The Significance of Obama/Hillary

[Faux Real]

In my Am Govt class, my professor is somewhat of a centre-liberal, and discredits my radical leftism, just to give a quick background. Not to say I occasionally get him to concede arguments.

Recently, he gave our class a talk on how spectacular and how governmental positions have become diverse; that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history. It certainly seems that way, however when he got to talking about how it's significant, he began to lose me. He got into his super-liberal hat and spewed out phrases related to equal opportunities, the irrelevance of wealth, color, background and so on.

All of his rhetoric about how each of 'us' can run for government and possibly win brought me to think to myself-exactly how significant is a certain governmental position if the individual holds no reputation, allegiance, or representation of their given demographical background(s)? What is the big deal of Obama running for president even though the black community doesn't hold him in favor? What's the big comotion about Hillary possibly becoming the first woman president, although American women don't relate at all to her? What latino in any given inner city district holds anything remotely in common to Alberto Gonzales? How many female black republicans are there that hold Condie Rice to a high regard? You see my point.

How can I point this out to him? Or am I even raising a valid question to argue with at all?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:50 am
In my Am Govt class, my professor is somewhat of a centre-liberal, and discredits my radical leftism, just to give a quick background. Not to say I occasionally get him to concede arguments.

Recently, he gave our class a talk on how spectacular and how governmental positions have become diverse; that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history. It certainly seems that way, however when he got to talking about how it's significant, he began to lose me. He got into his super-liberal hat and spewed out phrases related to equal opportunities, the irrelevance of wealth, color, background and so on.

All of his rhetoric about how each of 'us' can run for government and possibly win brought me to think to myself-exactly how significant is a certain governmental position if the individual holds no reputation, allegiance, or representation of their given demographical background(s)? What is the big deal of Obama running for president even though the black community doesn't hold him in favor? What's the big comotion about Hillary possibly becoming the first woman president, although American women don't relate at all to her? What latino in any given inner city district holds anything remotely in common to Alberto Gonzales? How many female black republicans are there that hold Condie Rice to a high regard? You see my point.

How can I point this out to him? Or am I even raising a valid question to argue with at all?
Sure, American women and minorities are allowed the right to run for office; but of what avail is that right to the poor woman or minority, who lives hand to mouth?

A political system extended only to an affluent upper class, can never be impelling to the equality of the sexually/racially/economically oppressed.

Only when character becomes the U.S. political platform rather than campaign contributions, can the the system hope to become "diversified". Until then, we merely have an assembly of corporate lobbyists who happen to have different skin tones and sex organs.

[Taboo Tongue]

I would maybe point that
If the U.S. were truly indiscriminate, truly fair, then you (the teacher) wouldn't be having this conversation. Only because of what we are taught (through school and the media), does "race" and "gender" become an issue. Now if we do put on our dummy vision goggles, sure there's a big difference between men and women... Men like sports, Women like decorating. People with darker skin are poor and speak English incorrectly, people with lighter skin don't.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:50 am

Recently, he gave our class a talk on how spectacular and how governmental positions have become diverse; that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history. It certainly seems that way, however when he got to talking about how it's significant, he began to lose me. He got into his super-liberal hat and spewed out phrases related to equal opportunities, the irrelevance of wealth, color, background and so on.

Here's a take that you should raise with your prof. about B. Obama:

http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=1731

It takes on the idea that Mr. Obama in any sense represents the future for African Americans.

Also, call you prof. on this:


that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history.

The Mongol Empire was renowned for its eclectic employment of government advisers and civil servants. For instance, Kubilai Khan's court relied on Arabs, Central Asian, Persians, Han and non-Han Chinese, Tibetan, Manchurian, Mongolian and European advisors. A good introduction to this is:
Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Mongke. by Thomas Allsen.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+August 01, 2007 05:00 am--> (MarxSchmarx @ August 01, 2007 05:00 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 01:50 am

Recently, he gave our class a talk on how spectacular and how governmental positions have become diverse; that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history. It certainly seems that way, however when he got to talking about how it's significant, he began to lose me. He got into his super-liberal hat and spewed out phrases related to equal opportunities, the irrelevance of wealth, color, background and so on.

Here's a take that you should raise with your prof. about B. Obama:

http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=1731

It takes on the idea that Mr. Obama in any sense represents the future for African Americans.

Also, call you prof. on this:


that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history.

The Mongol Empire was renowned for its eclectic employment of government advisers and civil servants. For instance, Kubilai Khan's court relied on Arabs, Central Asian, Persians, Han and non-Han Chinese, Tibetan, Manchurian, Mongolian and European advisors. A good introduction to this is:
Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Mongke. by Thomas Allsen. [/b]
^^^ Good one.

Also you could state to your professor racial diversity means nothing. Just ask him if the poor in queensbridge, queens, the south (who still live somewhat in post civil war times), the poor in new orleans, the people constantly losing their job in detroit, etc are involved directly in their decisions before and after this election.

Say that this whole election just means that upper class women and black can now have some power or "opportunity". This is only a big thing for upper class political culture. Us as leftists don't give a shit about the changes in upper class bourgeoisie political culture. We only care in the poor and expoilted, the workers, the ones who are alienated, etc. Get that through his/her head. It's easier to convince a U.S. liberal of some of our arguments rather than those libertians or conservates but still, the U.S. liberals are just rich people who just "feel sorry" for the poor but they won't ever give power to them and educate them because then their bourgeoisie lifestyles would have to go.

[Dimentio]

Then, why the hell did you not mention the Ottoman empire? It was a pure meritocracy. Everyone, no matter of what race (as long they were males of course) could just castrate themselves and become members of government.

You are without chance if you ain't liberal or conservative. I think that the last genuine populist with a chance to get elected was Huey Long.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:50 am
In my Am Govt class, my professor is somewhat of a centre-liberal, and discredits my radical leftism, just to give a quick background. Not to say I occasionally get him to concede arguments.

Recently, he gave our class a talk on how spectacular and how governmental positions have become diverse; that it is the most ethnically diverse government in world history. It certainly seems that way, however when he got to talking about how it's significant, he began to lose me. He got into his super-liberal hat and spewed out phrases related to equal opportunities, the irrelevance of wealth, color, background and so on.

All of his rhetoric about how each of 'us' can run for government and possibly win brought me to think to myself-exactly how significant is a certain governmental position if the individual holds no reputation, allegiance, or representation of their given demographical background(s)? What is the big deal of Obama running for president even though the black community doesn't hold him in favor? What's the big comotion about Hillary possibly becoming the first woman president, although American women don't relate at all to her? What latino in any given inner city district holds anything remotely in common to Alberto Gonzales? How many female black republicans are there that hold Condie Rice to a high regard? You see my point.

How can I point this out to him? Or am I even raising a valid question to argue with at all?
There is a policy of "tokenism": someone obviously unqualified like Clarence Thomas might get appointed to the Supreme Court (and provided he also does his masters' bidding). The same for Powell, Rice, and Gonzales. Class, race, and money obviously matter. The majority of people at the upper administrative and political levels are white males, usually from comfortable backgrounds. Obvious nincompoops like Dan Quayle and GW Bush wouldn't have their high offices were it not for their influential families. In fact, there's less class mobility now in the USA than there is in Europe, which is supposed to be class-ridden. The less class mobility there is in the US, the more strident the propaganda becomes on it being the land of opportunity, where anyone -- regardless of race or family background -- can make good. The absurdity of such claims doesn't need to be demolished on a forum such as this, where it's patently clear to the overwhelming majority of forum members.

And incidentally, if the Democrat party nominates either Clinton or Obama for president, they will lose the election: they won't be able to carry the swing states.

[Dimentio]

Obama could mobilise the African American community, especially in the south. That could prove crucial.

[chimx]

You have to be a millionaire to run for president.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:05 pm
You have to be a millionaire to run for president.
Inflation has made it rarer and rarer for a nonmillionaire to be a candidate for the throne, but I hardly think Kucinich is a millionaire.

You do need a few billionaire friends if you're going to be noticed by the millionaire televison "journalists" though.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+August 01, 2007 06:33 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ August 01, 2007 06:33 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 06:05 pm
You have to be a millionaire to run for president.
Inflation has made it rarer and rarer for a nonmillionaire to be a candidate for the throne, but I hardly think Kucinich is a millionaire.

You do need a few billionaire friends if you're going to be noticed by the millionaire televison "journalists" though. [/b]
The point exactly; I hardly think Dennis has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning... despite how great of candidate he may be.