John Edwards withdrew from the Democratic Presidential campaign today, saying the time had come for him to "step aside so that history can blaze its path".
His eloquence and sense of history is not surprising - it became clear when Edwards indicated, earlier this year, that his favorite book was I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates. The choice of such a book bespeaks a philosophic depth and appreciation of history that is all too rare in our politics.
Edwards' withdrawal now leaves the field to just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. We should all see just how different this makes the Democratic debate, literally, when Obama and Clinton have the stage to themselves in the California debate on CNN tomorrow (Thursday) night. Just the two of them.
Not mano e mano, however. But not mano e mano for the reason noted by Democratic strategist Peter Fenn on CNN a few minutes ago. Fenn thought Obama v. Clinton would not be mano e mano because Hillary is a woman, and therefore their contest could not be "man to man".
But that was never the meaning of mano e mano - which means not man to man to but hand to hand (mano as in manual, by hand).
But Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton will not be truly mano e mano - hand to hand - either.
It will be ideas to ideas - the ideas and presentation of Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton. Although there is a lot to admire in the record of Hillary Clinton, and what it would mean to have a woman in the White House, I think Obama's ideas and his capacity to inspire will carry the debate on Thursday, the primaries on Super Tuesday, and the day we vote for President next November. When it comes to ideas and igniting the better angels of our nation, Obama has the upper hand.
Showing posts with label I. F. Stone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I. F. Stone. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, December 23, 2007
I'm Voting for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary
I'm voting for Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries. Since I live in New York, that won't happen until February 5, 2008. But with the Iowa caucuses and other primaries coming right after New Year's, I figured I might as well come to a decision and announce it now.
It wasn't easy.
First, as I wrote back in March, I think Americans should work for the best candidates in both parties, so as to have the best possible choice on general election day. In the Republican party, there has been and is only one candidate I could ever support - Ron Paul. His respect for the Constitution and the First Amendment, his opposition to the war, make him far and away the best Republican, and in many ways the best candidate, period, running for President in this election.
In contrast, I would be happy with any of the Democrats. In comparison to any of the Republicans other than Ron Paul, any of the Democrats would make a far better President.
So the choice of whom to support among the Democrats is much more difficult. Beyond the positions of the candidates, which are different only in nuances, there is the question of what the election of a candidate would symbolize and accomplish in a larger political sense.
Three of the Democrats are members of groups which have been treated unfairly by American political culture - and American society in general - in the past. Bill Richardson is Latino. His election would do the country and the world good for that reason alone. But his standings in the polls are very low, he has no Internet support to speak of (unlike Ron Paul), and therefore I would say his chances of getting the Democratic nomination are nil.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on the other hand, are leading in the polls. Both candidates have enormous wellsprings of support.
Hillary Clinton's election would have the wonderfully beneficial effect of putting a woman in the White House - as President. Barack Obama's election would have the equivalent effect of making an African-American our President.
Which statement to the world, which redress of American wrongs, is more important?
To some extent, comparing the mistreatment of women and blacks in our culture is comparing apples and oranges. But, all in all, I think African-Americans have received the worse treatment. They were brought here as slaves. We fought a Civil War to free them, but they were hanged in the South, anyway, for decades after the war. Their leaders - Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers - were assassinated. Nothing like that has ever happened to women as a socio-cultural-political group.
I therefore think that the election of Barack Obama as President of this nation would make the most powerful possible statement - to the world, to the future, to the past, to ourselves.
Beyond that, I like Obama's style - his quick wit reminds me of JFK. And there are a few of Hillary Clinton's positions and actions that I'm not very happy with. She should not have voted in favor of labeling Iran a terrorist nation, as President Bush requested. She should not have even considered legislation cracking down on violence in video games. This last might seem like a small issue, but when Bill Clinton was President he signed the Communications Decency Act into law - an act so afoul of the First Amendment, that even the Supreme Court struck it down.
I like just about all of the positions of John Edwards, now in third place in most of the polls. I'm impressed that he says I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates is one of his favorite books, because it bespeaks a philosophic depth and appreciation of history. I like most of the positions of all of the Democrats, as I said above. But none of them as President would bring the kind of rectifying electrifying revolutionary change as the election of Barack Obama.
I'm a registered Democrat in New York, and on February 5 I'll be voting for Obama.
It wasn't easy.
First, as I wrote back in March, I think Americans should work for the best candidates in both parties, so as to have the best possible choice on general election day. In the Republican party, there has been and is only one candidate I could ever support - Ron Paul. His respect for the Constitution and the First Amendment, his opposition to the war, make him far and away the best Republican, and in many ways the best candidate, period, running for President in this election.
In contrast, I would be happy with any of the Democrats. In comparison to any of the Republicans other than Ron Paul, any of the Democrats would make a far better President.
So the choice of whom to support among the Democrats is much more difficult. Beyond the positions of the candidates, which are different only in nuances, there is the question of what the election of a candidate would symbolize and accomplish in a larger political sense.
Three of the Democrats are members of groups which have been treated unfairly by American political culture - and American society in general - in the past. Bill Richardson is Latino. His election would do the country and the world good for that reason alone. But his standings in the polls are very low, he has no Internet support to speak of (unlike Ron Paul), and therefore I would say his chances of getting the Democratic nomination are nil.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on the other hand, are leading in the polls. Both candidates have enormous wellsprings of support.
Hillary Clinton's election would have the wonderfully beneficial effect of putting a woman in the White House - as President. Barack Obama's election would have the equivalent effect of making an African-American our President.
Which statement to the world, which redress of American wrongs, is more important?
To some extent, comparing the mistreatment of women and blacks in our culture is comparing apples and oranges. But, all in all, I think African-Americans have received the worse treatment. They were brought here as slaves. We fought a Civil War to free them, but they were hanged in the South, anyway, for decades after the war. Their leaders - Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers - were assassinated. Nothing like that has ever happened to women as a socio-cultural-political group.
I therefore think that the election of Barack Obama as President of this nation would make the most powerful possible statement - to the world, to the future, to the past, to ourselves.
Beyond that, I like Obama's style - his quick wit reminds me of JFK. And there are a few of Hillary Clinton's positions and actions that I'm not very happy with. She should not have voted in favor of labeling Iran a terrorist nation, as President Bush requested. She should not have even considered legislation cracking down on violence in video games. This last might seem like a small issue, but when Bill Clinton was President he signed the Communications Decency Act into law - an act so afoul of the First Amendment, that even the Supreme Court struck it down.
I like just about all of the positions of John Edwards, now in third place in most of the polls. I'm impressed that he says I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates is one of his favorite books, because it bespeaks a philosophic depth and appreciation of history. I like most of the positions of all of the Democrats, as I said above. But none of them as President would bring the kind of rectifying electrifying revolutionary change as the election of Barack Obama.
I'm a registered Democrat in New York, and on February 5 I'll be voting for Obama.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
John Edwards' Favorite Book
John Edwards' favorite book is The Trial of Socrates.
This is I. F. Stone's superb 1988 philosophic investigation, published a year before his death at 82, about why Socrates allowed himself to die. Why he drank the hemlock, after Crito (according to Plato) had given Socrates a chance to escape. Why he allowed himself to go on trial in the first place, rather than leave Athens. Why Socrates went out of his way to antagonize a jury which, by most accounts, was not really out to sentence the great philosopher to death.
Stone, a journalist gadfly and publisher of I. F. Stone's Weekly from 1953-1971, had given up contemporary journalism, taught himself to read ancient Greek, and devoted himself to understanding what had gone wrong back in ancient Athens - what had driven the world's first recorded democracy to kill someone who even then was recognized by many as a world-class thinker. Stone's conclusion, based on his fresh reading, was astonishing: Socrates had allowed the Athenians to bring him to trial, had to some extent even provoked the capital verdict, and then accepted it, because he loathed democracy, and wanted to embarrass it - show the world and subsequent history just how corrupt a democratic system could be.
I had never bought Plato's account of the last days of Socrates. From the first I read and discussed it, in Professor Henry Magid's "Introduction to Philosophy" class that I took as a freshman at the City College of New York in 1963, I didn't believe it - didn't believe that Socrates wouldn't have taken Crito up on his good offer, to continue his philosophy in a city other than Athens, rather than submit to the painful, unjust death of hemlock. (I know I would have certainly said no thanks to the poison, had I been in Socrates' place.) So when I first came upon Stone's book in 1988, I was delighted.
I didn't agree completely with Stone's explanation, and went on to offer my own, in my novel, The Plot to Save Socrates, first published in 2006. But Stone's book remains one of my all-time favorites, and on many days, it is my favorite book, too.
Which brings us back to John Edwards. What does his putting Stone's The Trial of Socrates at the top of his list tell us about this candidate for President?
It tells us he loves philosophy and history. It tells us he has a taste for the intellectually daring, because that's what Stone's book is.
It tells us John Edwards has a keen interest in and sense of what can go wrong in even the most democratic societies. It tells us he is an enemy of censorship - Socrates was put to death for his words - and a friend of societies tolerant of dissidents and their views.
When was the last time we had a President like that? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? John F. Kennedy?
I'm not sure, but I know that John Edwards' favorite book puts him in excellent company indeed.
Listen to free 15-minute podcast about this at Light On Light Through
This is I. F. Stone's superb 1988 philosophic investigation, published a year before his death at 82, about why Socrates allowed himself to die. Why he drank the hemlock, after Crito (according to Plato) had given Socrates a chance to escape. Why he allowed himself to go on trial in the first place, rather than leave Athens. Why Socrates went out of his way to antagonize a jury which, by most accounts, was not really out to sentence the great philosopher to death.
Stone, a journalist gadfly and publisher of I. F. Stone's Weekly from 1953-1971, had given up contemporary journalism, taught himself to read ancient Greek, and devoted himself to understanding what had gone wrong back in ancient Athens - what had driven the world's first recorded democracy to kill someone who even then was recognized by many as a world-class thinker. Stone's conclusion, based on his fresh reading, was astonishing: Socrates had allowed the Athenians to bring him to trial, had to some extent even provoked the capital verdict, and then accepted it, because he loathed democracy, and wanted to embarrass it - show the world and subsequent history just how corrupt a democratic system could be.
I had never bought Plato's account of the last days of Socrates. From the first I read and discussed it, in Professor Henry Magid's "Introduction to Philosophy" class that I took as a freshman at the City College of New York in 1963, I didn't believe it - didn't believe that Socrates wouldn't have taken Crito up on his good offer, to continue his philosophy in a city other than Athens, rather than submit to the painful, unjust death of hemlock. (I know I would have certainly said no thanks to the poison, had I been in Socrates' place.) So when I first came upon Stone's book in 1988, I was delighted.
I didn't agree completely with Stone's explanation, and went on to offer my own, in my novel, The Plot to Save Socrates, first published in 2006. But Stone's book remains one of my all-time favorites, and on many days, it is my favorite book, too.
Which brings us back to John Edwards. What does his putting Stone's The Trial of Socrates at the top of his list tell us about this candidate for President?
It tells us he loves philosophy and history. It tells us he has a taste for the intellectually daring, because that's what Stone's book is.
It tells us John Edwards has a keen interest in and sense of what can go wrong in even the most democratic societies. It tells us he is an enemy of censorship - Socrates was put to death for his words - and a friend of societies tolerant of dissidents and their views.
When was the last time we had a President like that? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? John F. Kennedy?
I'm not sure, but I know that John Edwards' favorite book puts him in excellent company indeed.
Listen to free 15-minute podcast about this at Light On Light Through
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
