Talking Fairness

Today, Barack Obama spoke in southern Florida, and in so doing strived for three apparent goals. These goals are strengthen his grip as the candidate of change perception, continue his and his counter-part John McCain’s struggle against one another in the debate over what direction American foreign policy should take, and lastly his strove to undermine the Republican Party in general when it comes to the issue of Cuba. Obviously only in the hours following his speech, it would be unfair to assess the success or lack thereof of his three ventures, however, it is only fair to assess the quality of his attempts, which is what I have decided to do with the rest of this article.

Obama begins his speech, first with an attack On the President and blames the Iraq War for a vacuum in Latin America.

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been… incapable of advancing our interests in the region. No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.

This is what one gets when he makes such divisive claims, language that comes across as condescending and overly nationalist. This language continues on as he seemingly claims the United States has sole responsibility to challenge such figures as Chavez. One can only conclude this is an accidental jab at the rest of the Americas as being helpless in regard to challenging Chavez’s “stale vision.” And because the rest of the Americas are in such a helpless state, that is why the United States can no longer “continue as a bystander” but must lead the Americas.

Besides seemingly condescending the role of Latin America in order to emphasis the failures of President Bush, and John McCain’s endorsement of said failures, Obama goes on to advocate hawkish Republican foreign policy. He goes as far to quote Martin Luther King Jr. saying that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Before I move on to the more political savvy section of Obama’s speech, a footnote for the record, Hugo Chavez assumed power of his current position 23 months prior to President Bush taking office, and during those months made great progress in changing the government of Venezuela into its modern day form. So, this section of the speech was nothing but political punches by blaming for Latin America’s development, no one but a Republican party that had very little responsibility in Latin America’s development over the last decade.

Then, Obama narrows his punches to McCain, as he moves onward to Cuba, and he does so so cleverly, conveying the height of the nature of politicians.

I won’t stand for this injustice, you won’t stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba. Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough… That’s what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade… That’s the political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you can’t take his so-called straight talk seriously.

This is clever because he gives his words and his promises legitimacy by accusing past politicians of doing the exact same thing he himself is doing. Even if you’d like to argue that Obama deserves his chance, at the time of his speech, his promises were as empty as McCain’s were the other day. Basically, if John McCain makes promises and there isn’t any change one week later in Cuba, well then it was all political posturing because he’s forgotten, already about the Cubans.  

This is because, Barack Obama, not John McCain, is the candidate of change. And therefore, regardless of time passed, McCain’s promises of change are nothing but empty promises, while Obama’s from the time they come from his mouth are whole-hearted guaranteed to happen.

Lastly, I would like to challenge everyone to listen to or read the speeches given by Obama and McCain and closely compare the language and style each man uses. McCain is short and very to the point, and Obama is lifted and elegant. That is, I claim, why Republicans and Democrats, alike, think of McCain when they hear the expression “straight talk.” Even in his brief attacks on his opponents, McCain didn’t make claims, he criticizes the facts on their policy, and Obama typically makes claims, such as the empty promise claim.

As it might be in the world of today, the Cuban issue is hardly visible it’s so meager, but however small it is, the two speeches given by the two presumed candidates for president conveys very well my reasons for endorsing McCain over Obama.

That said, however, I am entirely opposed to the positions of both men. Cuba is an enemy of 1960 America, not the America of 2008. There is no quality argument that claims it threatens America more than Venezuela, which America trades with normally (albeit because of oil, mostly).

I am for an entire lift of the Cuban embargo. The country of Cuba is not at all a security threat to America, I view trade with Cuba as producing the same kind of results in regards to diplomatic relations as it has done with China. The dictators do not subscribe to the violent extremist views of a religion, such as the dictators of Iran do, and thus trade can be used as leverage and should be used because in my mind it is the best way to get Cuba to give its citizens more liberty.

So, it is with that, the notion that I probably agree more with Obama than I do with McCain on the issue of how to grant Cubans liberty, that I end my segment of why I’ve become more distant from Obama and closer to McCain. Because of the way each man plays the game of politics.