Since my first post and initial disclosure yesterday, I have added a Presidential preference poll (nobody has voted in it but me -- I voted twice for Obama although one was a technological error). After all, I am from Texas where we are taught from an early age to "vote early and vote often" and that dead people voting from the grave is just an affirmative action program to combat age discrimination. I also added an Obama '08 bumper sticker just to see if my one reader was paying attention.
Those additions (and the Freudian double vote) may be pretty strong indicators that my preference is Senator Barack Obama (now that John Edwards is out of the race). But, since this blog is not just about politics and is also intended to express a view in favor of ethical conduct, I thought I better make another disclosure.
I am supporting Barack Obama, among other reasons, because I believe he is a proponent of the good kind of "partisanship" and an includer, not a divider, and because I believe Hillary leans more toward and certainly motivates others to the negative version of "partisanship". There are other reasons which may be the subject of future posts.
Today is primary day in Wisconsin and Hawaii and the first day of early voting in Texas. My die will have been cast in a little more than an hour.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Obama huh? You know that Obama-Nation and abomination sound the same right?
Huckabee for you and me!!
Why do we want parisanship?
All that partisanship has given us is:
Iraq war
Warrantless wire-tapping
possible war with Iran
torture
"Abomination" means a person who is loathesome or hated and disgusting or a thing that is terrible, nasty, ugly, despicable, disgusting. Suggesting that Barack Obama or any serious Presidential candidate is an abomination is an abominable statement -- especially coming from a supporter of Mike Huckabee who I suspect does not share onerighteousman's views.
To doughnutman, I would suggest that we got all those things from the Bush administration's imperial view that the rest of us are and should be subservient. Unfortunately, our Democratic leadership has been totally absent and has caved to the Republican agenda. A good healthy dose of the right kind of partisanship (meaning healthy debate) might have prevented some of those results.
Interestingly, abomination can also be taken to mean "An object that excites disgust and hatred; a thing detested or detestable". If we take this to be the definition, then infact Obama, or any other political/presidential candidate, can quite clearly be an abomination. Abomination does not necessarily denote a FACT of character, but rather it may instead denote an IMPRESSION of character. Or put more plainly, one's ability to incite/excite hatred and disgust is a sufficient condition for fulfilling the definition of abomination. With this reasoning, in any political or social climate in which a series of individuals actively, or passively, galvanize a population with a particular sentiment of hatred or disgust they may be considered abominations.
Moreover, an abomination is merely something hated or disgusted, much like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Roe v. Wade, Brown V. Board, and even Plessy v. Ferguson (by some). These examples merely illustrate the notion that an abomination is a sentiment of opinion, not a statement of fact. By this reasoning I would venture to say that Obama, Hillary, Huckabee, McCain, Bush, Kennedy, Roosevelt (Teddy and FDR) and Bhutto are/were all abominations in that they all prevailed in exciting some level of disgust and discontent. I might even go so far as to say that the very nature of our political system requires that there be individuals perceived as abominations. For it is the perception of disgust (either with the notion of change or lack thereof) that begets political action.
Well, adamitism, that is an interesting and provocative bit of philosophical tap dancing and wordsmanship. However, it completely misses the point of my argument for promoting "good partisanship" vs. "bad partisanship". It is the very FACT of labeling a bona fide and good faith participant in the political process as loathesome or disgusting that is itself the real abomination. My point was made from the perspective of the labelee and not the labeler. If we consider the labeling of that participant as an abomination to be acceptable, it is only one small step to the type of partisanship that is itself based on hatred and disgust (i.e., "good" vs. "evil") rather than honest differences of opinion and points of view among reasonable persons of equal patriotism and good faith.
To dismiss out of hand the idea that someone who participates in the political process can, in fact, be loathesome is probably unrealistic. For example, I see no necessary regard for someone like David Duke, who at one point considered himself a bona fide and good-faith participant in our nation's electoral process. The simple fact that one aspires to public service does not necessarily preclude that person's ideas or ideals from being disgusting and worthy of dismissal. As a citizen, shouldn't it be my prerogative and duty to condemn certain behaviors or modes of thought I find abhorrent, as well as the individuals who promote them?
Scrobtimus_prime, you make a good point; however, I would argue that even a David Duke who has decided to abandon lynching and cross burning as his means of communicating and instead market his ideas in the political process is actually a bona fide and good faith participant -- detestable though he certainly was. In many countries, he would have been jailed or shot rather than debated in a most partisan (and ultimately successful) manner.
Although it was initially difficult for me to grasp, I finally came to appreciate years ago why it was absolutely necessary for the ACLU to defend the rights of the American Nazi Party to spew their hatred in the Skokie parade so my right to speak would remain safe. A person's protection under the first amendment does not and should not decrease as his speech becomes more disagreeable and loathesome to me and does not and should not increase as it more closely aligns with my own views. You are absolutely correct that you have the prerogative (I am not so sure about duty) to condemn ideas and even modes of thought you find abhorrent, as well as the individuals who promote them. Those individuals also have the right to condemn your judgment of them. As I see it, that is the essence of political partisan debate.
Post a Comment