Politics & Investing

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

PRESSmUP — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:29:46 GMT

Mark,

You and I will just need to agree to disagree on this.

A reparative change as described by a questioner, unanswered by Obama and relating to redistribution of wealth/reparative work/redistributive change for blacks does not signify his support for reparations for slavery. To label it as such is not valid.

Curiously, several scholarly reviews of this exchange remarked that Obama held a rather conservative view of the courts and their role and authority.

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Mark49 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:05:48 GMT

PRESSmUP:
Mark,
Your post is enlightening in that I can see how the Freepers came up with their statements that Obama supports reparations for slavery.
I wonder if they realize that "reparative work" spoken by a questioner does not infer this? While this shares a Latin derivative, that would be about as close as you can come.

Press, they were talking about reparations, but no one made it clear as to what form that would take. Obama made it clear that the Supreme Court, the Warren Court, was not very radical, in that it did not go after redistribution of wealth after desegregation. This is what prompted Karen's question, and she referenced what Obama said as reparative work. Obama answered her question, never correcting or questioning her reference as reparative, but calling it redistributive change.

Obama: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Caller (Karen): The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama's answer: I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

Obama is very clear in his response. He is not optimistic about major redistributive change happening through the courts. He is pessimistic about it getting done through the courts. He thinks it should be legislative, as Karen suggested, and then it would be a simple matter of administration. But he is all for major redistributive change.

They were talking about the same thing, and it all began when Obama spoke about the failure of the Courts, after desegregation, to go after redistribution of wealth/reparative work/redistributive change for blacks. They spoke of the Court being behind "public opinion" in its rulings, as if it were understood that is what the Supreme Court does. I was shocked at the cavalier attitude they had about the purpose of the Court, as if it were understood by any idiot that the purpose of the Court was not to interpret the law, but to make the law. They referenced John Ashcroft many times, fearing that as Attorney General, he would not be "activist enough" in getting cases before the Courts.

What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that Obama believes in redistributing the economic earnings of Americans. He talks about change, redistributive change, redistributing wealth, and spreading the wealth. He spoke of reparations in the form of increases in money for education, totally avoidiing the reparations question in the Democratic primaries. I don't think he is being totally honest with Americans, and I don't think he ever will.

If you listen to the audio, and it lasts about an hour, you will see that the whole point of this is Karen's call and Obama's response. The first part of the post is to give the context and purpose of her call. Obama's response is what is revealing.

Mark

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

RMax304823 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:18:41 GMT

Maybe Obama should never have been a law professor at Chicago. Professors have a habit of ruminating over concepts like "distributive justice", especially if they've been teaching the philosophy of people like John Rawls. They have a habit of thinking in terms of "what-if?" Obama's spun these hypotheses before -- "desperate people cling to religion," etc. He's doubly cursed. Not only was he a professor in 2001 but his mother had always been an anthropologist. It's the sign of an active imagination. Americans are more inclined to applaud speeches that are empty of ideas, full of generalizations, and stir the emotions.

On the plus side, at least Obama's given the matter of taxation some thought. Here's what a pollster has to say about MCain's position.

"The McCain campaign apparently has a new theme this week: attacking Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth." But it is not clear what that really means. Many Republicans have bitterly opposed the federal income tax since the 16th amendment was passed in 1913. Is McCain going to repeal the federal income tax? If so, how does he plan to finance the government? Or does he mean that the difference between the top rate of 39.6% under Bill Clinton and the top rate of 36% under George Bush is the difference between communism and capitalism? The purpose of the progressive federal income tax is to spread the wealth. That Democrats have supported a progressive income tax for decades is hardly news. Does McCain want to keep the tax but make it a flat tax (a la Steve Forbes)? No word on this. It seems this is just another desperate attempt to attack Obama rather than being a serious policy proposal for tax reform and it comes awfully late in the game. If McCain wanted to run on a platform of a flat tax, he certainly has had the opportunity, but until now he didn't bring up the subject."

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

PRESSmUP — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:08:27 GMT

Mark,

Your post is enlightening in that I can see how the Freepers came up with their statements that Obama supports reparations for slavery.

I wonder if they realize that "reparative work" spoken by a questioner does not infer this? While this shares a Latin derivative, that would be about as close as you can come.

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

EagleTed — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:50:44 GMT

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

I understand why the Left would want to make long dissertations on Jim Crow, etc., nonetheless, they ignore the core of the statement, and we can only suppose, the core of Obama. Activist courts, wealth redistribution, Socialism at it's core.

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Mark49 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:23:53 GMT

Arrock12,

Thanks for the link. The original post is actually two excerpts from the first interview, which is a discussion of three people, one of which is Barack Obama, along with a moderator. I listened to it in its entirety. Nothing was taken out of context. There is no distortion of meaning when you read the two excerpts. There is no implication of different meanings. In fact, it is clear that the caller's (Karen's) question and Baracks's answer is the point of the post. The first part of the post is to give context to the caller's question.

In listening to the words, rather than reading, the phone call question from Karen (in the original post) stands out.

Karen: The gentleman (Barack Obama) made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

This question is in reference to the first part of the original post where Obama discusses the Warren Court, where he says:

So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

Obama's original statement was about redistribution of wealth. Karen, in her question, refers to Obama's discussion of reparative work. Obama answers with reference to redistributive change. They are talking about the same thing.

Mark

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Arrock12 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:53:45 GMT

I just want to make sure everyone is aware that this "interview" is actually soundbits from FOUR different interviews that Obama did with Odyssey in 2001 covering several different topics. Many of these "socialist" quotes are taken completely out of context. While I'm aware this is a fun game of people to put words into mouths by taking quotes out of context and placing them so they imply different things, I think it's quite poor reporting to post this "interview" as a fact. I understand that it is difficult to find the entire interview online. That is, of course, unless you go to the station (http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639) where they actually have the ENTIRE interviews (note the plural) and you can see that he is speaking on things regarding the Court and Civil Rights; Slavery and the Constitution; The Right to Vote and Redistricting. Perhaps you can stick with reporting facts in the future?

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

robandjeanne — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:42:08 GMT

What scares me is why we are only hearing about Obama's socialism now, 9 days before the election. This interview was done in 2001. How has Obama kept it quiet until now? What else is he keeping quiet? Obama lovers are so blind many would say "what difference would it make if he was a Muslim". Well they're right, it may not make a difference unless he supported radical Islam. One fact leads to another, and we seem to have few facts about Obama that he can't joke his way out of.

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

peggytex — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:24:44 GMT

mr. BGF:

thank you. Just... thank you.

peggy in sf

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Ben Graham Fan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:11:23 GMT

A little PS - for those of you that have been able to debate about the topics and issues related to this election thank you. It is your well though out posts that keep me coming back each night.

BGF

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Santa Cruz — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:09:36 GMT

listen here Obama own words

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

Ben Graham Fan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:00:32 GMT

I am going to try and leave this short and sweet. Personally, I think the whole thing has gotten out of hand. So what is my take:

I reviewed what was posted, I listened to the radio broadcast. Then I thought without passing judgment on anything that was said. First impression, what is the context of the conversation. Given that the Warren court was past tense it is obvious we are looking back in time. So then we jog the memory to pour on some perspective. Approx 1870 blacks are first granted their freedom, in 1896 supreme court approves "separate but equal". 1964 civil rights act passes, first real step to whites and blacks having an equal footing. Do I believe that since 1964 all of a sudden everything was fine, no. Discrimination continued until the mid-80's, only it was done in a more politically correct way. So considering when the first colonies were established in the US with slave labor, that is 200 years of murder, rape, hangings, beatings, lack of rights, general discrimination and lack real opportunity in every real sense of the word. I would expect most of us having this conversation can remember the days when the N word was used for no other reason then to cause pain. How many of us were around to see laws broken regarding segregation, with no action to do the right thing until courts forced enforcing the laws. And that assumes the courts even got a chance to hear the case, often times police did not arrest offenders. Those we radical times when you compare them to today.

So if someone was talking with me historically would I say that the courts could have gone further. Absolutely! Do I think every black person in America could have gotten a check, of course not. However, consider this... if someone took my son and beat him or worse today I would not only get to see that person in jail, but I also would be able to take them to the cleaners and wipe out the families wealth. I never heard of that happening in the 60's when a black man/woman died via a hate crime.

While Obama's speech was recent the context of his statements were actions that could or should have taken place some years ago. And in the context of how black men and women were treated in that day and age I wouldn't disagree. I thank Press for the link discussing Obama's current views on the matter. I think it goes to show that he believes that in the year times we do not need a "radical" on the bench as we might have during the civil rights movement. It was only radical because at that time in our history Blacks did not get fair treatment in our court systems.

See, my family is from the south.. so maybe i saw more bad then good in the areas I lived in. I can tell you a lot of innocent black men went to jail because of their skin color more so then any real evidence. White or Black I think anyone with half a brain knows once a cycle is started it is hard to break.

Overall, I think we have come a long way since then. However, this election cycle has lead me to believe that I may not be right. When politicians or their supporters make efforts to bring fear into a campaigning through racial, religious or other undertones I find that quiet bothersome. For those that want to argue, Mike Scott is a prime example. I know him and respect his work as Sheriff for Lee County, Fl. He has done a great job. I also know that his during his support for McCain/Palin during a rally he addressed Obama using his middle name. As a supporter of Mike Scott I was taken back. Never in my life would I expect a Sheriff in uniform to try and use word association in that fashion. He can hide behind what he did, and I like to believe he got carried away in the moment as I believe him to be a man of better judgment that he used at that moment. I will say, however, that tarnished his reputation with me and I would not be surprised if it hurts him in the black community. That said, in some cases the information may be relevant.. but it has not taken long for those topics to lose their relevance and take on a life of their own. How many times do we need to hear Muslim, or Arab, or Terrorist or Socialist about a man who really appears to want to do something good for this country. We might not have to agree with his thoughts, but we sure as hell can show him some respect.

I encourage all of you to print off some of the post made hear on this board. Save them, and then when we are in a different time and space and tensions are not so high... reread. I think we all might find things got out of hand!

With that I want to issue an apology. During the last election cycle I never stood up against the John Kerry smears. The man went to war.. something most of us will never have to do. It was a war that divided our country as we fought communism. Men were asked to go to war that did not want to be there, still they risked their lives for our "freedom". I don't recall ever saying anything bad about Kerry when it comes to his war record. But I apologize for sitting on the sidelines and saying nothing at all. It nothing to influence why I voted for Bush, but I think the tactic speaks for itself as low class.

BGF

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

PRESSmUP — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:05:39 GMT

scanning my responses to this thread should give you some indication Ted.

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

EagleTed — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:48:40 GMT

PRESSmUP:
EagleTed:
At some point, will the Left actually have something to say on the subject at hand?
Not under the banner of the initial post on this thread. If you start another thread, yes.

And precisely what is it about "Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)" that would render you helpless to respond?

Re: Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)

PRESSmUP — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:42:12 GMT

EagleTed:
At some point, will the Left actually have something to say on the subject at hand?

Not under the banner of the initial post on this thread. If you start another thread, yes.