zenpundit.com

8 Responses to “”

1. Anonymous Says:
   April 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am

   Ronald Reagan, 1980, at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, MS:

   “I believe in states’ rights. I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to the federal establishment.”

   Barry Goldwater:

   “Our aim, as I understand it, is neither to establish a segregated society nor to establish an integrated society. It is to preserve a free society.”

   “[Republiacns are] not going to get the Negro vote . . . so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

2. mark Says:
   April 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

   Hi anon,

   I can only assume the juxtaposition of the historical figures in the mashup was meant to make partisans uncomfortable.

   Generally, with famous ppl who articulate uncompromising principles in service to a cause, two reactions are noted.

   Some look for contradictions, logical, personal or political in the figure’s history to try to discredit the statement of principle. Unflattering facts can be dredged up for just about anyone, including MLK,Gandhi, Mohammed, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan etc.

   Others note how the figures enunciate an idea that has greater importance than themselves; at times beyond what the figures actually intended to say.

3. Eddie Says:
   April 6th, 2007 at 4:10 am

   Its a great mash-up, but can quite easily send one to despair. The respect provided and due from most for Goldwater, Malcolm X, RFK and Reagan is because they held great beliefs, broad, detailed visions, and the courage to see them through. Their politics was but a stepping stone to the pursuit of achieving their vision.
   I know of nary a political figure in Washington who could fit that profile in for what’s been a terribly long time.

   Thank you for sharing the vid with me.

4. Anonymous Says:
   April 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

   call me partisan, but Malcom X does not belong in that group. The others would have much to agree upon.

   Barnabus

5. Eddie Says:
   April 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

   How does Malcolm X not belong in the group?

   He stood for personal independence & self-sustainability, accountability as a defining factor of individuals and broader society and freedom for all.

   That he didn’t want any part of integration before blacks had gotten their “house in order” does not make him any less a champion of freedom. Or maybe I’m missing something here.

6. mark Says:
   April 7th, 2007 at 4:25 am

   William Safire once wrote a column ( I’m showing my age here) where he tried to describe a kind of figure he called “authentic” – by which he meant a certain recognized gravitas borne of moral authority earned through consistency of principle or character. He cited Menachim Begin among others circa 1977-78.

   Malcolm X was certainly uncompromising but he did manage to alter his extreme views somewhat in the face of evidence that his prior views were wrong and that his faith in Elijah Muhammed had been misplaced. That’s fairly rare – most ppl elect to suppress the cognitive dissonance rather than admit to error. Whittaker Chambers crossed a similar bridge ( he went further than did Malcolm X but nobody assassinated Chambers in mid-evolution)

7. Anonymous Says:
   April 7th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

   I think if you locked all of those people in a room and asked them to come up with a position paper on pretty much any issue they would be able to reach consensus except for Malcom X. In fact you could argue that that group, minus X, is responsible for the society that we have today. Malcom X responded to racism with racism of his own. How does his teachings build a better United States? So little of his commentary is included in the mashup because so little would be even remotely acceptable to most people. Great, he said to go out and vote…I’m sure you could find a clip of Hitler saying to eat your vegetables; i.e. it doesn’t change the rest of the message.

   Barnabus

8. Anonymous Says:
   April 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

   “Some look for contradictions, logical, personal or political in the figure’s history to try to discredit the statement of principle.”

   Or to discredit the figure himself, especially when that figure’s actions or words show a clear betrayal of the high-flown rhetoric on display.