I watched the Obama speech in Berlin… it was quite a well-orated, well-written speech. You never know how much of the candidate’s views are actually reflected in the wording (who wrote it?). I felt that it was well-received by the audience, which did not seem particularly German. I enjoyed it… to tell you the truth, up until a certain point. I liked how he appealed to the Europeans and I agree that we need to find a way to make up to them somehow. It seems as though he would be better in that regard than would his opponent. His stance on terrorism took a firm stance and elicited the help of the Europeans, which would probably be much more willing to follow his lead.
Where he lost me was on the economics. He invoked many similes which spoke to “lowering walls,” in terms of economic disparity. He took a decidedly global tact with regard to the etiology of strife and resentment… such that world animosity was the result of economic disparity, instead of ideology. That is the number one difference I have with the DNC, their view that economics are the primary instigators of world strife. That we have a duty to redistribute wealth on a global basis, in order to mitigate this animosity. That through this act, war and terrorism will be lessened. I do not agree. I don’t think terrorists really care about economics in the least.
The other big thing I noticed was his definition of freedom. He defined in the way FDR did: Freedom from want, freedom from fear, etc. That is, in my opinion, a very dubious definition. Those freedoms require intervention (big government) in order to counter-weight the ills of human nature: greed and violence (social/economic controls). This means to me that people are inherently greedy and violent… I think they are not. My definition would be closer to: freedom from lack of opportunities and freedom from fear, owing to a powerful, decisive, military to defend us. He (and the DNC) think in terms of global responsibility and I think in terms of national responsibility. I feel no particular responsibility to other nations, which make bad choices or have inferior philosophies. If asked, I will, through my extra-governmental affiliations, be happy to consider the worthiness of their requests. If they feel disparity and hatred because of that, then by all means, shed the philosophies which bind you, and labor diligently to create a society as good or possibly better than ours. I would encourage my charities to give to that cause.
