Tags for This Article:

Democratic (1776)  Politics (1386)  Barack Obama (1129)  Elections (782)  GrassRoots (651)  Hope Hopefulness (111)  Robert F Kennedy (16)  Berkeley (13)  Bobby Kennedy (13)  Berkeley (11)  University Of California Berkeley (4) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...)  (less...)
Add to My Group
February 28, 2008 at 10:50:50

BARACK OBAMA, BOBBY KENNEDY, AND THE NECESSITY OF HOPE

by Laurence A. Toenjes     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

At the outset I would like to distinguish between hope as a realistic expectation for improvements in one’s worldly existence versus hope for a better life to follow. This latter form of hope, or faith, is outside the realm of politics and should play no role in it, though this rule is obviously often violated.

 

Barrack Obama has spent a good deal of time in his campaign speeches and in debates talking about hope.  He has been trying to inspire hope in an electorate that has become turned off from politics, an electorate that has become cynical after seven years of an administration where hope was given only to those in the upper income ranks, an electorate that has seen the catastrophe of September 11, 2001 transformed from a national tragedy into a bludgeon to force the nation into a pointless war with tragic loss of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and the waste of over two trillion dollars.

 

Senator Clinton as well as John McCain has tried to use Senator Obama’s efforts to inspire hope in the American people as evidence that he is an unrealistic dreamer, all words but no action, even hinting that he is some sort of impostor or charlatan.

 

However, Senator Obama has argued that if the American people do not have hope, if they do not feel that their federal government is at least as concerned for the common man as it is for the rich and powerful, then they will continue to be disinterested in the political process, will continue to vote in low numbers, and will therefore not provide the grassroots muscle needed to overcome the grip of the special interests upon the national discourse and the decision making process.

 

In their debate in Cleveland on February 26, 2008 Senator Obama responded to a video clip showing Senator Clinton making fun of his rhetoric of hope.  Obama:

 

“I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough.  It is not going to be easy to pass health care.  If it [were] it would already have gotten done. It’s not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country.  Exxon-Mobil made $11 billion last quarter.  They are not going to give up those profits easily.” 

 

“But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we’re going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they’re paying attention to what their government is doing.  And that’s what I have been doing in this campaign and that’s what I will do as President.”

 

“And there’s nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that’s how change is going to happen.”

 

“The second thing we are going to have to do is we’re actually going to have to go after the special interests…[Senator Clinton said] you can’t just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away.  That is absolutely true.  But it doesn’t help if you’re taking millions of dollars in contributions from those special interests-- they are [then] less likely to go away.  So it is important for us to crack down on how those special interests are able to influence Congress.  And yes it is important for us to inspire and mobilize and motivate the American people to get involved and pay attention.”

 

In short, Senator Obama does realize that the mere generation of hope for the future is not sufficient to bring about the changes needed to overcome the power of vested interests.  But, he argues that a hopeful attitude by a majority of the American people is an absolute prerequisite for positive change to occur. Hope is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

Senator Obama’s campaign style and his message have been compared to those of Robert F. Kennedy when he made his fateful run for the Presidency 40 years ago.  Senator Kennedy, too, argued that hope is a prerequisite for change. In a speech given at the University of California at Berkeley on October 22, 1966 Senator Kennedy said the following:

 .


 .

"Men without hope, resigned to despair and oppression, do not make revolutions. It is when expectation replaces submission, when despair is touched with the awareness of possibility, that the forces of human desire and the passion for justice are

unloosed." (Robert F. Kennedy, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, Oct. 22, 1966)

 1  |  2

 

Laurence A.Toenjes is retired from the University of Houston ?s Department of Sociology where he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group. Toenjes received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Hope may not be enough

If its all true about Obama taking big money on the sly, from the Wall Street moneybags, then it confirms he will be our next president.  The fact is, he doesn't really need their money.  All he needs is their confidence and tacit support i.e. for them and their goons to stand back and let him ascend to the throne.  I think I can see the writing on the wall:  Perhaps Obama has agreed to liberally hand out pardons and not to pry open the coffers that are currently being jammed full of every coin that jingles.  After the changing of the guard he will let bygones be bygones; perhaps a knowing nod or wink here and there, but no prosecutions, no trials, tribunals, subpoenas.  Okay, a few, a scapegoat here and there.  Maybe two.  Whomever    In exchange, the powers that be will cede control without a struggle and they'll take care of any contenders.   Obama gets their support and also plausible deniability.  They get their money and get out of jail free cards.  Its all very orderly.  Very stable.  Its the way representative democracies work.  The power brokers pick the outgoing king's successor.  Heck, its how monarchies work too-- just without the poison and daggers.  Ok, without the overt use of poison and daggers.  lol. Everything else is the same.  Its human nature.
    To Obama's credit, he's been working at this for some time, shaking the right hands, playing along.   He's better at it than anyone else, thats for damn sure.  Rocking the boat only slightly (not like Edwards, or Nader); rocking it enough to seem like a populist.  "I don't take their dirty money."  No, you probably dont, but in all likelihood you will let them ride off into the sunset with their ill-gotten gold in exchange for a seat on the white throne.  The fact is you can't possibly be allowed to take the throne unless you can ensure the wealthy that their fortunes will be kept intact.  This is the last piece of the puzzle; the last move in the gambit.  If the old money is comfortable with you as king, then king you can become.
     Less seriously, its kinda fun to watch Hillary get more and more indignant as the important doors are closing to her.  She's been around too long; stepped on too many toes.  Too much wheeling and dealing and old, solid alliances.  Too many secret agents and entrenched bureacrats.  Obama is fresh blood, more malleable, easier to keep reigned in; fewer entrenched allies.   He doesn't have anyone in any of the existing bureacratic fiefdoms.  Hillary does.  Its  given her a sense of entitlement, and she still doesn't seem to understand its also made her too dangerous.  Makes sense to me that they would be backing Obama, but I'll still be surprised if "they" will let a black man sit the throne.  Ancient beliefs run deep in the blood of the old money.  Then again, he is a man; and they are running very low on options.  The thing about democracies is they don't allow for a regent to hold the seat while the true king is found.  You gotta slap somebody up there every 4 years.  Makes for a good show at least. 

by Richard Clark (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 7:43:29 AM
 


Laurence A.Toenjes is retired from the University of Houston ?s Department of Sociology where he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group. Toenjes received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University.
Laurence A. ToenjesLaurence A.Toenjes is retired from the University of Houston ?s Department of Sociology where he was a researcher with The Sociology of Education Research Group. Toenjes received his doctorate in economics from Southern Illinois University.

You forgot something

Rich:
You omitted from your comment the header of the email your attorney sent you!

"My attorney responds to the charge that Obama is funded by Wall St. biggies   
From: Richard Clark <cardinolo@comcast.net>
To:   Larry T <ltoenjes@aol.com>Cc:Bcc:
Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 2:03 pm   

"If its all true (which I doubt), then it confirms he will be our next president.  The fact is, he doesn't really need their money.  All he needs is their confidence and tacit support i.e. for them and their goons to stand back and let him ascend to the throne. ....etc..etc...etc....."

Your attorney began by saying "If its all true (which I doubt)..."

What is it that you and/or your attorney doubt?

Was this opinion expensive?

Larry

 

by Laurence A. Toenjes (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 8:48:16 AM
 

 

2 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Documentation on Sarah Palin's IQ, Academic Record, and Job Performance Posted by Stephen Fox

Obama Must Appoint a Consumer Protectionist as FDA Commissioner by Stephen Fox

Bailout Fraud: Does the bailout pass the smell test? by Paul Craig Roberts

BREAKING: Florida Dems Told to Vote by Phone by Rady Ananda

Aries Full Moon October 14, 2008 by C.L. Pagano

On Naomi Wolf's Sounding the Alarm by Dr. Dennis Loo

Johnstown, PA McCain-Palin rally, view it and weep for America by Ed Tubbs

Resignation letter from the McCain Palin Campaign by Robyn Crane

What you should know about Barack Obama by miles mathis

Justice for black people in Georgia? Help stop Troy Davis' execution by Linn Cohen-Cole

Go To Top 50 Most Popular