My Differences

I found this great interview with a Fox News pundit, or partisan, on a hiphop and politics blog. In the interview the pundit, Marc Lamont hill, incorporates a great analysis of current healthcare debate and the Obama presidency in general. He also touches on other issues and I’m going to take advantage of the clarity and insight of Mr. Hill's arguments to lay out my disagreements with a few common positions of the "left". If you don't listen to the interview it may be hard to follow my comments, so...(the first four minutes are music, and it is about 30 min long. Just start and you will get hooked.)

First I think asking President Obama to just start focusing on some minority specific issues is something he can't really do. At this point he can either become a major civil rights leader or……not. I hadn’t thought about the pressure on Obama to become a civil rights leader before…that’s kind of serious I think.

I disagree about the Van Jones thing. I agree Mr. Hill and the other leftist activists should probably have been more active about it, but I think I understand why they haven’t. The things he said, and some of the things coming out of left during the Bush Administration, not just criticisms that were exaggerated or polemic, but some arguments, the war was about corporate profits(as opposed to oil geopolitcs) etc, etc. were irresponsible, incorrect, etc. and now, they see that and the consequences that come it. The things Van Jones said were politically suicidal in Washington. Look realistically at where mainstream America is and why. Especially if you want to start winning elections.

The issue of American policy in Latin America and its influence on immigration here can’t be purely about U.S. agricultural policies if it was I’m sure there would be protests in Mexico. I’m not read up on our trade policies in Mexico but if that was the main driver of why people are risking their lives crossing the desert to come in, I would think there would be protests in Mexico. I’m sure they contribute and play a role but let’s be responsible about the arguments we make. As far as I know there are a lot of industries moving into Mexico with globalization. But you can still make the argument that coming for a better life(from grinding poverty) is a legitimate to risk entering a country illegally and worthy of considering in relation to similar migrations into America in the past.

People should think about what they say publicly and how the other people in the country will feel about it, and as far as being labeled a communist, the best defense against that is to understand how you disagree with communism and be able to articulate that. I feel on the left in this country, as in every country, there are communists and socialists on the left that actually do conceal what they really believe to get more people to go along with the arguments and positions they put forth, just to get things going in their direction. Citizens need to be weary of the underlying beliefs or warrants of all arguments they hear, even ones from people in their own party, or faction, or whatever. People should be wary of political extremists in their own in-group, and be able to disagree with them and/or dispel accusations of being lumped with them. If you aren’t capable of doing that, then your ideology and possibly that of your party is unfortunately, tied up in their ideology a little too much, on certain arguments or issues, take the ones that are being used to force out President Obamas appointees, for example animal rights with the animals will have lawyers arguments being made, or extremist arguments in environmental racism that have been used or constructed from quotes being taken out of context and used. This is a politically, or in an argument, a difficult tactic to work against I think but...

Everything else I agree with. Marc Lamont Hill has my vote in any election.