Martha Biondi and James Thindwa’s viewpoint, “Earth to Ken Brociner,” does start out with a clever title – that much I’ll grant them. Unfortunately, they seem to have misunderstood the points I raised in my last column, “What Progressives Can Learn from Obama.” Part of Barack Obama’s appeal to Americans of all backgrounds stems from the way he conducts himself in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesThis guy has his stuff together.Short on meaningless rehtoric and long
on reasoned observations.His arguements are dope
Posted by headed on Jul 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM Yeah, I agree with this Brociner guy. We can’t even really understand the full scope of our convictions unless we understand and respect those of our idealogical opponents.
As much as I love good old-fashion delineations between good and evil, we must resist the tendency to villify the current administration. Because lets face it, they may be short-sighted, and religous-opportunists, but they are not driven by pure desire to cause pain and suffering in our country and around the world.
Posted by Crystalline on Jul 14, 2008 at 2:27 AM Face it, the Bush Administration wasn’t the only presidential team to use imperialism as its’ foreign policy. Presidents both Republican and Democratic have invaded countries out of ideology that the U.S. knows better than the countries they invaded.
From Hawaii at the end of the 19th century to Iraq, places in the world have been subjected to the thoughts of American “exceptionalism” from presidents. This superiority complex became firmly established not long after WWII, but traces to the beginning of the 20th century and every president since brought that attitude to the Oval Office. Of course Bush Jr. was just another in this long line, why should any of us be surprised.
It’s now officially part of the requisite to be president, to consider themselves deserving to be “the most important person leading the most important nation in the world.” Without that attitude a person won’t even win the presidency. It’s that military superiority that all presidents know is their diplomatic hammer, and they use it. I suppose the term “warmonger” is nothing but trying to distinguish one user of military power from another, when all it really is, is degrees of difference. So why bother accusing the latest president (Bush Jr.) as being a warmonger when he’s just another in the long line.
And why bother calling McCain a warmonger when Obama if he wins will also take office with that virtually inherited attitude of being the “most powerful person leading the most powerful nation” with a military industrial complex at his disposal. To somehow believe he won’t use it in some fashion, either as a threat or as an actual tool, would be living in a fantasy world. Some term describing a president as a warmonger is limiting and inaccurate because the threat of military action is as much a part of warmongering as taking action. So put away the term warmongering, it really isn’t useful as presidents all have a touch of it in them, it’s part of the job these days.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 14, 2008 at 4:37 AM Thank you, I’m printing this and hanging it up where I can see it every time I’m reading about MSM Obama smears and Bush’s and McCain’s outrageousness.
It’s been really hard to change my communication patterns - generally intimidating and judgmental. I’ve been so, so much more effective when I curb those tendencies and actually try to understand where opponents are coming from, ideologically or information-wise.
My best technique so far for chillin’ the rhetoric: I have both of Obama’s books on audio book on my iTunes. I listen to his quiet, reasoned and reasonable determination to make change take root by bringing people together, and I tune in to my own desire to stop the Right from driving so many wedges between people who have more in common than we have differences.
It works - I even curse less in private!
Posted by Inaru on Jul 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM FInally! A sensible, reasonable article on a progressive website. There’s a whole new generation of progressives that has been hungry for exactly this kind of thinking. We’re fed up with the America-bashing, we’re fed up with the personal attacks, and we’re fed up with the dogma. We can see that it’s gotten progressives nowhere except marginalized. We want positive thinking and real results, not endless whining and defeatist attitudes.
Thank you, Ken Brociner, and thank you, In These Times. This truly is refreshing stuff.
Posted by marcello09 on Jul 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM Brociner writes a guy who sees the strategic big picture—instead of lashing out from the limited perspective of a defensive corner. I’m looking forward to more of his work.
Posted by francis frank on Jul 17, 2008 at 1:48 AM Yeah, I agree with this Brociner guy. We can’t even really understand the full scope of our70-444 exam convictions unless we understand and respect those of our idealogical opponents.
As much as I love good old-fashion delineations between good and evil, we must resist the 642-145 exam tendency to villify the current administration. Because lets face it, they may be short-sighted, and religous-opportunists, but they are not driven by VCP-310 exam pure desire to cause pain and suffering in our country and around the world.
Posted by jason.rocksmith on Sep 1, 2009 at 9:36 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ken Brociner
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
