The full text of Obama's speech is online.--
The text of Obama's speech is here. I've read it. On balance, it looks excellent.
UPDATE: I think that was the best delivered acceptance speech I've heard since at least Reagan. Reagan perhaps had a little more heart in his delivery; Obama's style is cooler. But then, in prepared remarks Obama comes across as smarter when he talks than Reagan did, though not necessarily deeper.
For both men, their only weaknesses in prepared remarks were that (like almost all politicians) they too often tend to mine platitudes, just different sets of them.
The part whwere he promises to 'free us from dependance on foreign oil in ten years' ?
The part where he promised free college for every child ?
The part where he says he will 'hire an army of new teachers, and pay them more' ?
The part where he says everyone will ( hard to know what he said - either get free health care, or be forced to by health insurance )? The part where he promises everyone gets the same insurance package as members of Congress ?
The part where he offers to debate McCain even though Nobama has consistently REFUSED to debate him, and cut the debate schedule dwon to a bare minimum, three ?
The part where he promises to 'pay for it will be using a line item veto on the budget' ( which the President doesn't have ) ?
ICE is not separating the mother from her infant child when the mother is humanely repatriated to her home country. It is the mother's choice to leave her child behind. What kind of mother abandons her child of her own free will?
Take away his teleprompter and start asking him for actual PLANS OF EXECUTION rather than fancy promises, and he falls flat on his face.
Great speech.
"He prefers to use a teleprompter" + "He does not have a teleprompter" does not = "he falls flat on his face." Unfortunately, I think that many people believe the latter follows from the former.
By this statement Barak Obama declares that his understanding of the United State of America is completely backwards. The fundamental belief that has formed America is that I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF.
When there is flood or other disaster, I will help my neighbor because he would do the same, but at its core I can only help my neighbor because I have and will take care of my own needs.
It's obviously easier to give a concrete plan to keep the status quo, but does anyone (even here) honestly think that's been working?
Sad.
It's one thing to win a Democratic primary debate, where there's no real clash on the issues. Throughout the debates, the question was never which Dem had the best ideas; they all had the same platform with only minor differences, and significantly different personalities. When he has to go up against someone who actually has policy differences, I don't see him doing well.
Back to the main subject: It'll play well with Dems and voters who are independent for lack of thinking. It won't convince cynical independents and Republicans; it was all standard liberal boilerplate, delivered effectively. Clinton was much more innovative and appealing to conservatives.
Overall, I'd expect a transient 4-6% bump out of the convention. Not enough to scare the Republicans or to make a serious dent.
Probably the best speech I've heard since Mario Cuomo many years ago laid down the law in a brutally frank speech that left everyone almost too breathless to applaud. My kind of stuff.
Where did, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," come from? egn, I'm sure he's a nice enough guy. But I honestly can't think of a presidential candidate, especially a candidate, who came across as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. They're too busy trying to win the ultimate popularity poll. On that point, if a candidate could actually deliver on every campaign promise and pie-in-the-sky proposal for world peace, a chicken in every pot, blah, blah, blah, I might vote for him even if he was Hitler reborn!
.gov helped me with student loans.
.gov helped me with college grants
.gov helped me with funds for freeways so I can travel by car for great distances
That is just a few things.
Yes. Exactly. But with apologies to The Dark Knight, not the Change America Deserves...
"My friends, cynicism towards government is good."
...and runs from there.
Absolutely. Where would we be today if our best and brightest had wasted their lives defending some silly notion of a collective "America", fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, for example, instead of defending their own homes and lands and trusting everyone else to take care of themselves and do likewise?
Why, the Japanese invasion might have rolled over the entire United States, instead of stopping at the Rockies...
Which, of course, is exactly what Obama said. Read again what you typed.
The founders would not have found anything objectionable in there. While believing in individual responsibility, they were also very concerned about civic virtue and the common good. Some of them would, though, differ about whether the government should have a large role in such things.
This is why we need to repeal 'birthright citizenship' and make US citizenship dependent on the citizenship of the parents. The current legal regime, which allows for citizen children to be born to illegal parents, has done more to divide Hispanic families than anything else I can remember.
Why do you think it sad that I can take care of myself? As I indicated before, it's only because I have taken care of myself that I can then help my neighbor.
Out of how many ? I forget. 10 ? 12 ? More ?
CJ2 - "Could you, Mr. Milligan, use actual quotes each time when using quotation marks, instead of sometimes using sarcastic paraphrases?"
You mean like that ? But unless I were inclined to attempt to type Nobama's words exactly ( bloviation and all ), the use of '....' is appropriate. And there was no sarcasm in anything I said, except in the basic premise that the things he promised are clearly from la-la land, utterly undeliverable, even if he HAD an actual plan in mind, which he doesn't.
On balance? Yes, I do.
The fundamental belief that has formed America is that I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF.
Which, of course, is exactly what Obama said. Read again what you typed.
That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation"
Sad.
Paul -- I attacked your statement that Obama "falls flat on his face" when speaking extemporaneously. Winning a debate against what might be called professional debaters -- politicians -- tends to negate your conclusion that Obama can't string a sentence together w/o a teleprompter. And I have no idea how many he won; I stopped looking after I found proof of a single win.
"...And if anyone has invoked more cynicism toward government, it has been us. Vote Republican."
Mondale, Bush Sr., Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Bush Jr., Gore, Kerry.
Kind of like being the tallest midget upon closer examination. Churchill need not sweat.
Also, Republicans very well may regret playing the patriotism card in such a despicable manner the past 7 years if people accept the formulation that patriotism is a healthy sense of collective responsibility, that we are proud of America as a nation, and not just a state.
About the above,
why must so many people flail around in a desperate attempt to repeal the growing interdependence of the world?
Because they appear to be arrogant enough to think that everything good that ever happened to them was based on their own merit, or maybe their family's. Thousands of years of technological development, a national infrastructure, the education of self and society, safe neighborhoods, they just appear out of thin air, like magic, a level playing field for the perfect meritocracy we all know we have today on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's March on Washington. I wonder how many of them were already alive in 1963?
Volokh can be a trippy blog, a libertarian ethos co-existing with imperialism, militarism, and mindless nationalism. Never has incoherence and an ideology of greed been so nicely wrapped up in intellectualism.
Yeah, the teleprompter must have come in handy at Harvard Law. It is truly astonishing how people have come to the conclusion that he's thoughtful and intelligent.
Still, if the Republicans want to set the expectation that McCain's a better debater than Obama, suits me. That didn't work so well for Gore. The expectations for Obama's speech tonight were sky-high, and he met or exceeded them, at least according to Bill Kristol and Chris Wallace.
Say what? You've never clicked over to NRO?
No sad but the truth. I can not think of ONE time the .gov has helped me individually. Not one.
that must be for lack of imagination. you've previously mentioned that you are a doctor. the government spends lots of money in educating you throughout residency. and if you took out loans to help pay for that medical education, the government helped you out there too.
you might as well argue that college tuition would be lower if companies stopped paying college graduates so much more, thus reducing demand. it's an equally ridiculous argument.
But I agree that college tuition would in fact be lower if companies stopped paying college graduates so much more. Perhaps you think the government should mandate that companies treat poorly educated workers more fairly?
The noted socialist and collectivist Bob Dole argued quite the opposite when he ran for President, talking endlessly about how his home town took care of him when he came home from the war. Republicans and conservatives seemed to like it then.
Like lots of other good ideas, this idea can be taken to an extreme. And it has, by the GOP. I think a handy simplification of the two parties is as follows:
R: Every man for himself. The hell with you, hurray for me.
D: United we stand, divided we fall. We're all in this together.
As someone above suggested, conservatism has become an elaborate rationalization for greed and selfishness.
oh boo hoo, shame on them for making you do the job of a medical resident! perhaps you should have made a better choice of which residency programs to apply to?
it doesn't change the fact that medical education receives massive subsidies that you didn't have to pay. the only way you can claim the government didn't help you out is if you voluntarily paid them back for all those expenses...which i somehow doubt.
i forgot to mention that there is this little thing called competition. this would keep the rise in tuition to minimal levels as colleges compete against each for applicants based on price. i'm surprised you've never heard of it.
It's the difference between individual sovereignty and state sovereignty. Tales of the culture of generosity under individual sovereignty are lost on many people because they have never experienced it. They only understand government as it exists or none at all, which leads them to accept whatever politicians propose that they think will get them a piece of the tax pie.
What I mean to say is, calling Bob Dole's tale "socialist" is either completely blind (to voluntaryism) or opaquely cynical.
You seem to be insinuating that libertarianism is an "ideology of greed". That's a pretty strong statement to leave unsupported. Care to elaborate?
He's done that to me, too. I think more than once. Join the club.
He obviously said that only because he's applying affirmative action.
Oops, too late. I see that therut essentially said what I said. Except he said it with a straight face. We really do live in a post-satirical era.
Presumably you apply the equivalent reasoning when you evaluate statements made by Alan Colmes? So if Colmes said that McCain delivered a great speech, you would remind us that Colmes "knows where his check comes from?"
Or, to just focus on the meta issue: The Second Amendment as interpreted by my Supreme Court nominees at most permits rural hunters to use bolt-action long guns during whatever hunting season the Federal, state and local governments decide is permissible through their reasonable regulations.
This game should provide hours of fun for all!
This may be a bit tardy, but....
All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes:
The aqueduct.
Reg:
Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist:
And the sanitation!
Stan:
Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg:
All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias:
And the roads...
Reg:
(sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist:
Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices:
Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg:
Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front:
And the wine...
Omnes:
Oh yes! True!
Francis:
Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back:
Public baths!
Stan:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis:
Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg:
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Very good. Here's a link with a version that's formatted in a way that might be easier to read.
IMO the Thousand Points of Light/Read My Lips speech was a great speech and it would be remembered as such if Bush Sr. had governed thereby.
Radical libertarianism, yes. My evidence, for the time being, will simply be:
Although many more such similar sentiments can be found on the Volokh Conspiracy, almost daily.
PS: I take a $500 loss on office supplies each year for my classroom. Sometimes you do what's right, even if it isn't perfectly fair to you. Its entirely possible that I make more money that the esteemed Doctor. Whether or not his personal life has benefited a little or a lot from government policy is really beside the point. The ideological presumption that there are no public goods, positive externalities from government policy, or social interdependence is intellectually -- and morally -- bankrupt.
Radical libertarianism, yes.
Well as Ludwig von Mises said elsewhere in the passage I'm about to quote below: "It is hardly possible to misrepresent in a more thorough way the fundamental facts of economics."
If "therut" went bankrupt and could no longer operate his practice and therefore could no longer serve his patients would that be a "public good"? And note that the harm that would come if his practice went bankrupt would be more severe if it were in a poor and underserved geographic area - his patients would have fewer alternatives, would have to travel further for alternatives, etc.
In my opinion the paragraph I'm about to quote by von Mises is probably one of the top twenty paragraphs written in the last century in terms of economic and societal importance. It tells you most of what you need to set up a prosperous economy.(There are some other important factors, like a stable, backed currency, but it gets the main points.) Here it is:
"It is not easy to explain this state of affairs to people misled by the passionate anti-capitalistic agitation. As the self-styled intellectuals see it, the capitalist system and the greed of the businessmen are to blame for the fact that the total sum of products turned out for consumption is not greater than it actually is. The only way to do away with poverty they know is to take away — by means of progressive taxation — as much as possible from the well-to-do. In their eyes the wealth of the rich is the cause of the poverty of the poor. In accordance with this idea the fiscal policies of all nations and especially also of the United States were in the last decades directed toward confiscating ever-increasing portions of the wealth and income of the higher brackets. The greater part of the funds thus collected would have been employed by the taxpayers for saving and additional capital accumulation. Their investment would have increased productivity per man-hour and would in this way have provided more goods for consumption. It would have raised the average standard of living of the common man. If the government spends them for current expenditure, they are dissipated and capital accumulation is concomitantly slowed down."
It illustrates the counterintuitive concept that high tax rates, especially high progressive tax rates, deplete the capital stock (capital accumulation) and actually make everyone, including the poor, poorer. The inverse - low tax rates - increase the capital stock and make everyone, including the poor, richer because standards of living are raised. This increase in the capital stock (capital accumulation) also benefits the poor because employment is increased.
So to call libertarianism an "ideology of greed" is not only insulting, it is also 180 degrees incorrect. The policies recommended actually increase economic prosperity leading to fewer poor people, eventually the smallest amount societally possible. Perhaps a more apt term would be an "ideology of freedom, prosperity, and anti-poverty resulting from a realistic understanding of economics".
It's not that libertarians don't want to help the poor, they just know that redistributionist, collectivist, socialist, etc. schemes hurt more than help and they hurt everyone (resulting in decreasing standards of living for everyone), although they hurt the poor most of all. Communism is the ultimate in redistribution and it illustrates Mises point nicely (or rather not so nicely) - it results in stagnation, poverty, declining standards of living, and often starvation.
As far as your other remarks go:
Sometimes you do what's right, even if it isn't perfectly fair to you.
The problem is what you are talking about is not right. If "therut"'s practice goes out of business his patients are out of luck, along with him personally and society.(Society benefits from the services he provides AND the taxes he pays on his - apparently "evil" in your eyes - profits. Funny, when the government then spends that "evil" tax money it magically becomes a "public good".)
The $500 you spend on school supplies is basically private charity and as long as you didn't steal that money from someone else it is fine. That's your choice. But you aren't in business either. The ability of "therut" to provide his services relies on making a profit. If he goes bankrupt, the result is no services and no tax revenue.
Whether or not his personal life has benefited a little or a lot from government policy is really beside the point.
Not at all. Society's interests are tied to his, which is part of the beauty of capitalism - individual interests are linked to societal interests. The more successful "therut" is, the more value he is creating and the more society benefits, through tax revenue, his services, etc.
The ideological presumption that there are no public goods, positive externalities from government policy, or social interdependence is intellectually -- and morally -- bankrupt.
Public goods - There are public goods, but more public goods are provided by libertarian policy recommendations. And under the libertarian policies society itself provides the public goods, it is not dependent on government.
Positive externalities from government - Libertarianism doesn't say there are none. But most are actually so inefficient society would have been better off providing those themselves.
Social Interdependence - Incorrect. Markets are built on social interdependence. Markets strengthen social interdependence. Libertarians have no problem with voluntary, non-coercive social interdependence.
I hope McCain hears you and announces as loudly as possible that he believes in trickle-down economics.
Your failure to distinguish a range of policy choices within the overall label of "libertarian" conveniently creates a strawman, one that you only semi-successfully knock down. I don't have the time to rebut all that. No one is arguing for people to go bankrupt.
Providing appropriate classroom supplies is not private charity. It is a basic part of being a professional teacher, albeit an aggravating one when you first enter the profession and realize that your real wages are a bit less than you even anticipated. A bit less. Believe it or not, most teachers don't define their professional duties through the stipulations of a union contract of what must be provided. Not everyone bases their career choices on a matrix of self-interest. If doctors enter the field for the $, so be it. Sending an eldery person who needs a tetanus shot elsewhere because you are too lazy to collect a copay or just suck up the extremely marginal loss is evidence of someone who has their priorities out of wack.
therut is himself a strawman, I suppose. Shrieking "socialism" in the face of abundant evidence that Obama believes in markets and a mostly private sector economy may or may not be representative of conservative critics, but it seems to be the norm here. Thus, I limited my remarks to addresses the absolutists who seem to believe that all their success is completely due to themselves, an absurd notion on its face.
Markets do not provide infrastructure or long term planning worth a damn, no matter how ofter one asserts that they do. Waiting for the climate to irrevocably change before responding is not efficient -- it is selling out our children so we can afford more luxuries.
Yup, an ideology of greed. At least in the hands of ideologues.
I hope McCain hears you and announces as loudly as possible that he believes in trickle-down economics.
Sorry, the linked essay by Mises predates Reagan's speeches. It's just good, old-fashioned, competent Austrian economics. Why don't you address what was linked instead of trying to bring up Reagan.
Since communism confiscates everyones wealth and redistributes based on the politicians' opinions of "need" that's the epitome of what you refer to as "We're all in this together", yet it tends to result in poverty, stagnation, declining standards of living, and often starvation. Why is that?
Your failure to distinguish a range of policy choices within the overall label of "libertarian" conveniently creates a strawman, one that you only semi-successfully knock down. I don't have the time to rebut all that.
Well you were the one that used "ideology of greed" as shorthand for all of libertarian philosophy. When questioned you mentioned "therut"'s remark as an example, which I addressed. I addressed the only specific example you provided.
No one is arguing for people to go bankrupt.
You criticized him for discontinuing services he would have to perform at a loss due to government interference. If he were forced to perform a significant amount of services at a loss the eventual result would be bankruptcy.
Believe it or not, most teachers don't define their professional duties through the stipulations of a union contract of what must be provided. Not everyone bases their career choices on a matrix of self-interest.
That's your choice since you chose the profession. If it's generally expected perhaps it's an unofficial cost rather than charity.
Regardless of how you made your career choice self-interest played a part in it since otherwise you would do it for free. Since you seem to enjoy equating "self-interest" with "greed" when referring to libertarians, I guess it's only fair that one can note that you too made your career choice at least partially based on "greed".
If doctors enter the field for the $, so be it. Sending an eldery person who needs a tetanus shot elsewhere because you are too lazy to collect a copay or just suck up the extremely marginal loss is evidence of someone who has their priorities out of wack.
Well the "old lady" ploy is emotionally manipulative and disingenuous, no one said anything about any little old ladies.
But doctors in private practice do have to make money, otherwise they can't practice. So they have to be "in it for the $" to an extent regardless of why they entered the profession.
Shrieking "socialism" in the face of abundant evidence that Obama believes in markets and a mostly private sector economy may or may not be representative of conservative critics, but it seems to be the norm here.
That's because it's a continuum. The more you increase taxes the more you deplete the capital stock and weaken the private economy. So generally any increase in taxation tends to produce less societal wealth, both in the present and going forward. That's the most important principle from the paragraph I linked above. Regardless of whether someone believes "mostly" in a private sector economy if they're increasing taxes they are reducing societal wealth in the present and going forward.
Thus, I limited my remarks to addresses the absolutists who seem to believe that all their success is completely due to themselves, an absurd notion on its face.
Why is that relevant? Are you one of these bitter teachers that gets upset because some of your students go on to be successful in lucrative careers? (I knew of some teachers that were so bitter about a student's success that they followed the person to graduate school to slander and sabotage the person.) If so, that is nonsense. You picked your career knowing what the compensation would likely be. And besides, teachers generally have excellent benefits and retirement packages. A pension of $50K a year is basically equivalent to getting a million dollars. And that isn't even counting healthcare benefits.
Markets do not provide infrastructure or long term planning worth a damn, no matter how ofter one asserts that they do.
Nonsense. Long term planning is often problematic because change occurs so rapidly. Markets signal and react to change very effectively. Take oil, for example. As the price of oil rises there is motivation for conservation, research, efficiency, etc. - all happening automatically.
Yup, an ideology of greed. At least in the hands of ideologues.
No, everyone is at least partially motivated by self-interest, you just like to call the self-interest of other people "greed" when it suits you. It's an ideology of freedom, prosperity, and anti-poverty - much more so than socialism, collectivism, etc.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.