On the 18th hole, last Sunday, Tiger Woods hit a difficult five-iron to the green, setting up a long, 25-foot putt for a birdie and a win. It was classic Woods. He could have played for par and a tie. He didn't, he shot for the win.
Last night, Barack Obama did likewise. He could have played it safe. He could have laid back, discredited his Pastor, play to the crowd and, in effect, play for a tie. He could have simply said, "in retrospect, I should have left the church." He didn't. He attacked and defended in what was both a rhetorically good speech, and a speech with the ring of integrity.
To not recognize the skillfulness with which he played the hole is to close ones eyes to the truth.
I not only disagree with Senator Obama on political policy, I disagree with his fundamental presuppositions about man, and man's place in the polis. His is a more utopian vision than mine, and his role of government, more paternal. His vision of hope, I believe, is rooted in the politics of envy, ironic as that sounds. You can hear it more in Rev. Wright than you can in Barack Obama, but it is still there.
Those disagreements notwithstanding, I can not but recognize a guy with courage and integrity, that took and made an amazing, rhetorical 25 foot putt. Congratulations.
3 comments:
I fully agree. Right on.
What is wrong with you both? Don't you see, you're just playing the appearance game. You say, Obama should be respected for the deft handling of a sticky situation. But what's that to praise him for? Appearances. He even appeared to have integrity, you say--well bravo but who cares?! It amounts to praising a man for being a good demagogue. The only possible path left for serious citizens is to ignore everything but the essentials, and to stop playing the game. Someone once said to Dr. Patrick, "If you are not a Marxist, why do you speak like one?" And I think the same could be said, mutatis mutandi, of today's blog entry. If you reject the modern political game of illusions, why do you play it?
First, I have to admit walking a fine line here.
I do think he has integrity and I don't think he comes close to demagoguery.
Because he and I don't agree on certain things doesn't make him dishonest or deceitful. That's the fine line.
And to answer your last question, the speech was impressive for the exact reason you criticize it. It was honest and not pretensive.
Your soft-hearted dad.
Post a Comment