Obama's 2004 Speech

More of the same sort of rhetoric we heard in the 2007 speech, only not as strident.

In this clip, Obama fleshes out his views on empathy, applying it to the divide between rich and poor. This analysis is revealing as Obama suggests that there is a class struggle underlying society in which non-violence is only one option. He doesn't spell out the alternative but he does suggest that "accountants and tax loopholes" are used to keep people down in a way that is reminiscent of the way police treated blacks during the civil rights struggle. He says at one point "I don't know if you've noticed but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn't they be. They've got what they want."

I find that very revealing. The rich only oppose violence because they've "got what they want" and seek a rule to defend it?

Does that not mean that those who are not rich are justified in using violence, as they don't yet have what they want?

He also suggests that non-violence is a sound approach only if the rich "have empathy" for the poor, by which he surely means cash-money empathy.

What if they don't? What if they decide they're paying enough in taxes? Is non-violence out the window, then?

I asked on Twitter, to the media: Since Obama has, by the media's own admission, not said what he'd do in a second term (except "Not be Romney" and also "Not be Obama from his First Term"), and since all electoral considerations will be lifted from him in a second term, shouldn't we be sort of interested in what really drives Obama?

posted by Ace at 06:07 PM

| Access Comments