Obama: “What, me think?”

Paul K. writes:

I am decidedly not a John McCain supporter, but he came out of Saturday night’s Saddleback debate quite a bit better than I expected.

Obama had a strikingly odd answer to the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights?”

Obama answered, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”

“Above my pay grade” is a polite excuse offered by enlisted men, NCOs, and junior officers when a reporter asks them to comment on the strategy or politics of a war they are fighting. It means, “I’m not qualified to have an opinion on that.” Obama is not seeking a commission as first lieutenant, he is seeking the presidency. As president, he would be appointing judges who decide moral questions such as this. For him to suggest that it would be beyond his scope to express an opinion on a subject that judges he appoints will decide shows either dishonesty or a lack or moral seriousness.

LA replies:

And it’s so strange, given that he has a position on abortion—allowing ALL abortions no matter how late in the term and let’s prohibit the saving of a baby even if a partial birth abortion has failed to kill it—which is clearly based on the belief that a fetus has no human rights at any point. Clearly, for him, human rights begin only with or after birth. Given his support, his absolute support, for abortion, he MUST believe that that a fetus has no human rights, period. So why does he say he has no position on the subject of whether or when a fetus has human rights? It’s an astonishing answer, showing a major lack of thoughtfulness on his part. What it suggests is that he, as a member of the left, took the most leftward position on abortion possible, not out of any considered belief about why that position was correct, but just because it was the most leftward position. It has to be the most “empty suit” answer ever heard from a presidential candidate.

Paul K. replies:

Yes, and let me add that another way to translate “above my pay grade” is as, “I don’t make these decisions, I just follow orders,” which may be the position Obama takes toward leftist dogma. At the same time, he’s clever enough to blur the issue with a little show of thoughtfulness and humility.

LA writes:

Paul wrote: “As president, he would be appointing judges who decide moral questions such as this.”

Of course, it is axiomatic that judges are not supposed to be deciding moral questions such as this. It is elected legislators who declare, through the laws they pass, what society holds to be right and wrong, and judges who interpret the laws as passed by the legislators, resolving uncertainties that may arise as to the law’s meaning as understood at the time it was passed. But, given the actual, unconstitutional, immoral system under which we now live, Paul is correct. Judges have become our legislators, free to declare the law—to declare right and wrong—to be whatever they think it ought to be.

Richard W. writes:

“More broadly, Obama said one of the country’s biggest moral failings involved its treatment of the poor.”

This is why I dislike Obama, perfectly encapsulated.

Think about this statement, it honestly make ZERO sense. To begin with, almost everyone who came to America from the Pilgrims on was poor. The rich had no reason to take a dangerous ocean journey and start a new life.

So for our entire history, beginning when we were mere colonies, it has been the considered opinion of the real poor people of the world that they will get a much better deal in the USA than they can get at home. It drove the great wave of 19th Century immigration: the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Norwegians, the European Jews, the first wave of Chinese and Japanese immigrants, nearly all were poor.

And on into the 20th century: the Vietnamese, the Hmong, the Cambodians, the Thai, more Chinese, Ukrainians, Russians, Philippines, El Salvadorians, the Indians and Pakistanis , the Koreans, and on and on.

Mostly all these waves of people arrived here poor, frequently unskilled, and often with little education. [LA replies: This is a common misunderstanding, based in part on Emma Lazarus’s beautiful but infinitely mischievous poem. Most of the European immigrants were not unskilled workers, were not huddled masses, but were skilled, energetic people.]

But, in time tested fashion they find a niche, they work hard, they make a lot of money, their kids get education and the next generation starts its rise into all the mainstream jobs and professions.

That’s the real history of the poor in America and it has nothing to do with abuse. The abuse of the poor is what takes place in places like Mexico where there exists no system or method that any amount of hard work will ever result in a better life for the camposino or his children.

And of course, like everything else Barry says it only makes sense if you interpret it from the black leftist perspective. What he is really saying is: “America has not done enough for black people, many of whom are still poor.”

Well the list of what we have done is quite amazing: creating huge public educational institutions that have all sorts of special programs and incentives for blacks, for ubiquitous “head start” free child care to affirmative action admissions at graduate schools. We have supplied all sorts of free money to blacks for two generations now: AFDC, WICC, Section 8 Housing, Public Subsidized housing, rent controlled housing, food stamps, and on an on.

It is difficult to think of any nation throughout recorded history that has devoted so much money to trying to lift up the poor.

The odd thing is that many blacks are still mired in poverty. Hmong and Vietnamese who came here only 30 years ago have already surpassed them in fitting into our society.

At this point to try to induce guilt in white America, and claim that “we” haven’t done enough for the poor is just outrageous nonsense.

I can’t believe any thoughtful adult would say that. It tells me that Obama is not thoughtful, though it’s a pose he is very good at striking. In fact he seems, in every unguarded moment, to revert to the most simplistic jingoistic, doctrinaire leftist cant. And of the special sub-set “black grievance leftism.”

Considering that his entire connection to being “black” is a pure invention of his adolescence, it is a particularly absurd proposition coming from him. If we have to be badgered about not doing enough for “the poor” at least lets hear it from someone who really is the great grandchild of a slave, like Clarence Thomas.

Barack is the son of a African Marxist and a well off white liberal. [LA replies: Obama’s mother and her parents were not well-off, but were of modest circumstances. This has been pointed out over and over again.] So I guess it’s not that surprising that he’s spewing this nonsense.

Too bad he wasn’t called on it. Such is what one expects from our neutered press.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 17, 2008 01:02 PM | Send