies have trended towards the irregardless-of-cause view.   I think a case could be made for either or potentially both to be a legitimate concern.  In the courts on Brown and the precedent it set I'd absolutely view it as a precedent on forced segregation only, but, and it's an important but, I think the trends of what I'd normally refer to as self-segregation are symptomatic of the disproportionate number of minorities, blacks in particular, being in a different socioeconomic class due to being just a generation or two beyond some of the most sweeping changes to the direct racist and segregationist policies of government and private institutions.  Such a problem will take a long time to balance out naturally, even if there weren't any government policies that hindered such progress (a prime example right now is the disproportionate application and execution of drug laws).

While I'm in favor of affirmative action programs in situations where an actual policy is discovered that discriminates on the basis of race or other protected attribute, I'm typically not in favor of them where social, economic, etc issues have led to disproportionate acceptance due to disproportionate interest, capability, etc.  I find a compelling state interest in ensuring equal opportunity by directly targeting trouble neighborhoods, schools, etc for those in desperate need for violence prevention, job training, education, etc... regardless of race, applied equally to the poor white, asian, latino, etc folks in the same situation.  Cycles of poverty are not unique to blacks, but the reasons for their disproportionately high rates of being in cyclical poverty is certainly unique.  The cause is less relevant to the solution to me than the situation it resulted in... as I see the solutions to be the same.  The cause is more relevant to the politics of getting those neighbors, parents, etc on board with such plans, as well as other tax payers whose support will be required.

As I've argued before, any group, regardless of cause, that is disproportionately afflicted by a social ill, such as poverty, will also be disproportionately helped by a program that helps all afflicted equally.  There is certainly a fierce urgency of now to help all children trapped in poverty stricken, violent, and crime ridden areas that also are offering dismal opportunities to succeed compared to their peers in wealthier areas... regardless of whether they and their families are there because of gawdawful government policies of the past or if their family history has led them to that point out of their own doing, it's not the child's fault, black, white, or other.   They all deserve the opportunity to grow up safely and with all of the same opportunities as their wealthier peers elsewhere.

Balancing of funding for schools regardless of local wealth would be a great start, though a hard sell due to wealthier families being disproportionately larger portions of the voting public compared to low income families who have more voices, but fewer heard at the polls.  Realistic programs for increasing opportunity in such areas which are also a hard sell since the funding would likely be seen as a distribution of wealth by many fiscal conservatives and also be seen by others as taking their funding for their great communities to throw it away at a hopeless cause.  And realistic programs to reduce violence that doesn't just make police relations even worse in such areas by making them so aggressive that they are resented more than appreciated... but actually working the community, the churches, for a solution.  A big help here would also be ending the nonsensical drug war that is disproportionately waged on the poor at greater expense than treatment programs and putting real opportunity options within reach.  But such things would still be local/State level policies to pull off.  Federal funding to help may be an option, but the feds are pretty limited, and the more they take any managerial role the less likely the program will be able to adapt to the specific needs of the local community afflicted, or be effective.

That's what I'd like to see.   But this is also part of my political philosophy of keeping the federal involvement to a minimum except where inherent to their power and within the scope of their powers.  I see them as extremely effective in federal laws on and prosecuting violations of civil rights, especially when local/State governments are not.  But I see them as nearly powerless in the issues listed above, and totally ineffective and unaccountable even if they tried to play fast and loose with the Constitution on it.

I think folks like us could certainly work together on many causes, and take our own paths on where we diverge in political philosophy and what solutions we believe would be more or less realistic, effective, or appropriate.  Sadly the debate on such issues tends to never end up anywhere near so cordial.  It seems to almost always devolve down to insults of character that one side doesn't care about the plight of certain groups while the other claims various themes of reverse racism being the intention of the other.  In the heat of debate this isn't uncommon or necessarily wrong, but it'd be nice if more folks could find some mutual ground where we could move forward.  It feels like the race issue is at a stalemate where the extremes keep the moderates without much real influence.  Meanwhile real people are suffering and new generations are born and grow up with the same hopelessness in their hearts.  Obama doesn't seem to be offering anything to actually end the stalemate.  I wish he was.  I really wish McCain was.  But more importantly I wish our own local governments and our State government were... and even more importantly I wish the voters were backing such measures.

I can't blame Obama for not offering much in this department, but I certainly can't credit him with much on it.  He's not horrible on the subject, and neither is McCain my opinion, though they come from two different political philosophies guiding what they may or may not support.  Obama is definitely your guy, McCain is definitely mine.  I just don't see either bringing a vision of ending what you'd refer to as segregation or what I'd refer to as socioeconomic division that limits opportunity disproportionately by race.  Which is truly a shame, but I can't blame them given that the responsibility is primarily on local/State government to implement such common sense, but politically radical ideas.  The almight dollar seems to be the sticking point... it is eternally frustrating.

Thanks for the great conversation though.  Much appreciated.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed