Sophomorik

Def: pretentious, overconfident, but immature:

Obama’s Speech on Race

Read along here. It starts getting really good at the end of page four:

“In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism”

You can compare that to this dud, given by Mitt Romney on the issue which defined him as a candidate.

March 19, 2008 - Posted by sophomorik | Uncategorized | | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. Apologies for always cluttering your comments…

    I read most of both speeches (thanks for the link to Romney’s) and the difference in quality is astounding. Quite often I found myself thinking, “this is so true” or “why hasn’t anyone said this before?” while reading Obama’s. With Mitt though I felt lumped into a majority I don’t belong in: “Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” Or: “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust. … We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.” Not only does he completely deny atheism any dignity, but he perpetuates the myth that “Under God” and “In God we trust” has always been the American way, even though surely, as a politician, he knows the pledge was amended half a century ago, and currency didn’t always bear the motto either.

    Comment by Alan | March 20, 2008

  2. Compare to Obama:
    “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.” It may seem like a small thing, but I’d much rather hear “many of you” than “Americans.” Obama doesn’t implicitly condemn heathens.

    Comment by Alan | March 20, 2008


Leave a comment