Obama's masterful rhetoric presents an image of a political moderate, of someone who wants reform but within the context of American constitutional and political traditions. But, if you dig a little you will find evidence of a dangerous radical who views the constitution as an impediment to his socialist designs, rather than as a guiding document.
This is readily seen in a 2001 interview with NPR. In this interview he laments the fact that the courts have limited the redistribution of wealth by (correctly) interpreting the constitution as a document of negative liberties (for example, the government cannot impede your freedom of speech & freedom of religion), as opposed to one of positive liberties (what the government should do on your behalf). Here are some excerpts from the interview; to listen to the actual interview, click on the link at the bottom of the page:
The Supreme court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth. As radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers of the constitution...Warren court interpreted the constitution as in the same way that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states and the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf..."
One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is because the civil rights movements became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political ands community organizations on the ground that are able to put together the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Someone asked: Is it too late for that reparative economic work. Is that the appropriate place (the courts) place for reparative economic work to take place..."
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3DrrwtqPt0
No comments:
Post a Comment