« Return to Article

Member Comments

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  thevegasstyleguy at 07/12/2008 3:16:17 PM
  Comment:
  Obama said he was "different" now he's "pragmatic". C'mon, would so many people have voted for him if they knew he was for FISA? How many gays would have voted for him knowing he wants to triple faith based funding. How many anti-war folks would have voted for him if they knew he was going to think about the situation before making any changes in the current plans? How many military families or Muslims would have voted for him if they knew the "pragmatic" O wouldn't want them sitting behind him on stage or attend town hall meetings with the republican candidate in military towns.
  
  Talking outta both sides of his neck.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jdylan at 07/12/2008 3:50:48 AM
  Comment:
  Pragmatism vs. ideology? It amazes me that this is still a question. Since when have ideals been anything other than a rope with which to hang oneself. Ideals do not discuss options or choices or examine outcomes; they solicit followers. They say that they are the one and only option, the only path. Ideals find themselves to the far left and the far right equally. Ideals lie by saying that a theory is indisputable fact. Example; Jesus is your savior. The true pragmatist asks, "what free man ever needed to be saved? And from what other than ideals?"
  To understand the center of the continuum America, the independent thinkers have and always will be the deciders of elections, is to be an expert on pragmatism. An understanding that the best paths are to be found in any given situation, not to always use the same path in every situation. Pragmatism is truly an ability to adapt. It finds its root in survival of the fittest. Any nation that lacks this kind of adaptability is destined to fall, along with the whole of humanity should we all become idealistic. One must be superior to his ideals, must learn to throw the square block away should it not fit in the round hole. But ideology doesn't find its only enemy is pragmatism, but also liberty, freedom and consciousness; reality itself.
  To have one ideal is better than having two. To have more than one is to have a war of ideals with in oneself. They will always fight for superiority in the self to become the one and only ideal. It is best if one's ideal is pragmatism; supreme freedom is always the best ideal.
  It's to bad only a few will be able to understand what I've written here. One would have to know and understand Nietzsche. A recent poll stated that 92% of Americans believe in a god, so I would say less than 8% will see the truth in the dangers of ideals. The chains it binds a person with.
  Because of what I just stated this election comes down to the lesser of two evil yet again. Until the candidate which acknowledges the overwhelming possibility that there is not one god but perhaps as many gods as there are people will there be one truly worthy of my vote. Are not all views of god interpretations, hence many gods? And as for candidates who actually have stepped across the isle, put away there left or right ideology, McCain has at least shown some pragmatism.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jonnierae at 07/12/2008 2:38:45 AM
  Comment:
  I was upset about FISA, but thinking it through, I realized he did the best thing for the general. He voted against telecom immunity - that satisfied me. As for faith based, although I am secular, I know that government does not like to help the poor - middle class ok, but not poor. The faith-based organizations do the heavy lifting. The Salvation Army, REd Cross, Habitat for Humanity are just 3 faith based organizations that are remarkable. There will be more poor people in the years ahead and they will need more help than the Congress is willing to vote them. I think his initiative shows more about his concern about reducing poverty than about giving any one faith "power." He is not President yet. He can't change Washington until he gets elected. I believe he will end the war in Iraq, give us universal health care and drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If he does only these three things, our country will be set on the right track for the future.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jonnierae at 07/12/2008 2:28:45 AM
  Comment:
  I was upset about FISA, but came to realize he made the right decsion for the general. He did vote against retroactive immunity, even though that did not get enough votes. I think all the acitivism on the part of the left or llibertarian wing of the party had an effect, as Pelosi is not talking impeachment. He is not President yet. He can't change Washington yet. He need to get elected first. Any group that helps the poor, and there will be more poor people in the next few years, is a good thing. I am secular but I do reallize that the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and Habitat for Humanity are faith-based and they do wonerful things!!! So I think it's all a tempet in a teapot. I believe he will end the war, get us universal health care, and radically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If he can do these three things, our courntry will begin to thrive again.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  anira at 07/10/2008 7:02:33 PM
  Comment:
  I voted for him precisely because he appeared to be idealistic enough to change the tone of business in washington. If I wanted the same old "pragmitism" I would have voted for Hillary, whose crime during the primaries was being too much of a centrist. Oy what a let down :(
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Cknight at 07/10/2008 12:55:07 PM
  Comment:
  well said, Mr. Mcwhorter...as someone who works for a secular organization that supports homeless youth, i am all too aware that 99 percent of services and resources offered to homeless and disenfranchised people are provided by faith based groups. It's essential they are eligeable to recieve funding. i don't care if they hire based on religion, but would rather see a provision that says they will not force religion on those they serve, or refuse to serve people who don't follow their religious order. I ask those people who are against faith based organizations ability to recieve public funding how they propose to help the underserved and ignored segements of our society. I also ask what they are doing personally, and if they are supporting the few secular groups who are working with street populations. A great rap artist, the coup, has a moving song about people trying to save souls, not save lives. That is one major risk with faith based groups, but I don't think its any better to try to save political posturing over lives either.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  Italian Revolutionary at 07/10/2008 8:42:49 AM
  Comment:
  What is interesting to me re: "The Audacity of Pragmatism" is this: If Mr. Obama is a pragmatic politician who knows how to get elected, why did he vote so consistently from the left? Why did he solicit millions of dollars under false pretenses? In addition, the implication of the article is that there's just no percentage in progressive liberal thought, action or electability.
  
  It would be interesting to know the percentage of Mr. Obama's base who voted for him and didn't care about NAFTA;knew that he would embrace NAFTA; vote to endemify the communications corporations for their role in releasing information about customers; and generally chose to continue many of the policies for which Mr. Bush has been vilified over the course of his administration.
  
  If I wanted an administration akin to Bill Clinton's I would've voted for Hillary.
  
  Read the discussion in this month's Harper's which discusses the opportunity for the Democrats to annihilate the GOP.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ligghetto at 07/09/2008 10:04:40 PM
  Comment:
  Obama is just trying to get into office, and the Mr. McWhorter just don't like coffee. He's got a chip on his shoulder when it comes to those he'd probably call elitist democrats. Thats fine, but that fact that some Obama supporters went to college, learned to understand pragmatism before this year, and like espresso, does not make them politically idealistic. It does not make me blindly revolutionary, or a socialist, or whatever else this guy sees when he's alone with his pen. If anyone thinks Dennis Kucinich actually expected (or expects) to become president by refusing to be a savvy, compromising politician doesn't understand a more serious side of pragmatism. There is pragmatism in symbollic gesture. There is pragmatism in throwing out the real politcal system to work towards a specific goal, like Al Gore has done. To choose the presidency of Bill Clinton as a beacon of democratic pragmatism, is not much different than complimenting the presidency of George Bush senior for keeping his hands on the wheel. In today's world, pragmatism cannot mean status quo. But don't get me wrong; I agree that Obama is savvy and I support his current gerrymandering ways because I am also pragmatic. (He is not someone who will forget the death of Fred Hampton, for example.) So I have faith that Obama's direction is honest and good. I have faith that his direction will actually be an improvement from the Clinton status quo.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  ligghetto at 07/09/2008 10:00:41 PM
  Comment:
  This guy don't like coffee. He's got a chip on his shoulder when it comes to those he'd probably call elitist democrats. Thats fine, but that fact that some Obama supporters went to college, learned to understand pragmatism before this year, and like espresso, does not make them politically idealistic. It does not make me blindly revolutionary, or a socialist, or whatever else this guy sees when he's alone with his pen. If anyone thinks Dennis Kucinich actually expected (or expects) to become president by refusing to be a savvy, compromising politician doesn't understand a more serious side of pragmatism. There is pragmatism in symbollic gesture. There is pragmatism in throwing out the real politcal system to work towards a specific goal, like Al Gore has done. To choose the presidency of Bill Clinton as a beacon of democratic pragmatism, is not much different than complimenting the presidency of George Bush senior for keeping his hands on the wheel. In today's world, pragmatism cannot mean status quo. But don't get me wrong; I agree that Obama is savvy and I support his current gerrymandering ways because I am also pragmatic. (He is not someone who will forget the death of Fred Hampton, for example.) So I have faith that Obama's direction is honest and good. I have faith that his direction will actually be an improvement from the Clinton status quo.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  delta at 07/09/2008 9:38:18 PM
  Comment:
  Here's what I find interesting: folks have numerous sources from which to extrapolate terrific information concerning both of the candidates, and hopefully, make up their minds based on solid research. Now, the very people who think Obama is flip-flopping, being pragmatic, moving to the center, etc., are doing a great deal of flip-clopping themselves! What happened to putting consistent support behind a candidate, working with and for him, and making sure that he knows which positions are important to members of the electorate --then, hearing what he has to say about that? What happened to being "uncompromising" about this support? Instead, citizens are flip-flopping. If citizens cannot and will not maintain a position, why should any candidate? This is not a personal situation it involves the leadership of the free world. It appears we've grown so accustomed to spending eight years being led by inflexible leadership that we are no longer willing to analyze these issues appropriately. Has knee-jerk reaction, name calling and put-downs become the way to achieve anything worthwhile? Is Obama merely reflecting people who no longer understand how to assess what is good ---not for EVERY ONE, but for the Nation as a whole and our place in the world?
  • • Reply
    • Report Abuse
    Posted By:
    jdylan at 07/12/2008 11:57:34 PM
    Comment:
    There is no room for "consistent support" in a democratic nation. That support is only for Kings who order it; for soldiers who's greatest virtue is obedience above all else. The people of this country are not soldiers, they are citizens, Kings who decide who shall be in their court. And if a King finds a member of his court has in fact misrepresented his positions he removes him. We, as Kings, must and will always maintain our freedom to change our minds should new information present itself. People are now seeing what I've known since first hearing and reading Obama's naive words of hope and change.
    Hope is used as a weapon against the weak who still believe they have no control over their lives. Hope torments those by telling the weak they are weak. Then the weak ask those who are strong, the one's who have no need of hope because they are men of action, to help the weak become the strong. Hamlet was correct when he asked "to be or not to be." Those who hope choose not to be. Hope is truly a slave morality; recalcitrance.
    Obama's calling for "change" is nothing but a false ideology which he proves with his now pragmatic approach; reality can not be denied. In order for change to occur the bickering ideologies of the right and left must be destroyed, which they can not. They are like Siamese twins; born at the same time and if you kill one they both die. If a man cuts off one of his arms, he is then a man with only one arm. And even more foolish if the man then realizes it is the center, the head, which controls the arms. The independents and independent thinkers decide who the President will be. Obama is fully aware of this, but has already been seen to much as a liar to make it count.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  thevegasstyleguy at 07/09/2008 8:14:20 PM
  Comment:
  Heh Heh, the man is a fraud. Has been from day one. I've been waiting till the white folks realized what they hath wrought. He's a puppet with a bunch of old politician types pulling the strings. He said whatever it took to win the primaries and now to win the election. If I didn't despise the republicans I would wish him to lose just based on his total lack of character/honesty, but I can not have another 4yrs of republican madness. He's a very lucky puppet indeed.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jlucas44 at 07/09/2008 6:27:08 PM
  Comment:
  I would also add that I do not view it as pragmatic to give immunity to corporations who willingly gave illegal information to the President, or pragmatic for Congress to consent to ignore the Presidents illegal and unconstitutional spying programs. Baracks "compromise" and the Fisa law does exactly this.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  jlucas44 at 07/09/2008 6:00:15 PM
  Comment:
  My main reason for opposing an expansion of faith based programs is that this seems like a further retreat from progressive taxation, and fails to address the great inequality that arises from having no estate tax on the wealthiest families, or failing to tighten tax laws that let corporations avoid income tax.
  And rather than attempt broad based economic equality, Faith based programs are small in scope. The Federal government should concentrate on raising incomes, job creation, progressive income taxes, a return to the Capitol gains tax and estate taxes, and corporate income taxes.
  And yes, I also do not like churches recieving federal dollars to teach their message, even if it does come with a meal or a bed.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  FieldingBandolier at 07/09/2008 4:50:13 PM
  Comment:
  Oh my, no. Politics isn't just about pragmatism - it's about pragmatically choosing where to compromise, and where to hold firm. Obama's chosen to compromise on a fundamental interpretation of Roe vs. Wade (that psychological distress constitutes harm). And his support for faith-based initiatives? You lazily conflate support for faith-based programs, and government support, funded by tax dollars, of faith-based programs.
  
  So the question now is: on what issues will Obama not compromise? The answer for the moment seems to be: none.
  
  Willingness to compromise is not a virtue. Willingness to compromise some things in the service of attaining more cherished goals is. What Obama is demonstrating for the moment is that he has no most cherished goals. Even if untrue, this is an impression that will prove deadly in the realm of public perception.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  bigbill at 07/09/2008 2:29:37 PM
  Comment:
  I have a simpler explanation: Obama is a politician, as Preacher Wright explained from under the wheels of the bus.
  
  Among other shifts back to the right, Obama has dropped his pretense of fighting for American jobs. He has forgotten the concerns about NAFTA, globalism and open borders that he expressed in Ohio in order to get black and white workers' votes.
  
  Yet this does not fit the "pragmatic" label that McWhorter gives Obama. He is shifting to the right not because white and black workers want it but because he is a suckup to big money corporate donors.
  
  Whenever polled, white folks and black folks are overwhelmingly concerned about the abandonment of American manufacturing and the jobs it has historically provided. Ths is not some left-wing concern, but one that both working class whites and blacks share, along with many Hispanic Americans who are (or were) working their way up from the bottom, and are now being replaced by illegals.
  
  Yet Obama flip-flopped and again proposes a McCainian "comprehensive immigration reform" plan. This is a buzzphrase for mass illegal alien amnesty plus more foreign guest workers plus (sometime in the faint, dim future) border enforcement). Perhaps worst of all, those amnestied illegals will be able to bring in their whole families and dump them on social services and the schools. They did it in 1986 and they will do again. Wouldn't you?
  
  Now if black folks, knowing this, still want to vote for the man who will give their jobs away, so be it. But if y'all do that, if your high-toned Harvard-educated, University of Chicago faculty boy gets in and proceeds to give black folks' jobs away, don't expect any sympathy. Goodness knows you certainly won't get any sympathy from the newly legalized millions of illegals who are replacing you, working cheaper AND bringing their extended families into the country.
  
  They say "a word to the wise is sufficient". I hope so. As the opinion leaders in the black communtiy, you, the Talented Tenth, have a special responsibility to your race. You best speak up now for your poorer brethren and sistren. The National Assocaition for the Advancement of Certain People, Jack and Jill, The Links, and AKA can't save you if you betray your own.
• • Reply
  • Report Abuse
  Posted By:
  miss lauren at 07/09/2008 2:12:00 PM
  Comment:
  I love Obama's ability to look at a problem, check out all options, consult experts because our president cannot know everything, and then make a decision. I am a college/starbucks person but I prefer to know that out next president has the mind to ask for advice and to actually listen to every side, thats just intelligence and it should be rewarded.