View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Eliasberg's editorial is illogical

Posted: October 27, 2008 4:47 p.m.
Updated: December 29, 2008 5:00 a.m.
 
In response to the editorial "Snippets? Associations? Who is Barack Obama?" (The Signal, Oct. 24): Mr. Eliasberg leads what he believes is a logical response to Obama's political moves, such as his snippets argument and denial of guilt by association. While these methods may be politically motivated, we should also examine what Mr. Eliasberg says about Mr. Obama.

Mr. Eliasberg states the most important objective for a voter is to figure out who a candidate really is, rather than his or her issues.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Eliasberg states Mussolini was right on the issues; he just happened to be a reprehensible character. If Mussolini was right on the issues, then Mr. Eliasberg probably believes, as Mussolini did, in corporatism, which holds that the political and economic power of a country should rest in the hands of industrial, agrarian, and other dictatorial groups, and in national syndicalism, which holds that a massive general strike should destroy democracy and replace it with a model of quasi-Marxist class cooperation.

These views are opposed to every single value essential to the nature of America. If Mr. Eliasberg believes that Mussolini was right on these issues, then he cannot be seriously regarded as a political commentator in the current American system of democracy.

Furthermore, Mr. Eliasberg seems to polarize the snippets argument by completely disregarding the importance of context, calling Obama out on his claims that he did not know the true nature of the Black Liberation Church. First, if Mr. Eliasberg had ever done a simple Google search, he would know that no such church exists. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright delivered sermons at Trinity United Church of Christ. Second,
I highly doubt that Mr. Eliasberg has ever seen more than the little YouTube snippets of Mr. Wright. These snippets were admittedly radical, but to completely disregard the remainder of the sermon seems to be more intolerance than anything else.

Finally, Mr. Eliasberg closes with the line, "Wright is Obama, and Obama is Wright." Perhaps Mr. Eliasberg is trying to be a clever rhetorician with his use of antimetabole, and I sincerely hope so, for otherwise he has called Mr. Obama a race-hustling bigot who makes no bones about it. Let's hope Mr. Eliasberg isn't trying to instigate some form of the Bradley effect.

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...