Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gore, Obama and the "moral imperative" ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 10:38 PM
Original message
Gore, Obama and the "moral imperative" ...
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 11:14 PM by welshTerrier2
This is a moral moment. This is not ultimately about any scientific debate or political dialogue. Ultimately, it is about who we are as human beings and whether or not we have the capacity to transcend our own limitations and rise to this new occasion. It is about whether or not we can see with our hearts, as well as our heads, the unprecedented response that is now called for; whether or not we can -- in Lincoln's phrase -- disenthrall ourselves, shed the illusions that have been our accomplices in ignoring the warnings that have been clearly given, and to hear clearly the ones that are being given now. - Al Gore "The Assault on Reason (p. 212)"


The context of Mr. Gore's comment had to do with responding to the challenge of global warming, but, in my opinion, it applies to the many crises confronting us. For those to whom everything is politics and campaigning, hear the words: "this is not ultimately about any scientific debate or political dialogue." Each of us has a moral obligation to hold everyone running for office to the very highest standards. We must not give our support and our votes lightly. Our duty to ourselves, our families, future generations and the global community demands that we look inside ourselves to our most deeply held values and ensure that they are reflected in those we support. To distract the electorate with gibberish like "inevitability" and its associated polling data and endorsements at the expense of reasoned discourse about where we are and where we must get to is a disservice to all mankind of the highest possible order.

I read the speech Mr. Obama just gave at the Wilson Center. Few have surpassed his eloquence. Mr. Obama asked a most devastating question during his remarks. It is a question that should be asked not only with regard to how foreigners see us but also with regard to how we see our own government and our own country. Mr. Obama said the following:

Al Qaeda's new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?


When they look up at that American helicopter, do they feel hope or do they feel hate? That's a wonderful question to ask. And Mr. Obama made numerous excellent points about how to improve America's image in the world. He talked about foreign aid and education and understanding other cultures - all good. But he, and I don't at all mean to single him out here, has failed to name that which far too often goes unnamed. All of these "goodwill" efforts are commendable. At the core of what America exports, however, is the military-backed support for multi-national corporate will.

You cannot tiptoe around that. You cannot do all the pretty things and hide the ultimate oppression. As an example, look what happens right here in the US. The headline reads: "Walmart's coming." That's the end of small town America. Board up the windows and tell the lifetime merchants their services and products are no longer needed. It changes more than just a few businesses; it changes the culture of America. And when a business is so large that whole towns are dependent on it, the citizens are readily blackmailed into catering to the whims of that business. Zoning laws are overlooked; pollution controls are eased; tax rebates are offered. The community is held hostage. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

When America exports its multi-national corporations, especially those in the "extractive" industries (think Big Oil), things are much worse and the imbalance of power between third world governments and societies and the power of mega-corporations backed by American willpower cannot protect local interests. Global corporatism is not "lifting all boats", it's raping foreign peoples all over the world and destroying the eco-structure. Do you think the loss of the Amazon rainforests happened because indigenous tribes are building too many canoes?

Of course, the plundering we allow these mega-corporations to do goes well beyond societal and environmental disruptions. The US, at the behest of industry, sends its "hitmen" to topple unfriendly governments and assassinate unfriendly leaders. Those countries that are able to resist often find themselves suffering severe economic consequences for playing hardball with US companies and the US government. In the end, what we allow to be "exported" in all of our names is poverty. We cannot gloss over, for example, the theft of Iraqi oil which will deprive the Iraqis of their primary source of wealth, and compensate the reality they'll soon come to know with foreign aid in the form of beads and trinkets.

So, Mr. Obama has asked the right question and has even proposed some reasonable ideas about how to improve the image the rest of the world sees when it looks up at our "helicopters." But, sadly, Mr. Obama's remarks fall far short of addressing the real problems. He understands that poverty sits as a root cause of terrorism; he understands that unless we project American values to the rest of the world we will have no moral suasion; but he does not name the unnamed tyrant: imperialism. To fall short of this mark, even given all the other programs and goodwill gestures, will do nothing to change how America is rightfully seen by the rest of the world.

And, finally, those who accept the moral imperative Mr. Gore spoke of must see that "the very same beast" confronts us right here at home. Until we rid our own government and our own democratic institutions of this cancer, all the programs from all the candidates, no matter how well intended they may be, will not produce the changes we so urgently need. Our country is in decline; the great American empire may well be in the final stages of collapse; and global warming threatens the lives of hundreds of millions and the futures of all living species. Clearly, the moral imperative demands that our candidates speak the truth and rise above mere political concerns. If we fail to demand this of them, and surely they are all capable of it, then ultimately it is we who should be held most responsible. Please, let's not let that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. wonder post. so well presented. I do have one thing I would like to put to you
I do not think Senator Obama sees our country as yet being imperialist or to address it as such yet. He takes alot of flak for everything he says and this speech caused enough controversy. I think if he does address it it will not be for awhile as he has to approach things in chunks.
Until the establishment accepts, if ever, that what Obama is approaching is a new foreign policy approach. Right now he is being derided as some callous rookie who is bumbling around and not knowing what he is talking about. Until he wins this fight, he won't go farther as charging imperialism is shocking to many.
Remember, he is a progressive who is running for president and therefore is forced to take a more moderate approach to attract the indies and mod. repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. If he is indeed taking a "more moderate" approach
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 11:10 PM by sellitman
for the reasons stated then he won't get my vote. I am a Liberal. I expect people I vote for to be Liberal. If he wants to pander to Repugs and hopelessly lost Independents he has to realize he won't get the Liberal vote too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-04-07 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R - This is a tremendous opportunity for a sea change.
It's time to throw out the long-entrenched and often virtually indistinguishable policy from the other side of the aisle and reach deeper as a nation. The dead wood in Congress needs to be cut away and with it the ties to the corporate greed that has pushed aside pursuit of the common good. The rest of the planet is looking at a once great America and shaking their collective head.

While I will choose Obama over the rest of the field (I believe the other two front-runners should be disqualified from even running because of their involvement with the IWR - the point in the timeline where the Democrats and Republicans intersect and the Dems abdicated their war-declaring powers - but I digress), I'm still waiting with bated breath for Al Gore.

It was the 2000 judicial coup d'etat that set Gore on his journey of focus and clarity. I believe Al Gore quite possibly has the gravitas, the vision, the karmic trajectory to lead in a way that sets him apart from the rest. I certainly like what I'm hearing so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-04-07 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Al Gore - will running be his "moral imperative"
I'm currently reading Gore's The Assault on Reason. The book is great. One of the keys I was looking for from Gore was some kind of acknowledgment that Iraq and many other federal policies are all about catering to lobbyists and the big boys. It's clear Mr. Gore "gets it."

He also does a great job articulating one of my key issues: in the ideal, all voters should have equal influence on their government and its policies. The idea that the wealthy or that non-person corporations should have more clout than any single citizen is un-democratic, un-American and an affront to the Constitution and the very idea of democracy.

With the turn of each page, and I of course have no idea if he'll run, I move closer to endorsing Gore. What a loss should we be left to choose from among the current limited menu.

Thanks so much for your response and your k&r, AK ... mucho appreciato ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kick
Sorry I missed thos first time around!

Superb................ :applause:

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC