Re: [UUPoly-L] a troublesome thought

[P O <wild_card@sbcglobal.net>]

Actually, I was just talking with my mom last night and was comparing Obama's campaign to JFK's.  I think the parallels are much stronger then with Hitler.  Obama and Kennedy are both charismatic demagogues, capable of swaying people to their side with public speaking with lots of dazzle and little actual substance.  

   Both were questioned heavily about their religion as part of the campaign (Kennedy was actually asked in one debate if, since he was a Catholic, electing him wouldn't simply make the Pope the defacto  President of the US).  

They are the only two non-WASP Presidents we've had (neither is anglo-saxon, and Kennedy wasn't protestant).  

Both were viewed, correctly, as historic elections.  

Both came in with military legacies that they were stuck dealing with (the Bay of Pigs was planned and arranged by Eisenhower, not Kennedy.  Also, Ike started the 'advisors' in Veitnam).  

Anyway, the list actually goes on quite a way, but you get the point.  Personally, I hope that the similarities don't go too far, though there have already been several attempts on Obama's life.  Luckily, they have so far been clumsy amateurs.  Let's hope it stays that way.  

As for the race issue, I honestly got tired of hearing about it.  Still am, actually.  Yes, his father was black.  So, we finally have a President that is only half-white.  Great, but what about his take on the issues?  I just wish American politics in general were more about substance and less about 'dazzle', more about the citizens and expanding our freedoms, and less about sound bites and lobbyists.  

So, to bring things back to the main topic, does anyone think this election season shows any hopeful signs for Poly Acceptance?

Just tossing in my early morning thoughts.

Pat

-
From: "Michael Paprocki" <msppbs@itol.com>
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] 2,3,4,Re: a troublesome thought
To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>

First of all - thank you all immensely for taking the time to respond to my
musing. I am learning something here. I would like to resond in turn to some of
what has been written.

1. A trouble ...
Michael Paprocki

Go Poly people - Go Valerie
Thank you for writing something in the UUPoly-L Digest.
Thank you for the touching anecdote as well.
It is indeed an historic campaign because of your being able to tell that
story.
I imagine we are not to be political here - but I for one am proud to be voting
for that man of color.
I've had a disturbing (to me) thought however
What if this man of color were not;
     a) a man of color,
     b) a Democrate,
     c) having a quasi-socialistic orientation.
Would I still feel the same way about him?
I answer myself - with some shame - that I think I might not.
I think I'm under the influence of the good guy (that's a,b, and c)
winning thingy.
Hummmm...
If he weren't the "good guy" in all three (to me) - which one
would win out.
I need to remind myself that it would STILL be an historic campaign if he
weren't b) and c).

Also - did I miss issue 1?

Michael Paprocki


2. Re: A trouble...
CWLee

> It is indeed an historic campaign ...

> I imagine we are not to be political here - but I for one 
> am proud to be voting for that man ...

Since we seem to be more open today in expressing political 
preferences, I too will depart from the norm and share an 
email I received today from one of "my" poly people who is 
87 years old:

"I am so afraid that Obama is going to win.  So many people
seem to be sucked in by his charisma and ability to make 
such
great speeches.  Not that they have much content.  Reminds 
me of how Hitler, who had the same charisma and ability to 
make moving speeches,  sucked in all those young Germans."

Best regards to all, Chuck Lee.
----------
CWLee
Former slayer of dragons; practice now limited to sacred
cows.  Believing we should hire for quality, not quotas, and
promote for performance, not preferences.

I think I pick up on two main points:
a) Not to follow like a blind sheep someone who happens to be a good orator
b) Not to select based upon color, but upon qualifications

In response to a):
Point taken. I parhaps am a little "dazzled." I DO need to be more
aware of what is "dazzle" and what is substance - although I
didn't perceive Palin's attempt to "dazzle" (and I conceed
that she was trying a little different kind of "dazzling") as anything
like substance. [Maybe dance around is a better term than dazzle.] And I very
much see BOTH candidates as using their own techniques meant to dazzle or
engender awe. "Let us be very clear about that" - "my
friends."

I response to b):
Thinking about my initial shame - I should not be ashamed at all. I was ashamed
of perhaps not feeling the same if that a) man of color was not also b) a
Demotrate, and c) of a quasi-socialistic orientation. What you I THINK are
saying - and what I think I agree with - is that if he didn't have certain
qualities (in addition to being a man of color) I should not select him (that
is, I SHOULD feel differently).

To comment further:
The explicit comparison to Hitler in his perhaps being just a good orator I
think  may be fair. The implicit comparison to Hitler in his perhaps being as
evil I think is unfair.